Teachers suspended

[Jo]

It IS an important topic, which is why I want the thread to remain civil. Virtually everything can be handled without a personal attack. Everything. It's also more effective when you don't use personal attacks and outlandish statements, so if someone really feels strongly about an issue, they 'owe' that issue a reasoned and careful response.

[OnTheRoadAgain]

There are no double standards here. If you feel abuse is the best form of communication then expect the same when I am communicating with you. Something about treat others as you want to be treated.
Now show me in your contract we've ok'ed you physically abusing our kids. Show me where the board has.

13yrs combined martial arts training I think I have a better idea than you do when somebody has a right to protect themselves. The teacher put himself in a position where the child had every right to defend himself and that could have made it even worse. So if you cant restrain yourself from putting yourself in such position with MY child. I'll draw the lines for you in advance. Less confusion.

I hadn't even thought of that, but you are right, and some kids are taught their basic human rights, and the fact that teachers too are human by the time they enter public school. For the ones who are not (from authoritarian homes) they think the teacher has the right to do such things and will submit, and never ever tell their parents, who would 'give it to them again' when they got home from school for speaking out of turn in class.
If this was a teenager, likely he would have attacked the teacher in 'self-defense'.
Fear is subjective.

[OnTheRoadAgain]

the thing that amazes me most is how the kid did something that caused the action of the teacher - and he is being excused because he resisted the teachers authority and ended up hockey jerseying himself. in the end if the kid was a good kid and took the initial correction that wouldnt have happened. just like if a guy has you in an armbar you tap. if your arm gets dislocated or broken its your fault.

The kid did nothing to cause the action of the teacher, the kid holds absolutely no resposnibility for the teacher's action; he is responsible for his his own action (talking out of turn). The teacher has absolutely no authority to react the way she did, nor does she have any right to. The kid was likely a very good kid, and just spoke out of turn, and even regardless if he was actually a 'bad kid' (a [good] kid with bad behaviour) the teacher still has no right or authority to do what she did.
Had this teacher been male, we would have seen at least the same outcome, diversion through the criminal justice system.

Let's say the kid was a good kid who followed direction, and this wouldn't have happened. Moot point, right?
It did happen and it shouldn't have, and it will not happen again, according to this teacher's lessons learned.
The kid will likely talk out of turn again, as it is human nature to make mistakes.
It is not human nature to over react in such a forceful way, without the element of anger.
The teacher's reaction had nothing to do with correction, or discipline, it was all about power of authority - over the line.

[OnTheRoadAgain]

from what i have gathered the child was talking when the teacher didnt approve.
thats hardly a disciplinary action that would need a violent teacher response to correct.
id hate to see what the teacher might have done to a toddler for throwing food.
he didnt resist any teachers authority that caused himself to choke himself.
i think a few of you posters that are standing up for the teacher must have dropped out of school very early in age.
its very easy to grasp that the teacher was guilty of assault as the teacher admitted it and the school admitted it and the courts found the teacher did it.
why the mad craze to turn the tables on the truth and make the teacher innocent and the child guilty.
sure maybe the kid broke a very minor infraction, nobody has claimed he didnt.
that doesnt mean the teacher had the right to violently attack him.
maybe the correct punishment for the teacher would have been to allow the child to take the strap to the teacher for a few turns.
lets be fair if you guys feel a bad student should be beat like a dog then so should a bad teacher.

:rate10: Right on.

x2!

[Fancy]

that doesnt mean the teacher had the right to violently attack him.

That makes it sound like the teacher did the act deliberately to hurt him. I doubt that.

[OnTheRoadAgain]

Intent wanes in a criminal act, because that would not be able to be proven in this case.
The teacher never meant to hurt the child, but she did overreact, breaking the criminal code, and was therefore disciplined through alternative (to incarceration) measures.
The teacher did not have the right to do what she did.

The guy standing by the dead body he 'accidentally' shot, is not absolved of guilt for murder of one or another degree, or manslaughter because he didn't mean to kill him. In basic terms regardless, he did not have the right to kill him by any means.

[Fancy]

The statement still sounds like intent.

[OnTheRoadAgain]

The statement still sounds like intent.

The statement sounds like a description of the teacher's response to me.
She 'violently attacked him' by grabbing his clothing and dragging him.
If someone did that to me, I would most definitely call it a violent attack, regardless of what I did to 'cause' their reaction (which I cannot even be held liable for in reality).
See how 'intent' is subjective.

[Fancy]

No need to preach to the choir. I believe the teacher did not intend to hurt and that's what the statement sounds like.

[keith1612]

No need to preach to the choir. I believe the teacher did not intend to hurt and that's what the statement sounds like.

if you dont intend to kill someone drinking and driving does that make you innocent?
the teacher harmed the child while in a act of violence.
intent doesnt matter.
if i dont intend on hurting someone punching them in the face its still a criminal act.
the only safe option for the teacher was not to grab and drag the child by his throat across the room.
was it done out of haste and anger?
id say most definatly, thats why teachers should have tests before hiring to show they can handle the situations calmly and rationally.

[noneofyourbiz3]

Whether the teacher meant to hurt the student or not is irrelevant. Teachers arent trained in handing out physical punishment so they should stick to what they do know. Pulling anyone around by the hood will cause suffocation and if your being dragged a good portion of your weight will be at that choking point. If thats my kid and a teachers crossed this line you can bet they will defend themselves and will be trained appropriately to do so. Keep your hands to yourselves teachers. If you cant handle it. Send them home. Charyot, Kyong Ye.

[sooperphreek]

Intent wanes in a criminal act, because that would not be able to be proven in this case.
The teacher never meant to hurt the child, but she did overreact, breaking the criminal code, and was therefore disciplined through alternative (to incarceration) measures.
The teacher did not have the right to do what she did.

The guy standing by the dead body he 'accidentally' shot, is not absolved of guilt for murder of one or another degree, or manslaughter because he didn't mean to kill him. In basic terms regardless, he did not have the right to kill him by any means.

so the teacher is the cop in this situation and the kid is the one with the gun right? what if the guy resisted arrest? like the kid did?

[sooperphreek]

i hope teachers are reading this and the tough talking parents have all their kids showing up on the doorstep from school because they were kicked out. of course the culture in schools say you cant hand out zeros to the precious children so.....heaven forbid they cant be disruptive in school with impunity.

[noneofyourbiz3]

It takes 76 lbs of pressure to collapse a windpipe Sorry, not with my children!

[noneofyourbiz3]

i hope teachers are reading this and the tough talking parents have all their kids showing up on the doorstep from school because they were kicked out. of course the culture in schools say you cant hand out zeros to the precious children so.....heaven forbid they cant be disruptive in school with impunity.

That would be in everyone best interest.