Assaults allowed?

[tired]

http://www.baltimoreexaminer.com/local/ ... 45634.html

I guess kids can now beat up public school teachers. Baltimore City politicians and judges are just as crooked as the street level thugs.

[dwayner79]

Why in the world is a teacher playing rap music in her class... were they studying different cultures?

[tired]

It is Baltimore city schools. Anything goes here in B-more.

[bzmomo7]

You know, it stands out to me about that music, too, and also that there is no mention in the article of a large number of character witnesses who would testify that Mrs. Berry would never use such aweful language ever and especially in a classroom. Sounds to me as if there are BIG problems on both sides of the case.

[tired]

The whole thing to me is that a teacher was attacked and the class did nothing but cheered and took video. Then when the court day happens the school adminstrators come and say the teacher was wrong for putting her hands on the student who wasn't listening. I am in agreement the teacher wouldn't line up with our standards of a proper teacher, but these days most public school teachers are like this women. I just can't believe they have the attack on video and the student still got off. I went to public high school and I wouldn't have dreamed of touching my teachers for fear of getting knotted up. That is all I am saying. The teacher was a poor excuse for a teacher but if they allow kids to get away with this they will continue to do this stuff nationwide.

[1Timothy115]

The whole thing to me is that a teacher was attacked and the class did nothing but cheered and took video. Then when the court day happens the school adminstrators come and say the teacher was wrong for putting her hands on the student who wasn't listening. I am in agreement the teacher wouldn't line up with our standards of a proper teacher' date=' but these days most public school teachers are like this women. I just can't believe they have the attack on video and the student still got off. I went to public high school and I wouldn't have dreamed of touching my teachers for fear of getting knotted up. That is all I am saying. The teacher was a poor excuse for a teacher but if they allow kids to get away with this they will continue to do this stuff nationwide.[/quote']

There appear to be two standards at risk here. 1st standard of "free-thinking" taught in public schools to children is at risk if the judge and all involved side with the teacher. 2nd standard of "new-age" classroom philosophy for non-authoritative instruction. There was just too much at risk for this liberal judge and the liberal school staff to rule in favior of the teacher. A favorable ruling for the teacher would have caused serious scruntiny which the National Education Association (NEA) could not afford. Public education is about to receive a massive injection of cash...so, no bad press.

[no name joe]

Based on the story, I've got to say the judge did the right thing.

To convict someoneo of a crime, the evidnece must be "clear and convincing." Clear and convincing evidence is the higher level of burden of persuasion sometimes employed in the U.S. civil procedure. To prove something by "clear and convincing evidence", the party with the burden of proof must convince the trier of fact that it is substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true.

In this case, it is unclear whether the teacher provoked the student or not. The entire situation is sad and reprehensible, but the evidnece appears to be divided. When the evidence is divided like that, then a person is found not guilty of a crime.

The school can still expell the student, and should do so. But to have a criminal conviction, the evidence has to be very strong. Sure the evidence is clear that the student beat the teacher, but we do not know what happened before that....if the teacher called the student a ghetto bitch and threatened the student as the story indicates, then the attack may have been provoked, and the actoins do not meet the definition fo a criminal assault, which requires in general an unprovoked attack.

What needs to happen now is the teacher needs to sue the student in civil court, where there is a much lower standard of proof. There is adequate proof from what I read to win a civil suit and recover damages.

[JerryNumbers]

Lets face it, public schools is no longer a good place for children, especially Christians children, not that it was ever a great place for those who love God and His ways.

[tired]

Kind- So if someone calls me a name I can beat them down. And nice language on a christian site. :lol

[1Timothy115]

Lets face it' date=' public schools is no longer a good place for children, especially Christians children, not that it was ever a great place for those who love God and His ways.[/quote']

Exactly. Those yellow buses we see on the roads packed with children, are going off for indoctrination in "free-thinking." Google "Freethinkers" to have an understanding of it. Before you search go here...
http://www.teachingaboutreligion.com/

Radical-terrorist Islam child indoctrination tactics could easily be paralleled with the public education system.

[bzmomo7]

Based on the story, I've got to say the judge did the right thing.

To convict someoneo of a crime, the evidnece must be "clear and convincing." Clear and convincing evidence is the higher level of burden of persuasion sometimes employed in the U.S. civil procedure. To prove something by "clear and convincing evidence", the party with the burden of proof must convince the trier of fact that it is substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true.

In this case, it is unclear whether the teacher provoked the student or not. The entire situation is sad and reprehensible, but the evidnece appears to be divided. When the evidence is divided like that, then a person is found not guilty of a crime.

The school can still expell the student, and should do so. But to have a criminal conviction, the evidence has to be very strong. Sure the evidence is clear that the student beat the teacher, but we do not know what happened before that....if the teacher called the student a ghetto bitch and threatened the student as the story indicates, then the attack may have been provoked, and the actoins do not meet the definition fo a criminal assault, which requires in general an unprovoked attack.

What needs to happen now is the teacher needs to sue the student in civil court, where there is a much lower standard of proof. There is adequate proof from what I read to win a civil suit and recover damages.

Whether or not the teacher verbally provoked the student is NOT good enough for that judge to NOT convict the student of assault is it? If that were the only issue, I believe the judge was wrong; however, the article said that there were some students who said the teacher threw the first punch and some who sided with the teacher, and likewise those who said the teacher verbally provoked and those who denied it. Apparently, the judge could not tell if the teacher had actually physically provoked the student or not. If that is the way it happened, then I would side with the judge, but ONLY if the teacher actually tried to punch the student. Obviously, some people are lying on one side or the other (or both, who knows!) I'm not sure what our gov't plans to do with these messes called public schools that they've created. In some ways, it is almost humerous because they caused this problem when they took away corporal punishment and authority. A teacher should be able to not only tell a student with authority to do something, but be able to have someone physically come down and remove them from the classroom, if necessary, without having to resort to calling the police. These are children...........they just need to bring back the board of education like they had when we were little, and parents of this generation need to grow a backbone.

[deafnva77]

two wrongs doesn't make it right.

I believe the teacher should have been fired.. but the student handled it wrong. She know the teacher could get fire for saying such thing and should have reported it. But this student apparently have an "acting out in anger" aggressive issue.

I do know that some kids are being taught at home that anyone bully them or call them names, they punch them and that should end it. (My hubby believes this) But they also taught to respect the elders, no matter how mean they are.


The only time to get violence is when you are trying to defend yourself. Everything else are just opinionated words by stupid people who think their opinion is worthy.

[bzmomo7]

two wrongs doesn't make it right.

I believe the teacher should have been fired.. but the student handled it wrong. She know the teacher could get fire for saying such thing and should have reported it. But this student apparently have an "acting out in anger" aggressive issue.

I do know that some kids are being taught at home that anyone bully them or call them names, they punch them and that should end it. (My hubby believes this) But they also taught to respect the elders, no matter how mean they are.


The only time to get violence is when you are trying to defend yourself. Everything else are just opinionated words by stupid people who think their opinion is worthy.

:amen:

[kevinmiller]

Sounds like Baltimore. There are a lot of people there who act like they're animals. But why should we be surprised when a bunch of idiots decided that teachers and principals couldn't lay a finger on their students when they deserve it? Students should fear the teachers, but who cares about authority anymore? I'm glad I work in a country that, for the time being, has preserved the authority of teachers in the classroom. Wonder why there's so much less crime here... :bonK:

[tired]

:goodpost: