cops called for threat made at school

[jusuni2]

What is the name of your state? ca

When an 8 th grader used the phrase 'i'll kill you' the school suspended him and the cops were called. In a following meeting the school stated in a report that they knew he didn't mean it as a threat, wouldn't attempt it, and said it to get attention. They did not recommend expulsion.
Can mom ask that the other charge (with the cops) be dropped???

 

[Just Blue]

Google "Zero Tolerance".

 

[jusuni2]

googled zt, but what about the crim chagre?

thanks, I did that.
Zero Tolerance concerns the school policy. I'm concerned about the criminal chagre that was precipitated when the school called the police.
Can mom ask that it be dropped? Can she ask the school to drop the charge? Is the DA the only one who can drop it?

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

You are obviously MOM in this situation, and I would strongly reccomend therapy for your son.

 

[CdwJava]

Mom can ASK for anything she wants. However, ultimately it is not up to her at all.

The specific charge offered to the prosecutor by the police will depend on all the facts. Chances are little or nothing will come of it.

Do you know what crime he has been charged with? (The specific criminal statute?)

- Carl

 

[jusuni2]

obviously???

You are obviously MOM in this situation, and I would strongly reccomend therapy for your son.

I'm not sure if you're expressing concern or condemnation, however, I am not MOM.
(Why 'obviously'? Couldn't you imaging doing something for someone else's kid?)

FYI, we did get the school to make a referral to county mental health and there will be an evaluation and counseling, if needed.

If I may ask for your opinion, consider this situation:

An 8th grader finishes his laps at the track and the coach say to him "one more."
The 8th grader replies "No way, coach. I'm dying!"
The coach calls 911 and a fire engine and paramedic unit are dispatched to the school, the public, of course, incurring the expense.

Would you condone taking the literal meaning of the words out of context and acting on them in this situation?
Who should get therapy here? the kid? the coach? us???

 

[Just Blue]

I'm not sure if you're expressing concern or condemnation, however, I am not MOM.
(Why 'obviously'? Couldn't you imaging doing something for someone else's kid?)

FYI, we did get the school to make a referral to county mental health and there will be an evaluation and counseling, if needed.

If I may ask for your opinion, consider this situation:

An 8th grader finishes his laps at the track and the coach say to him "one more."
The 8th grader replies "No way, coach. I'm dying!"
The coach calls 911 and a fire engine and paramedic unit are dispatched to the school, the public, of course, incurring the expense.

Would you condone taking the literal meaning of the words out of context and acting on them in this situation?
Who should get therapy here? the kid? the coach? us???

So what was the EXACT context that "the boy" used the phrase "I'll kill you"? Tell us exactly what happened.

 

[CdwJava]

FYI, we did get the school to make a referral to county mental health and there will be an evaluation and counseling, if needed.

This is not something that will automatically get him out of trouble, criminally. Chances are he is not in such a state that he does not understand the consequences of his actions.

An 8th grader finishes his laps at the track and the coach say to him "one more."
The 8th grader replies "No way, coach. I'm dying!"
The coach calls 911 and a fire engine and paramedic unit are dispatched to the school, the public, of course, incurring the expense.

The difference being, this would not be a crime. Summoning un-necessary medical aid might be a waste of time and resouirces, but it is not criminal.

So, what exactly is the child charged with?

- Carl

 

[jusuni2]

Mom can ASK for anything she wants. However, ultimately it is not up to her at all.

The specific charge offered to the prosecutor by the police will depend on all the facts. Chances are little or nothing will come of it.

Do you know what crime he has been charged with? (The specific criminal statute?)

- Carl

I believe I was told it was for making a terrorist threat.

Carl, I very much appreciate you taking the time to respond. If I'm interpreting your comment that it's not up to her correctly, it means it's now outside of the scope of a school problem and outside of the scope of what I can help her with, other than finding a referral to legal aid, should it go that fear.

The Dept. of Ed has fact sheets about what to do/ what to expect re special ed issues , suspensions, expulsions, etc.. Do you possibly know if there's a 'fact sheet' anywhere for situations like this??

Carl, thank you, again, very much, for responding.

 

[CdwJava]

I believe I was told it was for making a terrorist threat.

PC 422 used to be called "terrorist threats". Since sometime around 2000 or 2001 it was changed to "Criminal Threats". No real difference except for the terminology.

PC 422 requires more than merely uttering the threat. In general, it requires that the victim believe the threat and that the defendant have the ability or the apparent ability to carry out the threat. Making an angry utterance, "I'm going to kill you," will not likely result in a criminal filing. It can certainly result in suspension or expulsion from school, but the threshold for the school to act is a lot lower than that needed for a prosecution. For the school, they don't really have to prove he even intended it as a threat.

