It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Video of Student-Principal Scuffle Released

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
That kid should stopped dead in his tracks, and started up with the Yes Sirs, No Sirs, then he would not be getting his ass kicked.
This looks about rigth for a 14 year old with no discipline, and lack of respect.
This was going on 50 years, ago only difference the kid would have got his ass kicked again when he got home.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by googolplex]




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by googolplex
 



That kids should stopped dead in his tracks, and started up with the Yes Sirs, No Sirs, then he would not be getting his ass kicked.
This looks about rigth for a 14 year old with no discipline, and lack of respect.
This was going on 50 years, ago only difference the kid would have got his ass kicked again when he got home.


Yes and look at how good that generation has turned out. Look at the wonderful shape they have left our country in. I think we need to look at everything the generation of 50 years ago did and then do everything completely different because that generation is one of the main ones who dropped the ball for every generation that comes after them. The great American failure.

"The generation of 50 years ago, the ones who were so selfish they mortgaged their kids, grandkids and aft generation's future all the while growing up to disregard the Constitution and basically render it useless. The generation fail, the ones who traded the American dream for a basket of stupidity."



--airspoon



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 

Don't misunderstand me I beleivwe in general, humans suck, but if this kid had showed the respect that was due, and not been involved in filming a fight, he would not of needed to be took down.
Plus now a days you are not allowed to discipline your children.
But for you to say things are better ( or imply) than they were, 50 years ago, your wrong, go down the street nowdays a 7 year old will flip you off and tell you to get #ed.
The world's going to hell, and these kids don't get it.

And my generation the Hippies had the right ideal 50 years ago, or did you forget, Peace, Love, Stop the War, Get out of Nam.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by primus2012
If that were my son, he would've handed the cell phone to the principal and had me deal with it later.

There's more to the story than "poor innocent sweet good kid gets roughed up by principal". Assuming that the principal beats kid up in office is inflamatory.


For a person with an avatar that marches the hammers of oppression, it is either a complete surprise that you favor oppression or a complete paradox.

I dare you to accept being handled like that kid was, in a public place by someone with no legal authority to do so because you didn't hand over your phone. I'm betting you would be as outraged and demanding justice for your rights as any other person.

I have to agree with the posters saying "if this were my kid". I would have this person sued so fast the school board would be freaking out. You cannot teach a person that violence isn't a solution by exposing them to violence.
You want to change the way young people will be in the future, it starts here, in school, right now.

..Ex

[edit on 5/29/2010 by v3_exceed]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
reply to post by airspoon
 

Don't misunderstand me I beleivwe in general, humans suck, but if this kid had showed the respect that was due, and not been involved in filming a fight, he would not of needed to be took down.


This is exactly what the police are hoping for as well. That we the people will not film their actions or the actions of others, that we will simply not get involved. We don't know why the kid would be filming, maybe to put on you tube, maybe for evidence in a lawsuit. But to suggest he simply not participate is inane.



..Ex



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
If it was my kid, I would have had the principle hold him while I gave him a couple to the ribs. While I know the majority of people out there find my opinions abhorrent, I sleep well at night.

There needs to be repercussions for bad behaviour, and kids need to defer to adults. Period. Two generations of "respecting children's rights" and eliminating repercussions for bad behaviour have left us with the messed up societies we have now.

Bring back corporal punishment in schools.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snappahead
If it was my kid, I would have had the principle hold him while I gave him a couple to the ribs. While I know the majority of people out there find my opinions abhorrent, I sleep well at night.

There needs to be repercussions for bad behaviour, and kids need to defer to adults. Period. Two generations of "respecting children's rights" and eliminating repercussions for bad behaviour have left us with the messed up societies we have now.

Bring back corporal punishment in schools.


With the number of teachers being arrested for hidden cameras in the change rooms, sex with students, literally beating the students you are cheering for more school control.

The last thing we need is teachers having the authority to make up what ever stories they want to justify beating the crap out of the students at their leisure.

I have kids, they respect authority, and the LIMITS placed on that authority. No school will be strip searching my children, no principal forcing themselves on my daughters and MY property will not be confiscated by the school without my consent. Or had we all forget that junior high school kids can't sign contracts for cell phones; their parents do.

..Ex

p.s. before you cheer for scholastic achievement and authority, you might consider learning to spell.

..ex



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Sorry but I didnt see a "choke hold" here. The principal actually has the young man in what is called a half nelson. No cutting off of air, or blood, but it is rather uncomfortable.

I guess I am seeing things differently than most. What I saw was a principal who tried to direct a kid to go the other way. For what reason I do not know. The student does attempt to push the principal back, that is the reason for the escalation into a physical confrontation.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Oppression is not having to do what you are told even though you don't like it. It is not being drug to the principals office by force because you were being bad, throwing a fit, rebelling against authority because your adolescent thinking said you had the right to.

Should the principal have just let the kid go on about his business and thanked him or applauded him for his unruly behavior? Is that what parents are supposed to do? Oh look dear, our son is being a @#$% again, isn't that a wonderful way for him to act? I'm so proud.

