Teacher leaves threatening message on chalkboard, ‘The guns are loaded, care to try me??”

March 6, 2013
By

A high school business teacher admitted to leaving a threatening message on the classroom chalkboard and has subsequently been removed from the school. The police say that the treat may be a felony. A student used his cellphone to take a message of the threat, then posted it on Faccabook, which prompted the school’s attention.

Teacher

 

 

 

 

 

 

The threat reads:

“Period 6: (only)

(a) You are idiots!!!
(b) The guns are loaded!!!
(c) Care to try me?????”

Watch:

 

A CBS affiliate reports, “The 28-year veteran teacher, who is the son-in-law of a school board member, won’t be back in school Tuesday or Wednesday, and his future at the school is uncertain pending an investigation, DeHaven said.”

H/T: Mr. Sweetie, the spy.

Tags: , ,

  • Beatrice

    First , you push teachers to the limit and then you don’t want them to react.

  • los perros son mejores

    More guns means more shootings. The gun nuts conveniently ignored the story of the school security guard who left his gun in the bathroom.

    • LibertarianAtheist

      Obviously when you have a country that allows its citizens to own guns there will probably be more crime with said guns (aside from Switzerland). And yes, there will be people who make stupid mistakes with their weapons. No one ever denied this. What you fail to understand are these facts worth having your freedom stripped? A free society is a more dangerous society. Its the risk you take to live in a free society. It is selfish and immoral to take away the rights of many because the actions of few. Drunk driving kills more people than guns a year. Why don’t you campaign to ban cars? Make everyone use public transportation or ride bikes! Its the same logic.

      • Comment cop

        Are you on drugs? How did the comment above equate to banning guns?

        • http://comgen.blogspot.com/ ComGen

          Cut to the chase: he/she is saying, 1) I insert my gun banning boo-the-gov is after me at every opportunity 2) if not 100% then not at all–lawless land is the way to go.

          We have laws and punishment against murder, drunk driving, theft, violence in general. They are not absolutes or rather they do not eradicate 100% yet they do reduce the numbers, people think twice under most normal mental states. Those that don’t end up paying the price–if caught, though we need stricter no-and-if-or-but punishments. Without murder laws in place the USA would easily be reduced by ¼ if not more. So the [ repetitive poorly strung together ] argument(s) that more control and stricter enforcement will not do “ AWAY “ with 100% gun violence or murder or DUI, etc. related death is weak to say the least. But hey I get it, some people do not value ” a life “ or plural like most of us.

          • Comment cop

            So, what you’re saying is, you want to ban guns! Evil, pure evil!

          • LibertarianAtheist

            Again, my comment was merely about the right to carry a gun. And yes, I ask people to be philosophically consistent. IE: If you want to ban one type of gun because it looks scary, why do you not campaign to ban them all? My AR-15 Semi Automatic Rifle is less dangerous than my Mosin Nagant bolt action rifle. If you are for banning a 30 round magazine, why are you OK with a 10 round magazine? 3 ten round magazines aren’t hard to carry. If you are going to be against a citizen carrying a gun, why aren’t you against a police officer carrying a gun? These are common inconsistencies used by anti-gun advocates.

            I am not for a lawless society. I am for a free society. A society the protects the rights of law abiding citizens without punishing them, and takes away the rights of those who want to not follow the law. We do not need laws for laws for laws for laws. Which is what more gun control is.

            And there you go, standing on the graves of dead people by saying I don’t value life. Yeah, good tactic there, Piers. How sleazy of you.

            People in power won’t even touch anything like ending the war on drugs to save lives. Why is that? Prohibition obviously does not work, and on top of that perpetuates gang violence which is a large cause of murder in this country. You said you would be OK with saving 10% of lives? There you go. Legalize all drugs. End the perpetuation of gang violence.

            Obviously, more freedom to own guns will equate to more death. However, like I mentioned before, we have a very low violent crime rate in this country. Much lower than those who have banned guns altogether. There are many other things we can do to drop the homicide rate without touching guns. Yet, no one wants to try those. They want to take the easy, knee-jerk approach.

            • http://comgen.blogspot.com/ ComGen

              We got it little one, understand completely what you have been crying about: all about owning stuff and not taking responsibility nor helping to resolve an issue that could save many.

              • LibertarianAtheist

                Where did I ever say people should not take responsibility or offer solutions that could help? I believe I have offered several PROVEN solutions that would help save lives due to gun violence that you still have yet to acknowledge.

                I also have advocated gun safety training courses in high school, and as an adult. However, I do not believe they should be made mandatory by a federal government. Only state, county, or local as per the 10th amendment.

                You care about lives so much? How about we institute a complete police state? We could hire thousands more police by raising taxes 20%. Put a Police Officer everywhere. We could put cameras with body scanners on every corner, in every building. Put Police sub stations on every street. We could allow the search of homes, cars, or persons by the police dailyand/or whenever they want, We could ban guns completely, ban cars that go above 50, ban violent movies and video games, ban toy weapons, etc. We could make disobeying a law punishable by death, or send people to reconditioning camps. Give government complete control over your life.

                In this kind of society, you would have very little homicide because criminals will have very little opportunity and/or be completely terrified of their government. It’s about saving lives right?

        • LibertarianAtheist

          I have no clue, why did YOU equate it to banning guns? My comment was merely about the right to carry a gun.

          • Comment cop

            Yeah, yeah, I read your comment. They’re almost all copy and paste jobs from your previous ones. Bored now. Must dash!

            • http://comgen.blogspot.com/ ComGen

              Sounds like he’d rather have the right to own shinny objects and project fear and intimidation over saving a few or many lives, with common ground law and enforcement For each his own, though rather selfish and heartless.

              • LibertarianAtheist

                What’s selfish and heartless is standing on the graves of the dead to advocate your point.

              • Biting Reality

                Shiny objects, like listening to the whir of a fan, may just keep him occupied for hours…even days. Careful consideration of others and even extended thought, on the other hand, may just be to be too far out of reach

                • LibertarianAtheist

                  No way! An insult? I have never been insulted before during a debate! How original. You so clever, Biting Reality. What a mature way to handle a debate! Well, you’re a silly boo boo head! Guess that’s the most my mind can come up with, being incapable of extended thought, as you so eloquently put it.

                  “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” – Socrates (I believe I used this quote towards you before)

            • LibertarianAtheist

              Imagine that! Some one has a consistent philosophy!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Sue-Lawson/100000386185077 Sue Lawson

      I was thinking the same thing. I think if anyone wanting to rob a house, who would normally do it without carrying a gun, will start carrying a gun. I am not against guns, my husband and I have them in our house. I just feel more and more criminals will carry guns too. Just saying. By the way we don’t have any kids.

      • LibertarianAtheist

        So, what you are saying, is a criminal is more worried about carrying a gun illegally (a misdemeanor) rather than breaking and entering (a felony)? You may want to re-think your logic there.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alan-Carter/100000577353529 Alan Carter

    NUTZ!!

Related Posts