Student arrested and suspended for creating FPS map of his school...

[FireFly]

I'm not saying it isn't common... but then why was this kid singled out for a search? Perhaps there's something else in his manner/behaviour to suggest he might be doing something untoward.

Also, I never said that most of the killers make maps to use in games, I said most of them make maps. I specifically remember there being a map in the Columbine killings with indications of where bombs would be planted, etc.

[notoepik]

I really think it was because he was a Chinese student.

That was the really important part of the whole thing. Nevermind the hammer, the map or the violent game. It was being Chinese that tipped it over the terrorist meter

[RougeUnderoos]

I wonder if this would have happened if he was a nice white boy. The radar is probably up for any spooky/nerdy/breathing Asian kids right now.

And the hammer -- that is just hilarious. Anyone smart enough to draw up a computer generated map of his school is probably also smart enough to know that an old-fashioned hammer-rampage (hampage?) doesn't exactly require either a map or particularly elaborate plan. Just take that baby out and start swinging!

[HelloHockeyFans]

^ Rouge, your post had me ROFL. The "breathing" part was great, but the hampage really got me.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by HelloHockeyFans

^ Rouge, your post had me ROFL. The "breathing" part was great, but the hampage really got me.

Me too, good stuff. When I read hampage I immediately thought of ham+rampage=hampage. Some sort of cold cut massacre.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Azure

And for the record, I have no problem with this kid being checked out. If we would have checked out the VT shooter....well, you might have saved 32 innocent people from being killed.

Oh definitely. I'm sure there's all kinds of things they could have looked into (though even that doesn't always help, I do recall hearing instances of people going off the deep end with no prior indication). Investigate, don't suspend the guy right off the bat. Intervene, but the response should be proportional to the "signs". This warrants a few questions and maybe observation.

Has anyone asked how many violent offenders are NFL football fans? That's a pretty violent sport. I'd wager a good percentage of violent offenders are NFL fans!

[photon]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I'm not saying it isn't common... but then why was this kid singled out for a search? Perhaps there's something else in his manner/behaviour to suggest he might be doing something untoward.

Also, I never said that most of the killers make maps to use in games, I said most of them make maps. I specifically remember there being a map in the Columbine killings with indications of where bombs would be planted, etc.

Sure there might have been other behaviour, but we can only go by the information given. If there wasn't any other indication, they're overreacting. If there was, then the media is distorting the facts by leaving out relevant information (not that that's any surprise), and my reaction would change in light of new information.

Alright, I saw the making maps part as making game maps, not maps in general.

But then by the same logic, ANY map making activity should be seen as a threat, and things like rulers and grid paper the implements of destruction.

As well as other activities which may lead to attacks, like taking pictures. There's been plenty of cases of that recently too, where people taking pictures of buildings have been forced away, to give over their film, etc on the basis that the pictures could be used to attack the building.

Or wearing a t-shirt with Arabic writing on it to an Airport.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by photon

Sure there might have been other behaviour, but we can only go by the information given. If there wasn't any other indication, they're overreacting. If there was, then the media is distorting the facts by leaving out relevant information (not that that's any surprise), and my reaction would change in light of new information.

So here's the question then. Your child is online playing his favorite FPS game. He logs into his local chat room, and notices that one of the kids in school (who he doesn't know very well, but may be a bit of a loner) has created and posted a detailled map of his school. He tells you, his father, (just as an example) that "some creepy Chinese kid made a map of the school for such-and-such a game." You know this game involves going through buildings and killing things. Are you going to just ignore that? Or are you going to call the police because you're concerned about your child's welfare? And what do you expect the school and police to do, should you decide to actually tell them?

[notoepik]

Originally Posted by FireFly

So here's the question then. Your child is online playing his favorite FPS game. ........clip..... And what do you expect the school and police to do, should you decide to actually tell them?

I would first ask what being Chinese has to do with it?

Then I would call the school councelors and tell them. They know a whole lot more about the boy than I would, and they can make a more educated decision on what should be done.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by notoepik

I would first ask what being Chinese has to do with it?

Then I would call the school councelors and tell them. They know a whole lot more about the boy than I would, and they can make a more educated decision on what should be done.

It's a good question. Maybe your child says "creepy emo boy" or "creepy white kid" or just "creepy kid"... I only said Chinese because the kid in the story was Chinese. The hypothetical situation in my example doesn't require any adjective to still be valid.