Carl, I very much appreciate you taking the time to respond. If I'm interpreting your comment that it's not up to her correctly, it means it's now outside of the scope of a school problem and outside of the scope of what I can help her with, other than finding a referral to legal aid, should it go that fear.

Correct. Once the police are involved, it's outside anyone else's scope of control. IF he is charged with a crime, then mom should consult local counsel. If it is as simple as you said, and even the school is not taking it seriously, then it's not likely to get into court. However, the young man and mom may be called to Juvenile Probation to speak to someone there about the issue and what can be done to prevent a repeat offense.

The Dept. of Ed has fact sheets about what to do/ what to expect re special ed issues , suspensions, expulsions, etc.. Do you possibly know if there's a 'fact sheet' anywhere for situations like this??

You can check with your county's Juvenile probation Department or office. Most have a publication of some kind that discusses what to expect from the juvenile justice system in your area. But, until he is charged - IF he is charged, it's much ado about nothing.

Keep in mind that PC 422 is a serious felony. If he is charged with that crime, mom should seek an attorney immediately.

- Carl

 

[jusuni2]

not condoning

I am not condoning the use of the phrase 'I'll kill you.'

The point I wanted the make was just that in one situation you would be expected to use logic and reason to determine the implied meaning of the words and in the otherit seems to be at the discretion of the hearer.
eg Kid says 'I,ll kill you' :
#1. hearer knows there is no threat intended AND hearer feels amicable toward kid
- NO CRIME
#2 hearer knows there is no threat intended AND hearer feels animosity toward kid
- CRIME

I'm not referring to the cases where there is a reasonable belief of a threat.
I'm talking about the kid who has made a mistake and just said something dumb.

A doctor's 'ordinary negligence' is not actionable.
'Harmless error' is a legal concept the courts allow themselves.

When the phrase 'I'll kill you' is as tabu in society as profanity (well - used to be!) and kids don't hear it said casually by others in movies, music, etc. then maybe the standard we are attempting to hold them to would seem a bit more reasonable.

 

[CdwJava]

I am not condoning the use of the phrase 'I'll kill you.'

The point I wanted the make was just that in one situation you would be expected to use logic and reason to determine the implied meaning of the words and in the otherit seems to be at the discretion of the hearer.

The law does not always operate on interpreted intent of the suspect. Just as if you pointed a plastic gun a person and demanded their money ... regardless of whether you meant it or not, it can still be a number of different crimes.

'I didn't mean it" isn't a defense.

#1. hearer knows there is no threat intended AND hearer feels amicable toward kid
- NO CRIME
#2 hearer knows there is no threat intended AND hearer feels animosity toward kid
- CRIME

That's why the victim's interpretation is only ONE element of the offense. Another is the present, apparent ability to carry out the threat.

I'm talking about the kid who has made a mistake and just said something dumb.

Which is why it probably won't be filed.

On the other hand, you may not be in possession of all the facts in the matter.

A doctor's 'ordinary negligence' is not actionable.
'Harmless error' is a legal concept the courts allow themselves.

A civil concept - not a criminal one.

Saying, "I'll kill you" is - by itself - NOT a crime in CA. Being accused of the crime, or the police taking a report for it, is not the same as being charged. We take reports for many alleged crimes that are ultimately never referred for prosecution.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

From the CA Attorney General:

Likewise, a non-specific threat may or may not qualify, depending on the surrounding circumstances. For example, a threat to "hurt" the victim was found sufficient in Butler (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 745, 752-755. However, a student’s threat to "get" his teacher was found insufficient in Ricky T. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1132, 2236- 1146. The court noted the lack of important circumstances and noted that "section 422 was not enacted to punish an angry adolescent’s utterances, unless they otherwise qualify as terrorist threats under that statute." Section 422 includes threats against peace officers. (Schnathorst (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1315.)

Furthermore, section 422 may be violated even though the offender does not know if the threat was actually heard or received by the victim--as long as it was in fact received. "If one broadcasts a threat intending to induce sustained fear, section 422 is violated if the threat is received and induces sustained fear--whether or not the threatener knows his threat has hit its mark." (Teal (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 277, 281.)

Hence, it is unlikely that a simple "angry ... utterance" would not generally qualify as a violation of PC 422.

- Carl

 

[jusuni2]

thank you

Carl,
All I can say is thank you.
And thank you for pointing out my incorrect analogy of a civil and criminal concept.