Kid Attacked in School By Teacher Making $95,202 a year

Originally posted by ColeYounger
The thing I find most entertaining about these accounts is that the offenders (in this case, the kid) are always portrayed as innocent victims. Wonderful little angels who never did anything wrong in their lives.
If 2 pictures are found of the kid, one where they look like a little darling, and one where they may be scowling, frowning or trying to look cool or tough, guess which one gets published?

Why not just Photoshop a halo around the kid's head?

I actually saw a story a while back that featured a 17-year old kid (probably a violent psychopath) who had been arrested for an extremely violent assault on a store clerk. The kid was stealing merchandise and when the clerk confronted them, the kid nearly beat them to death.

Reporters printed a photo of the kid in the newspaper. It was a couple years old. The kid was attending church wearing a Boy Scout uniform. The brat's grandmother said: "He's such a good boy.They must have done something to start it."

"They" must have done something

That's exactly what they do!

I'm not sure which is worse, the media outlets that do those things or the people who fall for them

Originally posted by WhisperingWinds

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
reply to post by WhisperingWinds

 

If you want to stick to your opinion, that's fine, but leave others to formulate their own.
I gave a second by second summation of my opinion of it, you had the same opportunity then backed out beccause you were afraid your opinion might be changed. That's on you, not anyone else.

You want to argue and that's about the sum of it, you can argue with someone else because it's clear you don't want to look at it objectively nor do you want to give anyone else the opportunity to do so.

It seems clear that you don't want to let me have my opinion after seeing this video at least 12 times, without a play by play summation. That's on you..

I was never afraid my opinion would be changed, and that's just another example of how you assume. How sad.

I have given key points about certain things happening, and because I have chosen not to get into a long time consuming process of the whole video via text, play by play, you accuse me of being afraid to change my mind?

I just don't like seeing your manipulation of others, when its quite clear what the video shows, without having to see it countless times, and reporting a play by play summation.

Your assumptions and twisting of the truth is as scary as this security guard to me, and it worries me for our youth when I see people in authoritative positions in schools have that attitude and mindset.

edit on 5-7-2012 by WhisperingWinds because: (no reason given)

Quite frankly, I don't believe you.

I also question your judgement and perception. I am free to do that.

I don't have to go along with everything you want to believe, I'm able to view it in an objective way and see more than one side to it as opposed to going by exactly what they tell me to believe.

I've been to those places, I've seen things like this happen and what I saw on the video was not only justified, the adult, the Dean of Security, acted properly and with great restraint.

If you choose not to see that, then so be it, but don't expect others to fall in line just because you want them to.

If you are so determined to bring about changes, then why are you not working in the schools? If this is such an important issue for you and you feel that something has to be done, why aren't you doing it? It's easy to be an armchair quarterback, it's not so easy getting in there, rolling up your sleeves and making a difference.

reply to post by WhisperingWinds


Is that not a picture of the kid in the OP, looking like a sweet little Cherub?

Originally posted by ColeYounger
reply to post by WhisperingWinds

 

Is that not a picture of the kid in the OP, looking like a sweet little Cherub?

So they are supposed to use a picture of him grimacing ?

So now they are accused of trying to call this boy a 'sweet little cherub" because they used a pic of him smiling?

When does the madness stop .

Will it take a similar event happening to a child you care about ? A student you perhaps hold in high regard , but who doesn't like being grabbed aggressively ?

The kid's card didn't swipe correctly, he went back to get the card after being initially sent away , to give to the first man he was talking to.

He reacted by pulling his arm away when he was aggressively grabbed by the second man .

This scenario could easily go down with a student that you knew to be a "good kid" , and someone who generally didn't cause trouble.

At the end of the video, it actually appears like some female teacher could be looking on showing great concern for this kid, but that is subject to interpretation.

The obvious excessive violence isn't subject to interpretation , as it is quite clear who was the instigator, and aggressor that resulted in the child fighting back at some point.

Originally posted by WhisperingWinds

Originally posted by ColeYounger
reply to post by WhisperingWinds

 

Is that not a picture of the kid in the OP, looking like a sweet little Cherub?

So they are supposed to use a picture of him grimacing ?

So now they are accused of trying to call this boy a 'sweet little cherub" because they used a pic of him smiling?

When does the madness stop .

Will it take a similar event happening to a child you care about ? A student you perhaps hold in high regard , but who doesn't like being grabbed aggressively ?

The kid's card didn't swipe correctly, he went back to get the card after being initially sent away , to give to the first man he was talking to.

He reacted by pulling his arm away when he was aggressively grabbed by the second man .

This scenario could easily go down with a student that you knew to be a "good kid" , and someone who generally didn't cause trouble.

At the end of the video, it actually appears like some female teacher could be looking on showing great concern for this kid, but that is subject to interpretation.

The obvious excessive violence isn't subject to interpretation , as it is quite clear who was the instigator, and aggressor that resulted in the child fighting back at some point.

And my opinion is that the female was looking on thinking "did he just say he was going to come shoot up the school?? I hope the Dean stops him!"

