Can I be Expelled?

[rsl94]

I was in the bathroom at school with 3 friends when one of them used hair spray and a lighter to create a torch. As soon as I saw this, I left the bathroom. I wqas laughing on the way out and my school called me down to the office the next morning to say that i am in trouble for being in the bathroom at the time, even though I did not see the fire. I am a 17 year old senior. I am suspended for 10 days and facing expulsion. I also have an IEP. Is this legal? I never once touched any materials or saw the fire.

 

[tranquility]

Since it is extremely important (and the fact there could be criminal charges), I'd speak with an attorney.

 

[sandyclaus]

I was in the bathroom at school with 3 friends when one of them used hair spray and a lighter to create a torch. As soon as I saw this, I left the bathroom. I wqas laughing on the way out and my school called me down to the office the next morning to say that i am in trouble for being in the bathroom at the time, even though I did not see the fire. I am a 17 year old senior. I am suspended for 10 days and facing expulsion. I also have an IEP. Is this legal? I never once touched any materials or saw the fire.

How do you reconcile these two mutually exclusive statements? In one statement, you say you were there, saw the fire and left the bathroom. Then you say you never saw the fire. You can't have it both ways.

Your obvious lie in order to cover up your involvement is probably what got you in trouble. You already admit you were WITH the people who did it, but we only have YOUR word that you never touched any of the materials. I'd think you were lying, too.

The fact that you have an IEP makes absolutely NO difference here. You break the rules by being there when flammable materials are being utilized in a dangerous manner, then you should expect to get punished for it.

If you weren't involved, you need to make better choices for friends than people who do these stupid things and get you involved in it.

 

[rsl94]

How do you reconcile these two mutually exclusive statements? In one statement, you say you were there, saw the fire and left the bathroom. Then you say you never saw the fire. You can't have it both ways.

Your obvious lie in order to cover up your involvement is probably what got you in trouble. You already admit you were WITH the people who did it, but we only have YOUR word that you never touched any of the materials. I'd think you were lying, too.

The fact that you have an IEP makes absolutely NO difference here. You break the rules by being there when flammable materials are being utilized in a dangerous manner, then you should expect to get punished for it.

If you weren't involved, you need to make better choices for friends than people who do these stupid things and get you involved in it.

I did see the lighter and the hairspray, but I never saw a fire. It was pretty obvious what they were about to do with it so I left. All 3 statements from those students state that I did not touch anything or have knowledge of what was about to happen.

 

[Ohiogal]

I did see the lighter and the hairspray, but I never saw a fire. It was pretty obvious what they were about to do with it so I left. All 3 statements from those students state that I did not touch anything or have knowledge of what was about to happen.

But you did know what was about to happen and you did NOT report it thus making you an accessory to the actions of your friends.

 

[dave33]

But you did know what was about to happen and you did NOT report it thus making you an accessory to the actions of your friends.

I understand you may be trying to make a point to a child. That being said, the above comment seems a bit ridiculous.

rsl, I have never heard of someone getting in trouble for almost being a witness. If what you say is true and other people are supporting your claim than I would ask your parents to get a lawyer and look at the situation. I cannot see why you would get in trouble. It seems so ridiculous it's hard to believe.goodluck.

 

[Zigner]

I understand you may be trying to make a point to a child. That being said, the above comment seems a bit ridiculous.

rsl, I have never heard of someone getting in trouble for almost being a witness. If what you say is true and other people are supporting your claim than I would ask your parents to get a lawyer and look at the situation. I cannot see why you would get in trouble. It seems so ridiculous it's hard to believe.goodluck.

Right...if what the OP says is true...
OP has shown himself/herself to be a liar in his/her original post. Why should we believe anything else?

 

[csi7]

As a parent of an IEP student with issues that are often connected to the manner which they answer questions, I think that it will come out that OP was not in the room when the fire happened. She/he may have been in there and seen the tools before they were used. Her laughing was common behavior to most teens, they honestly do not think that the individual will actually do the deed.

