[quote]ZEB wrote:
btm62 wrote:
I have a 14 year old son. I am now once again very thankful for the person he is. I have never had to strike him save a swat on his behind when he was younger. This boy sounds like he needs some parenting.
It seems that the two parent household is now in the minority.
Let the liberals celebrate.[/quote]
WTF? How’s the turf in left field?
[quote]KombatAthlete wrote:
I don’t those of us who disagree are saying that the teacher shouldn’t have used any kind of force on the kid. He just used an excess of it. Multiple punches to the head are not an appropriate response to a slap in the face by a juvenile. He should have grabbed and restrained him to stop any future violence instead of throwing multiple punches to a fourteen year old’s head.[/quote]
Spoken like someone who’s never had to really restrain someone. Actually try it and let me know how it works out for you
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Look at the ‘Conan the Barbarian’ cartoon character: He wouldn’t have all the muscles or passion for life if everyone had been nice to him. He was repeatedly beaten and forced to work.
[/quote]
Wow.
I agree that tehis teacher was justified, but did you just use a comic book/movie character to defend your point? Seriously? Come on, man…
[quote]BF Bullpup wrote:
“Basket D” was cute, but it shows what you really think about teenagers. They don’t get the credit that they deserve, especially not here, a thread full of adult posters who think that the only way to teach “punk teenagers” is to “fight back” and “defend yourself”.[/quote]
BF, I think this may be the crux of the disagreement: no, physically fighting back and defending yourself arent good ways to teach teenagers (or anyone that I can think of) but what moment in time are we looking at? The events leading up to the student refusing to take out the trash … or the moment the teacher was shoved?
If the former, we dont have any details on what happened. It’s very possible that the teacher could have handled the request and/or the disagreement better … or maybe he couldn’t have, we really dont know.
But if we proceed from the point where the student shoved the teacher, then this has nothing to do with teaching and everything to do with defending yourself. Again we have no idea of the size of these two, it’s very possible that the student WOULD have been able to be a legitimate physical threat to the student, or maybe not. But in most situations, I’m going to give a guy (in this case the teacher) a little bit more leeway in judging his actions (including punching the person that may be a threat to him, 14 or not) when he’s just been physically assaulted. The idea that he should “know better” is spurious, if there is a real question of survival.
[quote]cueball wrote:
ZEB wrote:
btm62 wrote:
I have a 14 year old son. I am now once again very thankful for the person he is. I have never had to strike him save a swat on his behind when he was younger. This boy sounds like he needs some parenting.
It seems that the two parent household is now in the minority.
Let the liberals celebrate.
WTF? How’s the turf in left field?[/quote]
You’re kidding right?
Why are SEALS, RANGERS, and so forth, some of the toughest and brightest individuals on this planet? Because someone was nice to them? Treated them to milk and cookies?
Violence, when applied intelligently, is one of the best (if not the best) motivators of men.
Want men and women instead of punks and sluts? Quit treating those who show potential to become punks/sluts nicely. We’re doing them no favor by being kind and understanding, when a good beating is what’s needed.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Why are SEALS, RANGERS, and so forth, some of the toughest and brightest individuals on this planet? Because someone was nice to them? Treated them to milk and cookies?
Violence, when applied intelligently, is one of the best (if not the best) motivators of men.
Want men and women instead of punks and sluts? Quit treating those who show potential to become punks/sluts nicely. We’re doing them no favor by being kind and understanding, when a good beating is what’s needed.[/quote]
Agreed.
I’m 15 and disgusted with what I see.
although I’m also disgusted with drug laws… schools condemming marxism without explaining it too students…ect.
We need a good president.
The law is pretty clear cut here. Since the student slapped the teacher once, the teacher should have had the kid arrested and charged with battery. In most states it’s a felony. Had the kid continued slapping or striking the teacher he would have been justified in defending himself by striking back or terminating the threat.
However the teacher’s life was not in danger at this point so he has no “legal” justification for any self defense and most likely acted out of anger. When the point of escalation occurred by the teacher he committed the child abuse on the student, hence his arrest.
