Poorly written, which set everybody off:
“The student, who Fox 4 has agreed not to identify because he fears for his safety, says there’s “no doubt” he saved a life by disarming the gunman. And for that he was suspended for three days.”
OK, which is it? Suspended because he refused to identify the gunman or because he disarmed him?
Ten sentences later we find out: “According to the mother, the school suspended her son because he refused to cooperate in the investigation.”
The sentences that jumped out to me are:
1) “Despite the fact the suspect pointed a load gun at another student and threatened to shoot authorities charged him with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon ‘without intent’ to kill.”
How the Hell do the authorities know what his intent was. You point a loaded gun at someone and threaten to shoot him is clear enough to all but those authorities.
2)”Authorities were unable to watch the school bus surveillance video because the cameras weren’t working.”
Then why the Hell have them. Another useless Feel Good measure? One of the few “There ought to be a law” situations. Fire the maintenance crew or their boss. You see this a lot in 7-11 holdups and mall disturbances where the police end use having to rely on someone with a cell phone camera. Did any student use theirs?
Betcha! Betcha! That this particular day was the **only** school day that the cameras were not working.