The instigator was the teenager, the Dean didn't pull him, he actually moved closer to him and didn't let go of his arm so he could run and get his glock... so he started flailing around and fighting and the Dean kept hold of his arm and tried to keep his balance.

You keep telling other people their interpretation is wrong and they're reading into it, then you turn around and read into it and give your own interpretation (an incorrect one at that).

The audio was left off for a reason, they couldn't twist it with the audio in it, so they took it out. The cameras at schools have both audio and video, I know, I've seen them for years, they removed it on purpose.

reply to post by PurpleChiten

The audio was left off for a reason, they couldn't twist it with the audio in it, so they took it out. The cameras at schools have both audio and video, I know, I've seen them for years, they removed it on purpose.

More assumptions.

The school could have taken the audio out for fear of serious lawsuits. They couldn't completely destroy the tape, because that would just show inept security.

I'm going to try and dig as to why the audio is unavailable . My intuition tells me it was purposely done by school officials for fear of further incriminating evidence against the officials.

Looks like we have to agree to disagree, until the 'real" truth can be dug up.

The mother speaks out on this one , and she doesn't claim her boy is a little"angel", but does say the school lied to her, and she was shocked after seeing video.



Happy to see the event is under investigation .

Why won't people stop assuming they know exactly what happened in the film. There is no audio, you don't know what he said, if anything. With that in mind anything else you say that is related to if there 'was' audio should remain in your head.

Assuming he is already violent because a clerk somewhere else was beaten by a violent teen, come on people.

You are purposely going off track to sway opinions. This is about the excessive use of force. Not discipline. Not two adolescents from the UK murdering an infant. Not a non-related violent take down of a clerk... We don't know this kids history, we don't know what he said, was said to him, but whom in chronological order got physical first, the Security Dean. Even had a few tables on his side.

You can't say the teen deserved what he got for running his mouth, you didn't here him run his mouth. Oh oh no wait, they purposely left the audio out, couldn't be possible it was security camera that had no audio recording capabilities?

All we have is footage, your assumptions of the conversations between the people, and one person, yes one person responsible for igniting the physical part of the footage. Even if the child ran his mouth, the security dean should have been smart and mature enough to handle the situation without EXCESSIVE FORCE.

Like you I can assume and be completely incorrect about the non audible part of the footage. See what I heard was the Security Dean smart mouth the child, tell him if he moves he would break his arm, then the lady says, "woah! calm down security man", for him to say back,"I will smack your # up later if you don't shut your mouth". The child in complete fear then tries to get away but the security dude comes through on his threat.

See what I did there, I hope so.

Excessive force. Plain and simple. Not discipline. Excessive.

ex·ces·sive/ikˈsesiv/
Adjective: More than is necessary, normal, or desirable; immoderate.

In sentence: The Security Dean used excessive force to detain a child whom only fought back in accordance to his shocked surprise at the deans physical instigation. The excessive handling of the situation can be seen via footage that shows the successful use of a desk, table and fist on the student. Understandably the deterioration of youth within the states has lead to security upgrades into schools, creating a totalitarian nanny state not afraid of using physical force, which is never seen as excessive by supporters. Unfortunately all youth are now considered evil and harmful to all and detained on sight for further processing.

Originally posted by WhisperingWinds
The mother speaks out on this one , and she doesn't claim her boy is a little"angel", but does say the school lied to her, and she was shocked after seeing video.

Happy to see the event is under investigation .

edit on 5-7-2012 by WhisperingWinds because: (no reason given)

PurpleChiten why did the school have to lie if they weren't in the wrong? Sounded like the lying is trying to cover something up. Hrmmmmm, light-bulb moment.

Originally posted by WhisperingWinds
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

The audio was left off for a reason, they couldn't twist it with the audio in it, so they took it out. The cameras at schools have both audio and video, I know, I've seen them for years, they removed it on purpose.

More assumptions.

The school could have taken the audio out for fear of serious lawsuits. They couldn't completely destroy the tape, because that would just show inept security.

I'm going to try and dig as to why the audio is unavailable . My intuition tells me it was purposely done by school officials for fear of further incriminating evidence against the officials.

Looks like we have to agree to disagree, until the 'real" truth can be dug up.

you reply with "more assumptions" then proceed to make outrageous assumptions of your own???

The school didn't change anything, they're not allowed. The "news source" that isn't a news source changed it, they were the only ones legally able to do so.

reply to post by Strainz

PurpleChiten why did the school have to lie if they weren't in the wrong? Sounded like the lying is trying to cover something up. Hrmmmmm, light-bulb moment.

No kiddiing , which is why I feel that perhaps it was the school who was behind erasing the audio, but I don't know that for sure.

Because Chitan seems to be adamant about all schools having audio with their security tape, and it was obviously 'erased' by the those who wanted to sway against the school, I took the stance that it could very well have been the school who erased it for reasons of coverup.

Whatever the audio is, it is clear excessive force was used.

Originally posted by WhisperingWinds
reply to post by Strainz

 

PurpleChiten why did the school have to lie if they weren't in the wrong? Sounded like the lying is trying to cover something up. Hrmmmmm, light-bulb moment.

No kiddiing , which is why I feel that perhaps it was the school who was behind erasing the audio, but I don't know that for sure.