It’s a sad state of classroom affairs when teachers are no longer respected. But that goes to parenting and teaching the child at a young age about morals, values and respect.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
cueball wrote:
ZEB wrote:
btm62 wrote:
I have a 14 year old son. I am now once again very thankful for the person he is. I have never had to strike him save a swat on his behind when he was younger. This boy sounds like he needs some parenting.
It seems that the two parent household is now in the minority.
Let the liberals celebrate.
WTF? How’s the turf in left field?
You’re kidding right?[/quote]
No, I’m not. My statement was more directed to the second half of your post. Obviously the two parent household is relevent. The “liberal” comment is what is out there.
Do you honestly think liberals have been pushing for a “single parent household” majority? And now that it’s that way they are jumping up and down and yelling “we’ve suceeded in screwing up some kids”?
Not to mention that there are MANY single parent households that function well and have well adjusted children in it.
cueball
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Why are SEALS, RANGERS, and so forth, some of the toughest and brightest individuals on this planet? Because someone was nice to them? Treated them to milk and cookies?
Violence, when applied intelligently, is one of the best (if not the best) motivators of men.
Want men and women instead of punks and sluts? Quit treating those who show potential to become punks/sluts nicely. We’re doing them no favor by being kind and understanding, when a good beating is what’s needed.[/quote]
so then why are gangbangers and other residents of violent neighborhoods some of the most maladjusted people around? ‘Intelligently applied violence’ is a slippery slope
[quote]blueknight wrote:
The law is pretty clear cut here. Since the student slapped the teacher once, the teacher should have had the kid arrested and charged with battery. In most states it’s a felony. Had the kid continued slapping or striking the teacher he would have been justified in defending himself by striking back or terminating the threat.
However the teacher’s life was not in danger at this point so he has no “legal” justification for any self defense and most likely acted out of anger. When the point of escalation occurred by the teacher he committed the child abuse on the student, hence his arrest.
It’s a sad state of classroom affairs when teachers are no longer respected. But that goes to parenting and teaching the child at a young age about morals, values and respect.[/quote]
Sorry, but you’re wrong. Someone doesn’t even have to hit you in the first place for you to be justified in defending yourself. If a reasonable person would expect a physical threat from someone then they are legally justified in defending themselves. The fact that the kid already hit him goes above and beyond that.
And this IS teaching the kid. “If you hit someone prepare to get your ass handed to you” is something this kid obviously didn’t know and could end up getting him killed. Also the lesson of “If you’re going to hit someone don’t be a bitch and slap, fists are much more effective”.
I vote Teacher of the year
[quote]JonP wrote:
blueknight wrote:
The law is pretty clear cut here. Since the student slapped the teacher once, the teacher should have had the kid arrested and charged with battery. In most states it’s a felony. Had the kid continued slapping or striking the teacher he would have been justified in defending himself by striking back or terminating the threat.
However the teacher’s life was not in danger at this point so he has no “legal” justification for any self defense and most likely acted out of anger. When the point of escalation occurred by the teacher he committed the child abuse on the student, hence his arrest.
It’s a sad state of classroom affairs when teachers are no longer respected. But that goes to parenting and teaching the child at a young age about morals, values and respect.
Sorry, but you’re wrong. Someone doesn’t even have to hit you in the first place for you to be justified in defending yourself. If a reasonable person would expect a physical threat from someone then they are legally justified in defending themselves. The fact that the kid already hit him goes above and beyond that.
And this IS teaching the kid. “If you hit someone prepare to get your ass handed to you” is something this kid obviously didn’t know and could end up getting him killed. Also the lesson of “If you’re going to hit someone don’t be a bitch and slap, fists are much more effective”.
I vote Teacher of the year
[/quote]
No you are mistaken. After the student shoved the teacher at this point he should have contacted police and had him arrested. The physical contact had ceased and there was no continued violence so there is no element of fear. Once the teacher slapped the student or retaliated for the shove he became a mutual combatant and was subject to arrest.
All schools in the US have guidelines against striking students. Every effort must be made to try and restrain them and only if there is continued physical violence or harm to your person can you justifiably hit them back.
