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

Originally posted by WhisperingWinds
reply to post by Strainz

 

Note* I have previously stated showing this footage to others, a properly functioning brain would assimilate this with multiple viewings of the footage. Your inability to distinguish between excessive force and the lesser is mind boggling to say the least.

I love the way you articulate , and your posts are so refreshing to read.

I applaud you , and the others who you showed it to, who saw it for what it was.

edit on 3-7-2012 by WhisperingWinds because: (no reason given)

I see you've changed your avatar, have you had time to come up with the description of the scenes to support your stance? I know you said you were leaving the tread and I asked that if you did return to please provide that and you seemed to be in accordance with that...

So there you have it. The real reason to defend this kid and deny the adult his right to self defense is to bash Americans because all Americans are violent, every single one of them. That's just priceless.

Well if we're so violent then maybe you should just shut up and stop antagonizing us. Americans are not like you Europeans, stop demanding that we be like you, and allow us to be ourselves. You don't have to come over here if you don't like us. And to top it off, You're the ones who who made us violent in the first place, if you know your history. Every time we try to be peaceful, you guys drag us into your wars and then you get mad at us for being able to kick ass. Every time we want to be peaceful, some idiot bombs Pearl Harbor or WTC.

And people who say no physical actions should be never used on a kid for absolutely any reason what so ever has never had experienced with inner city youth who run around with gangs or other violent kids. Try restraining a kid when they're going after your genitals. Violent kids will use any dirty trick they can to beat you, the caring adult, senseless.

It saddens me that some people wish to deny other people the right to self defense just because of a kid.

This is a disgusting thread because all some people want to do is argue that a kid should be able to get away with anything they want to and break and rules and laws they want to just because they're a kid. That's absolutely disgusting. It's even more disgusting to say that an adult shouldn't have any kind of defense against a violent out of control kid because the kid is more special than the adult, so much so that the adult should lay down and let the kid cut out the adults' eyes with a knife and not resist any form of violence the kid will do against the and will use any measure of semantic bs to justify that stance.All in the name of being civilized, of course.

I have nothing more to say

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
So there you have it. The real reason to defend this kid and deny the adult his right to self defense is to bash Americans because all Americans are violent, every single one of them. That's just priceless.

Well if we're so violent then maybe you should just shut up and stop antagonizing us. Americans are not like you Europeans, stop demanding that we be like you, and allow us to be ourselves. You don't have to come over here if you don't like us. And to top it off, You're the ones who who made us violent in the first place, if you know your history. Every time we try to be peaceful, you guys drag us into your wars and then you get mad at us for being able to kick ass. Every time we want to be peaceful, some idiot bombs Pearl Harbor or WTC.

And people who say no physical actions should be never used on a kid for absolutely any reason what so ever has never had experienced with inner city youth who run around with gangs or other violent kids. Try restraining a kid when they're going after your genitals. Violent kids will use any dirty trick they can to beat you, the caring adult, senseless.

It saddens me that some people wish to deny other people the right to self defense just because of a kid.

This is a disgusting thread because all some people want to do is argue that a kid should be able to get away with anything they want to and break and rules and laws they want to just because they're a kid. That's absolutely disgusting. It's even more disgusting to say that an adult shouldn't have any kind of defense against a violent out of control kid because the kid is more special than the adult, so much so that the adult should lay down and let the kid cut out the adults' eyes with a knife and not resist any form of violence the kid will do against the and will use any measure of semantic bs to justify that stance.All in the name of being civilized, of course.

I have nothing more to say

The head of security is the aggressor and started the physicality of the confrontation, thus the child was defending himself. I stated the country is 'seen' as violent, I did not in any way say that all American's individually are violent.

War and child abuse are very different, but I guess I will touch on that subject also. Japan bombed Pearl Harbour and most likely due to USA closing its exports to the country. USA successfully separated from the Commonwealth and created a great constitution that is now becoming void and is not a direct result to the violence permitted within media and schools. WTC is being perceived as an inside job by more people everyday and could suggest the country was violent towards itself.

