Thanks for posting this.
I read it and I'm sorry (this is not directed at you, GXM, just jumping off from the article) but the official scenario makes absolutely no logical sense to me.
OK, I get that the mats were normally stored horizontally, and I can understand kids using the spaces in the middle of them to store things, including shoes, that weren't of much value to them to avoid locker fees, kind of like putting them in a round cupboard with no doors.
(Although this isn't what the article says. Not once does it say the kids stored items in the mats, but it does say they stored them under the mats. Which leads me to wonder how they lifted 700-pound mats to store things under them. But going along with the assumption that the spaces in the middle of the mats were the storage areas...)
I can understand that over the break those mats got moved and stored vertically.
I can understand KJ coming back from break, going to get his shoes where he last left them, and finding that the mats had been moved and were now standing vertically.
That's where the whole scenario of him looking for his shoes and accidentally falling in begins the epic fail.
The article states: "The students may have been walking on top of the roughly 700-pound, 7-feet-tall mats to retrieve school supplies and personal items, as interviews revealed that students commonly used the rolled-up mats to avoid locker fees, stated Edwards."
And: "It appears that since the mats were stacked up on end and had been moved and stored that way over the holiday break, his shoes werent where he left them, so he had to climb up on the mats."
Just for fun, I measured the height of my front door. Less than 7 feet.
So we're to believe that not only KJ, but all the other kids who stored their stuff in this manner were so mathematically and physically (I mean in the sense of actual physics, not their physiques) challenged that they actually thought they could reach down from a 7-foot height and retrieve their possessions, which had presumably fallen to the floor?
The items might not have fallen to the floor if the mats were wrapped tightly enough to hold them snugly, but if the middle spaces were big enough to hold a human body, anything smaller in them would have most certainly fallen to the floor.
My refrigerator is approximately 5'10" tall. Can you imagine lying on top of it thinking you can retrieve something on the floor?
I think most five-year-olds of normal intelligence would know better. Yet this kid was supposed to be trying to reach down from an even taller height to retrieve something?
Does not compute.
He may have voluntarily been on top of those mats, but it was not because he was trying to retrieve something that he'd left in one when it was lying horizontally on the floor.
most likely, the kids didn't know exactly how tall the mats were or consider that they would never be able to reach an item on the floor with the height of their body plus an outstreched arm. Kids don't think like that. A lot of adults don't either. jmo