Just like police officers teachers are held to a higher standard and must exemplify good judgement. No matter what you believe it is never ok to glorify violence on anyone…especially children.
Good for the teacher. I’m on his side.
[quote]blueknight wrote:
No you are mistaken. After the student shoved the teacher at this point he should have contacted police and had him arrested. The physical contact had ceased and there was no continued violence so there is no element of fear. Once the teacher slapped the student or retaliated for the shove he became a mutual combatant and was subject to arrest.
All schools in the US have guidelines against striking students. Every effort must be made to try and restrain them and only if there is continued physical violence or harm to your person can you justifiably hit them back.
Just like police officers teachers are held to a higher standard and must exemplify good judgement. No matter what you believe it is never ok to glorify violence on anyone…especially children.[/quote]
You bring up a good point even though I respectfully disagree. I do believe the teacher’s actions were justified in my book, but I do not think they should be glorified by any means. So no. I don’t think he should get teacher of the year.
I went to a strict all boy Catholic school where I have seen some kids hit a couple of times and looking back IMHO it was justified given the situation.
[quote]Hagar wrote:
blueknight wrote:
No you are mistaken. After the student shoved the teacher at this point he should have contacted police and had him arrested. The physical contact had ceased and there was no continued violence so there is no element of fear. Once the teacher slapped the student or retaliated for the shove he became a mutual combatant and was subject to arrest.
All schools in the US have guidelines against striking students. Every effort must be made to try and restrain them and only if there is continued physical violence or harm to your person can you justifiably hit them back.
Just like police officers teachers are held to a higher standard and must exemplify good judgement. No matter what you believe it is never ok to glorify violence on anyone…especially children.
You bring up a good point even though I respectfully disagree. I do believe the teacher’s actions were justified in my book, but I do not think they should be glorified by any means. So no. I don’t think he should get teacher of the year.
I went to a strict all boy Catholic school where I have seen some kids hit a couple of times and looking back IMHO it was justified given the situation.[/quote]
I can appreciate your opinion. I’m not justifying the student’s actions. Obviously he’s in that school for some type of delinquent behavior. However my statements are based solely on the facts of law of which I have a vast amount of experience in.
[quote]blueknight wrote:
I can appreciate your opinion. I’m not justifying the student’s actions. Obviously he’s in that school for some type of delinquent behavior. However my statements are based solely on the facts of law of which I have a vast amount of experience in.
[/quote]
Those laws seem reasonable to an extent yet my perspective comes from a moral point of view rather than a legal one. If some kid slaps a teacher and the teacher punches him 3 times there are less chances of that happening again. I imagine that behavior would improve which would be more beneficial to the children in the long run.
[quote]Hagar wrote:
blueknight wrote:
I can appreciate your opinion. I’m not justifying the student’s actions. Obviously he’s in that school for some type of delinquent behavior. However my statements are based solely on the facts of law of which I have a vast amount of experience in.
Those laws seem reasonable to an extent yet my perspective comes from a moral point of view rather than a legal one. If some kid slaps a teacher and the teacher punches him 3 times there are less chances of that happening again. I imagine that behavior would improve which would be more beneficial to the children in the long run.
[/quote]
Laws are enacted to protect everyone. Morally the teacher exemplified violence by his behavior. Ethically he violated his code of conduct. But we all have to live by the actions we choose. I seriously doubt that this one incident will change the student’s outlook on perpetuating violence or respecting others.
Incorrigible acts can only be changed by behavior modification. When it’s not then accumulative negative behavior usually results in prison. Crime committed by those under the age of 18 has increased severely over the past decade. There is no one answer to everything but again morals, values and ethics have to be taught at a young age and reinforced throughout the child’s development.
[quote]blueknight wrote:
Laws are enacted to protect everyone. Morally the teacher exemplified violence by his behavior. Ethically he violated his code of conduct. But we all have to live by the actions we choose. I seriously doubt that this one incident will change the student’s outlook on perpetuating violence or respecting others.
Incorrigible acts can only be changed by behavior modification. When it’s not then accumulative negative behavior usually results in prison. Crime committed by those under the age of 18 has increased severely over the past decade. There is no one answer to everything but again morals, values and ethics have to be taught at a young age and reinforced throughout the child’s development.
