by Sam Hieb
You have to give N&R editor John Robinson credit for discussing the paper’s decision to front-page the John Averette story. He got busted breaking and entering, and his statements about possibly hurting students at Grimsley are all on the public record.
I’ll also give Sgt. Mike Richey credit for not taking credit:
“I would love to be able to tell you, ‘We stopped this from happening,'” Richey said. He said it’s possible the two students never would have physically harmed classmates. “But I don’t know that we did … it’s one of those things that you can’t answer.”
Here’s my question, to which the N&R may or may not have sought the answer from an unavailable principal and an out-of the-loop superintendent: Why was Averette suspended from school while the 15-year-old was allowed to remain in class? Are students charged with crimes unrelated to school automatically suspended?
Even if that’s the case, it makes no sense for the 15-year-old to remain in school because he clearly represented, based on the seized evidence, the greater possible danger to students at Grimsley.
Richey said there was no evidence the break-in at the Army-Navy store was related to a plan to hurt classmates, and only computers were seized form Averette’s house. But not only were gunpowder and other “apparent bomb-making material” seized from the 15-year olds’ house, he admitted to setting off a pipebomb. So he had the materials and the expertise, while Averette only had the “motive.”
What am I missing here?