Once that kid is 18 and tries that stuff with a lawman, and gets his butt kicked again and lands in jail with felony resisting arrest or felony assault on an officer, what is your opinion going to be? Probably something along the lines of "he should've been disciplined more as a kid".

He's a kid. Kids are in school and categorized as minors because they are supposed to be learning how life works. They aren't able to always make sound decisions. The principal was doing his duty and it got out of hand.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by primus2012
Oppression is not having to do what you are told even though you don't like it. It is not being drug to the principals office by force because you were being bad, throwing a fit, rebelling against authority because your adolescent thinking said you had the right to.


I saw the video, I didn't see the kid act out, or be bad in any way. What we have is the school defending the principals actions and claiming the kid acted out.


Originally posted by primus2012
Should the principal have just let the kid go on about his business and thanked him or applauded him for his unruly behavior? Is that what parents are supposed to do? Oh look dear, our son is being a @#$% again, isn't that a wonderful way for him to act? I'm so proud.


Again, from the story the kid simply didn't turn over his own property at the demand of the principal. So from what I gather, you wold just roll over if someone who had a very thin level of authority demanded your personal property? That is hardly unruly or acting out.


Originally posted by primus2012
Once that kid is 18 and tries that stuff with a lawman, and gets his butt kicked again and lands in jail with felony resisting arrest or felony assault on an officer, what is your opinion going to be? Probably something along the lines of "he should've been disciplined more as a kid".


Well, believe it or not, when a policeman demands you turn over your personal property, you have the right to refuse. All too often people give up their rights because it's easier. No one had a right to deprive you of your property without "due process". And what exactly did the kid do in the video? simply tried walking through a room.


Originally posted by primus2012
He's a kid. Kids are in school and categorized as minors because they are supposed to be learning how life works. They aren't able to always make sound decisions. The principal was doing his duty and it got out of hand.


The principal was abusing his authority. If you as an adult were to attack an other person, even a minor in this fashion, you would quickly find out how many rights the minor or other person actually has. You cannot teach a person violence is wrong by inflicting violence on them...this isn't hard to understand.

..Ex



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by v3_exceed

Originally posted by googolplex
reply to post by airspoon
 



This is exactly what the police are hoping for as well. That we the people will not film their actions or the actions of others, that we will simply not get involved. We don't know why the kid would be filming, maybe to put on you tube, maybe for evidence in a lawsuit. But to suggest he simply not participate is inane.



..Ex
Your promoting the fact that rather than to be a factor to stop this violence, he's going to promote it by filming it, like any upstanding person would.
I hope if your in that situation ever, someone stops to get pictures of someone getting their ass kicked, ratherr help stop the violence.
Your just making excuses for the punks lack of respect for authority.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by googolplex]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by v3_exceed

..Ex

p.s. before you cheer for scholastic achievement and authority, you might consider learning to spell.

..ex


I was just cheering for authority...



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex

Your promoting the fact that rather than to be a factor to stop this violence, he's going to promote it by filming it, like any upstanding person would.
I hope if your in that situation ever, someone stops to get pictures of someone getting their ass kicked, ratherr help stop the violence.
Your just making excuses for the punks lack of respect for authority.
[edit on 29-5-2010 by googolplex]


Well, since you put it that way, I'll respond in kind. In the event someone is stupid enough to try to kick my ass, I hope someone is astute enough to get pictures so I'll have some evidence for the lawsuit.

Your looking for any reason that the kid can be called a punk, and not actually comprehending the real situation at hand. The kid did NOTHING, but that doesn't matter, because he's a kid. I can only deduce that you were in fact bullied as a kid and now need to somehow gain your revenge on any kid no matter how innocent he might be. How petty indeed.

There simply isn't enough information to determine if this kid was a trouble maker of if he was being victimized by the principal for some other reason. It really doesn't matter though, he's a kid right, for all we know he tried to stop the violence and the principal promoted the violence. From what I saw in the video that principal should be charged with assault.

..Ex



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Here's the other and more than likely true side of the story:

The Vancouver Sun


CHERRY BROOK, N.S. — A skirmish between a junior high school principal and one of his students is yet again playing out publicly after footage of the incident was posted online.

Ken Fells, a 15-year employee of the Halifax Regional School Board, was removed from his post at Graham Creighton junior high school in Cherry Brook, N.S., after an altercation with a student on March 3.

The young male student allegedly took "inappropriate" photos of a female student on his cellphone, then refused to turn it over to teachers. When Fells was called over, the student again refused to comply and attempted to take off down the hall, causing the principal to forcibly stop him.

Residents in the tiny Nova Scotia community, located just northeast of Halifax, had rallied around Fells when news of the incident leaked out.

The minute-long video — footage from the school's surveillance camera — was posted Friday on YouTube by a regional magazine.

The school board had reportedly refused to release the footage previously.

It shows Fells blocking the student with his arm at the side of the hallway — with the student reacting by pushing back. The student then falls to the ground and Fells grabs him in a bearlike hug from behind, dragging him with some effort down the hall to the office.