Also, I know how much my school counsellors knew about me when I was in school, and it wasn't much. Theoretically, they should know more, but that doesn't mean they do.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FireFly

So here's the question then. Your child is online playing his favorite FPS game. He logs into his local chat room, and notices that one of the kids in school (who he doesn't know very well, but may be a bit of a loner) has created and posted a detailled map of his school. He tells you, his father, (just as an example) that "some creepy Chinese kid made a map of the school for such-and-such a game." You know this game involves going through buildings and killing things. Are you going to just ignore that? Or are you going to call the police because you're concerned about your child's welfare? And what do you expect the school and police to do, should you decide to actually tell them?

In this specific case, the kid in question wasn't a loner, but a well liked honours student.

It depends on the context. Your example jumped from "a bit of a loner" to "creepy Chinese kid", which are two different things. But how would I react?

If it was an honour roll student and well liked, I would probably want to see how well done the map was and as my kid if I could play! I would NOT teach my kid to be paranoid and overreact to the situation just because some random incident happened somewhere.

If the kid was, as you say, creepy and a loner, I would probably do the same thing as the parents of the story did and bring it up with the school, just so they were aware.

My complaint though wasn't about the parents talking to the school administration, my complaint is about going from "kid made a map" to arresting the kid and moving him to a school for troubled kids based on no other evidence than he made a map and had a hammer. And that was the kid's mother's complaint as well; it's an over-reaction. By the police and school administration.

I'd also take the opportunity to teach my kid about freedoms and how they can be eroded in the name of supposed security, but that giving up our freedom is too high a price to pay. And to not judge others based on appearances, or based on what the media portrays. There's all kinds of good lessons there.

I am FAR more concerned about my kid being killed in a car accident by a drunk driver than I am about him being shot at school, because the car accident is FAR more likely.

[Frequitude]

There's probably a bunch in his grade who all play together. That would be a good level. My buddy made a counter strike map of our rez for a bunch of us to play on back in university. Surely no biggie.

If he's running solo rampages on his map, ok, kinda sketchy...but I doubt it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Also, I know how much my school counsellors knew about me when I was in school, and it wasn't much. Theoretically, they should know more, but that doesn't mean they do.

That's very true, I had the exact same thought. And even if a kid is creepy or emo, that doesn't really mean anything either, does the percentage of kids on rampages that are emo exceed the general percentage of emo kids?

They're (the counsellers) the ones in the position though, so they should probably know. If they under or overreact, the only thing I can do is to keep communicating. If it was me that called the school, then found out the kid was arrested, I'd be calling back for a lot of "clarification".

But it gets back to the premise that this was a "sign" of trouble. I'm no school counseller, but I'm sure they're educated in real things that indicate problems. Things that have been shown through science. If this was show to be a sign of trouble, then by all means respond appropriately. But if it isn't they also have to respond appropriately. Otherwise, any response is justified for any action, because the risks of losing children's lives justifies it.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by photon

In this specific case, the kid in question wasn't a loner, but a well liked honours student.

Where did you read that? The original post did not mention his honours status or if he was well-liked at all.

It depends on the context. Your example jumped from "a bit of a loner" to "creepy Chinese kid", which are two different things. But how would I react?

Maybe. Depends how old you are. Maybe he's a bit of a loner because he's creepy. Again, it's kids we're talking about and their perception of the situation.

If it was an honour roll student and well liked, I would probably want to see how well done the map was and as my kid if I could play! I would NOT teach my kid to be paranoid and overreact to the situation just because some random incident happened somewhere.

If the kid was, as you say, creepy and a loner, I would probably do the same thing as the parents of the story did and bring it up with the school, just so they were aware.

You're right, it does likely depend on the child in question. But consider that even well-liked honour students may have things to hide. Wasn't Jeffrey Dahmer well liked and rather smart?

My complaint though wasn't about the parents talking to the school administration, my complaint is about going from "kid made a map" to arresting the kid and moving him to a school for troubled kids based on no other evidence than he made a map and had a hammer. And that was the kid's mother's complaint as well; it's an over-reaction. By the police and school administration.