Because Chitan seems to be adamant about all schools having audio with their security tape, and it was obviously 'erased' by the those who wanted to sway against the school, I took the stance that it could very well have been the school who erased it for reasons of coverup.

Whatever the audio is, it is clear excessive force was used.

The school isn't allowed, by law, to erase it, the fake news source erased it and the only excessive force was perpetrated by the teen, not the Dean of Security who was trying to legally hold him there.

reply to post by PurpleChiten

you reply with "more assumptions" then proceed to make outrageous assumptions of your own??? The school didn't change anything, they're not allowed.
The "news source" that isn't a news source changed it, they were the only ones legally able to do so.

So, you are telling me that schools always do it the legal way?

You could very well be right that the media did it, but for what reasons we don't know.

As far as assumptions, I don't come out and say "its obvious" why they took it out, but simply propose that thought to counter your claim that it was taken out for manipulating purposes by media. If it was taken out by media , it could have something to do with strong language content, and legally couldn't be aired.

We just don't know at this point. I do hope they have the original audio, because it could be tampered with by school officials before submission to the investigation. Not saying that it is a likelihood, but in this day and age I wouldn't put it past officials to twist the truth, just to cover their asses.

I just did an internet search and found more recent articles from much more reputable sources and suggest you do the same. (not posting them here because I'm not doing your homework for you)

Other stories aren't as skewed as the obviously biased source that was cited (you can search it too and see just how biased it is)

The Dean of Security is still employed at the school district
The mother is suing for 5.3 million dollars
A thorough investigation is taking place
The school is comfortable that the lawsuit will be dismissed
The school is not aware of why the audio was deleted

Lots of things going on here, lots of news sources, both real and fake, reporting on it.... The tides are turning in favor of the school and the truth of the matter.

DailyNews hasn't done any followup, a common method they use after they sensationalize and distort something... and they don't offer a retraction page for us to see....that I've found yet... if they do, this will surely be on it.

ETA: found the retraction page finally.... over 1145 retractions made... imgaine that...

reply to post by PurpleChiten


I'll be the first to admit, I have problems with searching things, but that aside, I still think it was excessive violence.

Not a big surprise the dean still has his job, and not a big surprise the mom was manipulated by lawyers to go for a ridiculous some of damages. They are money hounds and will use and angry mother to get as much as they can.

The tides can turn all they want, the video speaks for itself.

It was excessive force..plain and simple
(in my opinion )
however the ruling turns out.

Originally posted by WhisperingWinds
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

I'll be the first to admit, I have problems with searching things, but that aside, I still think it was excessive violence.

Not a big surprise the dean still has his job, and not a big surprise the mom was manipulated by lawyers to go for a ridiculous some of damages. They are money hounds and will use and angry mother to get as much as they can.

The tides can turn all they want, the video speaks for itself.

It was excessive force..plain and simple, however the ruling turns out.

be sure to add "in my opinion" to that instead of just stating it as though it is a proven fact because it is only your opinion, not absolute fact and definitely not my opinion

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

be sure to add "in my opinion" to that instead of just stating it as though it is a proven fact because it is only your opinion, not absolute fact and definitely not my opinion

You said this kid was threatening to shoot up the place with no such disclaimer.
One has to wonder why you like to make up things and then attempt to police everyone else.

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

be sure to add "in my opinion" to that instead of just stating it as though it is a proven fact because it is only your opinion, not absolute fact and definitely not my opinion

You said this kid was threatening to shoot up the place with no such disclaimer.
One has to wonder why you like to make up things and then attempt to police everyone else.

No, I said that's what I saw as a possibility, not that he absolutely did or didn't. Big difference.

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

be sure to add "in my opinion" to that instead of just stating it as though it is a proven fact because it is only your opinion, not absolute fact and definitely not my opinion

You said this kid was threatening to shoot up the place with no such disclaimer.
One has to wonder why you like to make up things and then attempt to police everyone else.

No, I said that's what I saw as a possibility, not that he absolutely did or didn't. Big difference.

reply to post by PurpleChiten

I also question your judgement and perception. I am free to do that.

As I am free to judge yours.



By chiten from another post

You want to argue and that's about the sum of it, you can argue with someone else because it's clear you don't want to look at it objectively nor do you want to give anyone else the opportunity to do so.

I viewed it at least a dozen times, trying to be objective, and still came to the same conclusion. How have I taken the opportunity away from anyone one else who wants to. I wasn't trying to argue, just simply pointing out that your comment "After several views, it looks more that the adult isn't being agressive at all but the teen is." could be considered biased, and by suggesting that if someone watched the video numerous times,they would change their minds.

By chitan from another post

Actually, about 90% of the people who have commented have agreed that the Dean of Security was right in what he did. The two of you and perhaps one or two others are still trying to say he was abused and he wasn't.

This has already been addressed, but could be considered an example of how you exaggerate to try and prove your point.. Not even close to 90% !..and it actually looks like like its less than 50%.


I'll back off from debating this issue with you, because its senseless, unless of course I see you give other members a hard time, and use exaggerated persuasions to try and prove your point.