I would hope that she/he is not expelled, and the suspension, not so sure it was necessary.

The statement as provided contains the truth. Not sure where you get any specific lies from, since a walk-through of the statement follows the timeline.

 

[Proserpina]

The statement as provided contains the truth. Not sure where you get any specific lies from, since a walk-through of the statement follows the timeline.

I'm truly not trying to pick here, but how on earth would any of us know that?

People lie here all the time.

 

[Ohiogal]

I understand you may be trying to make a point to a child. That being said, the above comment seems a bit ridiculous.

rsl, I have never heard of someone getting in trouble for almost being a witness. If what you say is true and other people are supporting your claim than I would ask your parents to get a lawyer and look at the situation. I cannot see why you would get in trouble. It seems so ridiculous it's hard to believe.goodluck.

Actually it is not based on the fact that what was stated by her could have gotten her charged criminally if the bathroom actually caught fire. As for the IEP --

As a parent of an IEP student with issues that are often connected to the manner which they answer questions, I think that it will come out that OP was not in the room when the fire happened. She/he may have been in there and seen the tools before they were used. Her laughing was common behavior to most teens, they honestly do not think that the individual will actually do the deed.

I would hope that she/he is not expelled, and the suspension, not so sure it was necessary.

The statement as provided contains the truth. Not sure where you get any specific lies from, since a walk-through of the statement follows the timeline.

The very nature of her having an IEP doesn't mean that she has the same issues as your child csi7 OR that she is telling the truth OR that a suspension or expulsion is not necessary. We know nothing about what is involved with the IEP. What we do know is she saw the tools of the behavior and left knowing what was going to happen. She then did not report it. A fire caused by the lighter and hair spray could have seriously hurt any number of people and damaged a lot of property. Apparently it didn't or the OP could be facing CRIMINAL charges.

 

[dave33]

Actually it is not based on the fact that what was stated by her could have gotten her charged criminally if the bathroom actually caught fire. As for the IEP --

IF the bathroom caught fire. If is a big word here.. Since it did not happen that really is a wasted statement, no? Although anything is possible, criminal charges? Again, since it didn't happen, kinda a wasted statement.

I am not familiar with IEP.

I guess it's just one of those situations when you agree to disagree.

 

[tranquility]

Actually it is not based on the fact that what was stated by her could have gotten her charged criminally if the bathroom actually caught fire.

I would think there are any number of charges possible, but that's not why I write. "Actually caught fire"? I seem to remember from the distant past that that was not what was required for arson. For some reason, "singe" comes to mind.

 

[Ohiogal]

I would think there are any number of charges possible, but that's not why I write. "Actually caught fire"? I seem to remember from the distant past that that was not what was required for arson. For some reason, "singe" comes to mind.

There are a variety of charges that come to mind. Actually caught fire -- I used that phrasing basically because that is where I could have seen the police immediately being called in and arrests happening immediately. Truthfully it is still possible. I should have been clearer. But yeah, there could be criminal culpability on the part of the OP depending -- she is an accomplice.

 

[Just Blue]

Apparently the IEP does not prohibit OP from Googling Legal Advice. Therefor it won't prevent other fallout.

 

[tranquility]

Truthfully it is still possible. I should have been clearer. But yeah, there could be criminal culpability on the part of the OP depending -- she is an accomplice.

This is part of my problem with the whole thing. We just don't know what is happening and what all the facts are. Just because the police have not made an arrest yet does not mean they are not investigating. (I hope the student didn't admit to anything when called into the office.) I'm still not sure either about the effect of getting expelled. If the student can't finish his senior year, there is some hurt there. I'd think there has to be some appeal or other due process rights in such a seriously damaging life event. An attorney seems appropriate as we've seen what happens when school officials feel challenged.

(Again, as others have noted, assuming the truth of the facts we do have.)