I'd also take the opportunity to teach my kid about freedoms and how they can be eroded in the name of supposed security, but that giving up our freedom is too high a price to pay. And to not judge others based on appearances, or based on what the media portrays. There's all kinds of good lessons there.

I am FAR more concerned about my kid being killed in a car accident by a drunk driver than I am about him being shot at school, because the car accident is FAR more likely.

Well the kid wasn't charged with anything that I can tell, but based on what you say here, it appears as if you're aware of a different article on the same incident that I am not aware of. So you have more information than I do. I'm flying a bit blind here. I had no idea the child was moved to a school for troubled children. My limited understanding of the events is that he was arrested, taken in for questioning and released, and the school expelled him. Is it in overreaction? Perhaps. Do you want maps of your school posted on the internet where anyone can access them and use them for nefarious purposes? I don't. Could it have been handled differently? Of course. But we're in new territory here... no one has had to deal with things like this before so no one knows how to do so.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Where did you read that? The original post did not mention his honours status or if he was well-liked at all.

http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/2847...er-pc-game-map

The original site came back up and someone who is close to the situation posted in the comments. EDIT: That was the story linked from the story I posted, sorry I thought you'd gone through and read that one as well.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FireFly

You're right, it does likely depend on the child in question. But consider that even well-liked honour students may have things to hide. Wasn't Jeffrey Dahmer well liked and rather smart?

Excellent point, and that supports my point. Like I said, I'm sure there's known indications, but not everyone falls into the same patterns. So what do we do about those that don't?

Do we give up our freedoms, allow actions to be taken based on suspicion and paranoia? Lock everything down, put cameras on every corner, track every citizen?

Or do we accept that someone is innocent until proven guilty (keeping in mind plotting to kill is still a crime), and accept that until we understand the mind better there will be people that out of the blue will go crazy with no warning, and accept that as a cost of our freedom?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by photon

http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/2847...er-pc-game-map

The original site came back up and someone who is close to the situation posted in the comments. EDIT: That was the story linked from the story I posted, sorry I thought you'd gone through and read that one as well.

No I didn't, and now I know. With the comments in the comments section on that article, I agree... the child was found by the police to be not guilty, the school should not be punishing him like they are. However, I don't begrudge them the precautions they've taken. I think the school probably handled it correctly by bringing the police in to investigate. You just can't be certain anymore. As another comment said, he used poor judgement in making the map and posting it online, but he shouldn't pay for it his whole life. When the police decided not to lay charges, the school should have followed suit.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by photon

Excellent point, and that supports my point. Like I said, I'm sure there's known indications, but not everyone falls into the same patterns. So what do we do about those that don't?

Do we give up our freedoms, allow actions to be taken based on suspicion and paranoia? Lock everything down, put cameras on every corner, track every citizen?

Or do we accept that someone is innocent until proven guilty (keeping in mind plotting to kill is still a crime), and accept that until we understand the mind better there will be people that out of the blue will go crazy with no warning, and accept that as a cost of our freedom?

I think I address this in my previous post. You have to investigate when something like this comes up. You just can't let it sit, or then you're liable if something does happen. However, the schools need to take their cues from the police... when the police let him go without pressing charges, finding him to not be a threat, the school should have done the same.

[photon]

Agreed. Investigate, definately. A measured response appropriate to the situation.

[photon]

Someone that knows the student posted in that thread too! The game was Counterstrike, and he mentions that creating maps for this game has been assigned by teachers as projects to students!

Other comments also mention that the higher end classes he was taking at his school aren't available at the school he's being sent to, so this directly impacts his life and future.

http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/2854...nts-punishment

Another article with more information this time. Makes it look worse in my mind.

Both Mike Harvey, the police department’s threat assessment officer, and police Sgt. G. Holub told Holmes on the morning of April 17 that, based on what had been uncovered on the boy’s web site, no criminal offense had occurred, but “the matter had to be followed up on to make sure there were no ill intentions,” the police report states. Holmes then accompanied Assistant Principal Molly Perkins as she searched the boy’s locker, where “nothing illegal or threatening was found,” the police report said.

Harvey said as a follow-up, he called Paul Tu of the Fort Bend County District Attorney’s Office, and described “all the facts of the case.”
According to the police report, Tu replied that based upon those facts “he knew of no criminal offense that had occurred; there were no threats on any specific person or people; there was no evidence found to pursue the case any further.”