Well This Changes Everything

Remember the 7 year-old kid who was suspended from school because he ate his Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun? Well new information has come to light that changes everything:

Laurie Pritchard, Anne Arundel’s director of legal services, said that the object central to the case had been misportrayed, as well as the reason for the discipline.

“First of all, it wasn’t a Pop-Tart,” she said. “It was a breakfast pastry. And he was not suspended because he chewed his breakfast pastry into the shape of a gun.” He was suspended for “an ongoing classroom disruption,” she said.

Holy shit, why weren’t we informed of this right away? If we had known he had shaped a breakfast pastry into a gun instead of a Pop-Tart we could have demanded the kid’s head!

OK, the actual content of the story isn’t quite that simple. But that quote was gold. The school is now trying to claim that the child was suspended because of a history of behavioral problems:

School officials produced a lengthy log of various types of incidents. They argued that they had made many efforts to address the boy’s behavioral issues. The family said they had not seen the list before and had been unaware of a number of the incidents.

There’s a problem with this narrative though. If he was suspended for a history of behavioral issues why was he not suspended during one of those incidents? Why did they choose an incident where the kid ate a Pop-Tart, sorry, breakfast pastry into a firearm to suspend him? Is eating food into abstract shapes a behavioral issue?

I’m sure the school will go to great extent to justify the suspension. We’ll probably be told that the kid held a black mass in the school cafeteria or something along those lines. School administrators don’t like to admit wrongdoing and will go to absolutely absurd lengths to throw their petty authority around.