Share this story:
By Torian H.
There was a traumatic incident that happened at Ruby Bridges Elementary in Alameda. This incident took place on campus. A 5-year-old child in kindergarten was threatened to be taken and killed by a student’s father who is in the military as a high ranked officer. When the mother went to pick-up the child, the victim was shacking with dried and wet tears on his face the mother said.
The child explained that an army man came up to him stating that the child has been a bad boy and that he was going to get him and kill him. The nearest witness was a schoolteacher she saw the officer introduce himself to the 5-year-old victim and stated “you have been a bad boy.” Immediately, Alameda Police Department was contacted as well as the school principal. The principal stated to the mother “Do I have anything to do with this? Isn’t it a police matter?” My thing is, it happen at your school why wouldn’t it matter to you?
The officer saw the matter so serious he immediately contacted the district attorney office. The police officers’ partner went to talk to the army personnel who openly admitted to talking to the child. Once the secondary officer talked to the adult army father he expressed he mad a bad decision. The officer decided to set up a meeting with the victim’s mother to have the army personnel apologize. Once the meeting took place all legal action departed from the matter and was swept under the rug in favor of the suspect rather than the 5-year-old victim. The meeting had the case closing before the victims’ mother could even get a clear understanding as to what her child’s rights were and the next step to help mother file charges. This matter was not given a fair investigation in favor of the 5-year-old and the mother was told to settle for an apology and let it go.
I feel that the seriousness of the threat made by this adult military personnel to a vulnerable child on school campus deserves formal prosecution in an effort to prevent and protect others from further victimization and hold the offender responsible for his behavior.
My question is why is this not a matter for the district attorney? Why did the second officer undermine the 1st officers recommendation to follow persecution?