A large group of students gather around the scene, with another boy at one point trying to intervene.

The school board has remained mum on Fells' case and the incident, calling it a "personnel matter," but details have trickled out through parents and students.

Last week, the board voted to shuffle the veteran educator out of that role, but did not fire him.

The RCMP has previously said it will not lay any charges.


Now how do you plead for the kid? The previous story was all based on what the kid's parents said. Would you rather the kid was not pursued in effort to obtain the pictures?



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by primus2012
Here's the other and more than likely true side of the story:

The Vancouver Sun
Now how do you plead for the kid? The previous story was all based on what the kid's parents said. Would you rather the kid was not pursued in effort to obtain the pictures?


Well, there are a few issues with the story.
1) it's in the Vancouver Sun, not entirely unbiased. Several excerpts from the artical indicate a bias on the side of the school.
2) it is "alleged" that the kid took "inappropriate" pictures of a female student.
3) the story freely admits the kid was assaulted by the principal, so principal should get a good lawyer.

None of the above justifies a student being assaulted for not turning over their own property. At no point is the principal justified in putting his hands on the student.

For example, you are at a "Home Hardware", a woman "alleges" you took inappropriate pictures of her on your cellphone. The store manager demands your phone. Do you turn it over or do you not? If not, you are then dragged into the back room by either a choke hold, or by a half nelson.

It really doesn't matter if you did take the picture or not, what matters is that you have been violently assaulted based on the unproven allegation of wrongdoing. In the real world, home hardware should call legal because they are about to get sued.

..Ex



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by primus2012
If that were my son, he would've handed the cell phone to the principal and had me deal with it later.

There's more to the story than "poor innocent sweet good kid gets roughed up by principal". Assuming that the principal beats kid up in office is inflamatory.

I'm not saying that the principal was doing 100% the right thing, but kids do need to learn how to obey rules and respect authority.

Society needs rules, enforcers of rules, and punishment for breaking the rules.

50yrs ago, this would be a non-issue. Society would not have been damaged. The kid would have learned a lesson, and the principal would have less trouble getting the cell phone from the next kid.


But, that's not how you would settle things if it was another adult. I'm not sure what the kid did, but it looks like he was just trying to get away from the guy.


Just think if a guy came up and grabbed you, threw you to the floor. That wouldn't be a lesson, it would be a crime, even 50 years ago. Just because he's younger doesn't justify it.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by primus2012
 


I don't even buy the story that the principal thought the kid had taken inappropriate pictures of a girl on his phone. That excuse was most likely used to foster emotion in an attempt to justify his actions. It was probably thought of, after the incident took place when they were wondering what defense would sound best. The other article said the boy was going to film a fight.

It sounds like a scenario drawn up by a lawyer. Who's going to argue against saving little innocent girls who could have been sexually violated and here this heroic principal was to save the day. Come on, this dude is a shill. I wouldn't be surprised if the principal himself had kiddy porn on his own phone.

Also, just because this principal suspected there was inappropriate material on this child's phone, doesn't mean that he can go around and search other people's property or person. The child should still have the right to due process.

It's a shame really, because this student was white, no one is screaming for justice. There won't be any riots, no mass gathering, no "Morning Show" air time or constant CNN coverage. No remark from Obama or Canadian officials. Basically, this principal will get away with it.

--airspoon



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by LordBucket
 


Two to three years of Brazilian Ju Jitsu training would have turned that encounter on its head quicker than snot. Ju Jitsu isn't Tae Kwon Do, JJ practitioners train for just the sort of encounter you saw in that video.

If some punk "authority figure" tries anything like that with me he may very well lose his arm.

My son is eight years old and already knows various arm bars and choke holds.

I agree with the poster suggesting JJ for your children.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by LordBucket
 





Frame of mind has more to do with it than training. Any random nobody in bad physical shape and with no training at all will easily beat your typical martial artist with 2-3 years of training...


Sorry but you have no clue what you're talking about. Proper live training in real martial arts (not fly swatting) is what creates proper frame of mind calmness and willingness to act. Repetition of proper technique under live training conditions creates what is called second nature reaction to attack. All people when in a real situation with adrenalin running will react without thinking based on training or lack of training. IOW what ever thier habit is; is what they will do. If they have no habit or lack training they will not know what to do and flail or grab and loose every time to someone who does provided the habit is proper technique, hence the reason for training.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by hawkiye]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Did anybody bother to read the story? It says exactly why this principal attacked this kid.

Here it is.


School fight

The incident started when Fells demanded Josh hand over his cellphone after the boy prepared to record a fight that was brewing in the school, the parents said.

The fight did not happen and the boy refused to hand over his phone, the parents said. He walked away and Fells followed, they said.

RCMP investigated the incident and no charges were laid.
...


From the original link given in the op.

The kid was preparing to film a fight that was apparently supposed to happen, and the principal apparently didn't know that the fight didn't occur, and somehow he found out this kid was going to be the one filming it.

The principal then demanded the kid to give over his cell phone, and the kid said no. Then you all know what happens.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join