Boy arrested in phone threat to BR school

Show caption
ARTHUR D. LAUCK / 00033144a
Advocate staff photo by ARTHUR D. LAUCK
Baton Rouge police officer Josh Ellis, left, Sgt. Chris Polito, center, and Sgt. Duren Boyce, stand outside St. Joseph’s Academy on Monday. The all girls high school received an anonymous threatening phone call over the weekend and police arrested an Iberville Parish boy.

A 10-year-old Iberville Parish boy was arrested Monday on one count of terrorizing after investigators determined he left a threatening voice mail at St. Joseph’s Academy in Baton Rouge over the weekend, authorities said.

The boy, who had no known connection to the school, was released to his parents’ custody, said Lt. Don Kelly, a Baton Rouge police spokesman. The motive for the threat remained unclear, Kelly said.

Law enforcement and school officials declined to discuss the nature of the threat, which drew a heavy police presence at a time of heightened concerns over school security. Kelly noted that “law enforcement must take every threat, regardless of how unlikely it may seem, very seriously.”

“The school decided to hold classes once they were assured by the mayor-president that a significant police presence will be assigned to the school for security,” Kelly said in an email.

Police and East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney Hillar Moore III planned to meet with school administrators to discuss a contingency plan for security staffing. Moore said he was made aware of the threat over the weekend and met at the school Monday with law enforcement authorities.

School spokeswoman Mindy Averitt said St. Joseph’s arranged for added security the rest of the week, including plans to have a guard on campus.

“Tomorrow will be business as usual,” she said.

The decision to add security but keep school open Monday was made in cooperation with the Baton Rouge police, who reviewed the incident, Averitt said.

Parents were sent messages Sunday giving them the option of sending their children to school or allowing them to work remotely via laptop. Averitt said more than half of the student body attended school Monday.

Students who stayed home will be afforded an excused absence, she said.

“We thank our parents for their support and cooperation,” Averitt said in an email. “Please be assured that throughout the weekend and into today, we followed the advice of law enforcement officials and communicated as much as we could given the fact that the situation was an ongoing police investigation. The safety of our students, faculty and staff was always our top priority.”


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (19)


1) Comment by gtmom - 29/01/2013

Thank you, ktatut2, for being the voice of reason. It sounds like SJA WAS well-prepared for this sort of emergency. And whether or not the extra protection is paid by the taxpayers, the fact of the matter is that the parents of SJA students pay the lion's share of taxes collected in the first place. HMaltravers, I don't think it is an issue of "favoritism". I think police officers would have responded regardless of the school and probably have placed themselves in significantly more danger from doing so. Finally, to Whatnow... people are still allowed to "whip backsides" but few parents actually go to the trouble of making a concerted effort to discipline their children, hence the burgeoning number of delinquents in the making. That boy needs his butt beat till he can't sit down and then needs to spend a little bit of time in a juvenile facility to straighten his attitude out. Maybe then he will think twice before continuing on the path to becoming another threatening thug.

2) Comment by ktatut2 - 29/01/2013

Honestly, some of your comments are just plain ridiculous. I fail to see anything in the article indicating the nuns panicked and did not have a plan. SJA, which is now led by lay administrators and not nuns, clearly did have a plan for such an incident which was likely far more efficient than other area schools have. They used technology to hold classes whether or not students actually chose to be on campus! Students were able to participate from home via laptop. Also, when the threat was initially made it was known to be made by a ten year old boy! Law enforcement and city officials took the appropriate action by handling it seriously in an attempt to protect students. The article doesn't elaborate on the details pending the investigation, so there may be many more details of which we are not aware. Finally, the article does not say that additional security will come at the expense of taxpayers. It is entirely possible that off-duty officers will be provided at expense to the Academy! Regardless, people always get so angry when reminded that private school parents also pay taxes, but it bears repeating. Their school choice does not relinquish their right to civil services! I’m sorry some of you feel that is not fairly distributed amongst the community, but I doubt you’re willing to hear a dissenting argument on that.

3) Comment by HMaltravers - 29/01/2013

What a blatant case of unvarnished favoritism! The mayor, chief of police, AND the DA flock to SJA over something as silly as a phone threat made by a ten year old kid?! Do inner-city schools populated by kids from poor families get this same attention? I don't think so.

4) Comment by Whatnow - 29/01/2013

Whip his backside? Are people allowed to do that anymore?

5) Comment by Whatnow - 29/01/2013

zealer99, at the time I wrote my comment, they didn't know it was a 10 year old's prank.

6) Comment by Chucky - 29/01/2013

MissCotillion., Good insight, as most of the time. What was the preexisting plan? The nuns are not stupid, but they did seem taken off guard.

7) Comment by cezadream - 29/01/2013

I sure hope the parents of this child punish him by taking away all his electronics, or maybe have him do something he can't stand to do..........like chores, maybe pull weeds in the yard. Maybe whip his backside! No, that's too easy. Pull those weeds and take away his electronics. That's suffering long term.

8) Comment by MissCotillion - 29/01/2013

What bothers me is how flustered the school seemed to be by this threat. Where was their preexisting safety plan for this sort of threat? Most schools in EBR, public or private, have plans in place. SJA seems to have been caught off guard by this threat.

9) Comment by rockynoggin - 28/01/2013

Come on people, the parents of SJA students pay the majority of taxes. They're just getting the extra protection they deserve. Besides, if this had been a public school the students are better armed than the poh-leese.

10) Comment by Chucky - 28/01/2013

Trust in God ,but hired guns to protect will do even better. As the saying goes “ I carry a gun because a cop is to heavy.”

11) Comment by zealer99 - 28/01/2013

"Now, what if that threat hadn't come first and the perpetrator had just followed through?" I am not sure if a 10 year old boy would be much of a threat. But by "what if", you are probably hoping for a blood thirsty killing machine with an AR-15, with 10 - 30 round magazines and two hand guns. Or maybe somebody who drives a gasoline tanker truck into a school at lunch time.

12) Comment by Preppy6917 - 28/01/2013

Foldgers: I've a feeling that the reaction would've been a bit more subdued had this occurred at a school other than SJA....

13) Comment by foldgers - 28/01/2013

Wait. A bomb threat is a cause for trained officers with guns to maintain a presence on a school's campus, but shooting kids on a campus just warrants more "gun free zone" signs???

14) Comment by BRmoderate - 28/01/2013

The threat was identified and eliminated. why the extra security? Who is paying for the extra security? I have no problem with BRPD adding cops while a threat is actively being investigated but question why the extra security is needed now... Is it only to make the parents feel better?

15) Comment by SJASTUDENT - 28/01/2013

I hope that the officers keep students safe and unharmed, a thanks from all the students goes out to BRPD for their hard work!

16) Comment by Whatnow - 28/01/2013

@Whatchange, please explain your comment.

17) Comment by Preppy6917 - 28/01/2013

So they determined it was a prank by a ten year old boy, and the school is still insisting on additional security? Not on the taxpayers' dime, I hope.

18) Comment by Whatchange - 28/01/2013

Now what if a frog had wings

19) Comment by Whatnow - 28/01/2013

Now, what if that threat hadn't come first and the perpetrator had just followed through?