[/quote]
True that laws are enacted to protect. Most of the time its everyone but I don’t think everyone deserves protection in certain situations. Also laws can interfere with personal liberties. Take probation for example. Enacted to protect the people yet it was a total failure. They still wanted to drink and they did but now they were breaking the law and it wasn’t as safe with all the gangster crime and bathtub gin that made you blind.
Some laws make it so people can’t protect themselves or their property. A shop lifter came into a friends store a few weeks ago and stole a $100 necklace. She caught it on camera but its not shoplifting till you walk out of the store with it but once they leave there’s nothing you can do. She called the cops but legally they couldn’t do anything. In essence the law is protecting the bad guys more than the good. It is legally right but I believe this is morally wrong.
[quote]blueknight wrote:
No you are mistaken. After the student shoved the teacher at this point he should have contacted police and had him arrested. The physical contact had ceased and there was no continued violence so there is no element of fear. Once the teacher slapped the student or retaliated for the shove he became a mutual combatant and was subject to arrest.
All schools in the US have guidelines against striking students. Every effort must be made to try and restrain them and only if there is continued physical violence or harm to your person can you justifiably hit them back.
Just like police officers teachers are held to a higher standard and must exemplify good judgement. No matter what you believe it is never ok to glorify violence on anyone…especially children.[/quote]
And how would you know the violence is over and there is nothing to fear now? You’re just assuming someone that has pushed you will do nothing more and is done. Sorry, but that’s not how it works.
There’s no number of times someone has to hit you for it to be acceptable to defend yourself, and you have no way of seeing into the future and knowing for a fact they aren’t going to hit you anymore. The fact that he pushed him in the first place means he was willing to be physical and therefore it is reasonable for the teacher to feel threatened and to defend himself. Legally the teacher was completely justified.
As for school guidelines, those have little to do with the law and even with what’s right. There was a school in the news recently that had a policy that you weren’t allowed to call 911 under any circumstances because 911 calls could be traced back to them and it would hurt their “statistics”. Then a young girl had a stroke and since they wouldn’t call 911 she has permanent brain damage.
And like I said with restraining people, I’ve had to do it enough times that I know you will never be able to restrain a determined person by yourself without hurting someone, ever.
[quote]JonP wrote:
blueknight wrote:
No you are mistaken. After the student shoved the teacher at this point he should have contacted police and had him arrested. The physical contact had ceased and there was no continued violence so there is no element of fear. Once the teacher slapped the student or retaliated for the shove he became a mutual combatant and was subject to arrest.
All schools in the US have guidelines against striking students. Every effort must be made to try and restrain them and only if there is continued physical violence or harm to your person can you justifiably hit them back.
Just like police officers teachers are held to a higher standard and must exemplify good judgement. No matter what you believe it is never ok to glorify violence on anyone…especially children.
And how would you know the violence is over and there is nothing to fear now? [/quote]
Just like you I base my account on the newspaper article. The student shoved the teacher who then slapped the student. Once the teacher was shoved he should have ceased any further action and called police. The sergeant in the article states neither was justified in their actions and he would have first hand knowledge unlike us.
[quote]
There’s no number of times someone has to hit you for it to be acceptable to defend yourself, and you have no way of seeing into the future and knowing for a fact they aren’t going to hit you anymore. [/quote]
Actually there is. If a person hits you once and walks away the threat has ceased. If you encounter that person in a physical altercation you are now susceptible to arrest as well. If a person hits you and cocks his hand back then obviously you know he will strike you again and the threat has not ended. You are now legally justified to defend yourself.
[quote]
Legally the teacher was completely justified.[/quote]
Obviously not true since he was arrested for striking the student.
[quote]
As for school guidelines, those have little to do with the law and even with what’s right. [/quote]
It’s irrelevant that guidelines have anything to do with the law. Guidelines are in place for almost every profession and they dictate the behavior and ethics of a person. That is how every facet of employment works.
I’ve restrained numerous people on my own with neither myself or them being hurt. However I have extensive training in defensive techniques but the point is it can be done.