Adults use dirty tactics whilst fighting also and the video shown is clearly not the situation your describing, which 'would' justify an adult defending him or herself. Violence in adolescence can be linked to domestic violence within a family house hold, just as a side note.

Not everybody and possibly nobody (I have not had time to read every post, but please quote) is arguing that the child should be about to get away with anything, within a criminal realm of course, that's just your mind grasping at straws.

It seems you like to use 'fear tactics' so submit people to your regime of thoughts, even though they are becoming strayed and of poor taste within an inaccurate perception of the footage. Relating a violent assault with a knife and eyeballs to this video is insane.

You definitely should stop posting your hogwash, but that is just my opinion.

The head of security is not the aggressor it is the kid. You should stop posting your lies and dishonesty. That is precisely what the kid supporters are arguing.

Just another control freak rearing its ugly head.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


These two children are very upsetting, especially since they were relocated to my country. But indeed a post I shouldn't be shocked to see from you, with your irrelevant off topic tactics.

Not relevant to this thread at all, and by all means EvilSadamClone post a little more to say it is, even when it isn't.

Nice to see you try push your physical discipline angle with a murder, your going great lengths.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
The head of security is not the aggressor it is the kid. You should stop posting your lies and dishonesty. That is precisely what the kid supporters are arguing.

Just another control freak rearing its ugly head.

edit on 3-7-2012 by EvilSadamClone because: (no reason given)

Sorry who got physical first? Are we watching the same video. Explain to me my dishonesty and lies, as I am confused how that is related to my opinion of the assault and its definition.

You are precisely being ridiculous. Again, words do not constitute the right to physically abuse another person or child. Note the word abuse as it is not a synonym of discipline. The head of the security man handled the child, he is clearly seen starting the physical aspect of this confrontation.

Stop using absurdity to strengthen your stance, use your words boy.

reply to post by Strainz


You're the one being ridiculous and insulting. You're also trying to be control this argument so you can win and impose your agenda of denying the adult his right to self defense against a violent kid. now you're insulting me because I am indeed winning this argument and proving to the world that you are incredibly dishonest and full of lies.

I'm not being ridiculous, it is you.

And you are the one who cannot be objective, nor can you be honest. You can't see that in the video it is the kid who did the threatening first, but you don't care about that because to you and other retards who believe the same thing as you that a kid is just so special they can do anything they want to and an adult has to let them.

Piss off.

reply to post by Strainz


I wouldn't waste anymore time on this Strainz.

It is mind boggling as you say, how some people have twisted the reality of it.

Even more mind boggling how some who accuse others of name calling and mudslinging can accuse anyone who sees it differently of being dishonest, and full of lies.

Sad really

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by Strainz

 

You're the one being ridiculous and insulting. You're also trying to be control this argument so you can win and impose your agenda of denying the adult his right to self defense against a violent kid. now you're insulting me because I am indeed winning this argument and proving to the world that you are incredibly dishonest and full of lies.

I'm not being ridiculous, it is you.

And you are the one who cannot be objective, nor can you be honest. You can't see that in the video it is the kid who did the threatening first, but you don't care about that because to you and other retards who believe the same thing as you that a kid is just so special they can do anything they want to and an adult has to let them.

Piss off.

In actual fact I have never stated an adult should 'never' be allowed to defend him/herself from children. Although I have actually stated this video in particular shows an instance where the child 'supposedly' in accordance to your inaudible belief used 'words' to aggravate a highly trained individual that should of had the tenacity and experience to deal with the alleged (by you) verbal abuse but in reality did not resulting in a relentless assault via physical force.

It is clear that with the evidence presented, which is an inaudible clip, the first person to get physical is indeed the head of security, verbally abused or not. Not being in direct correlation with their being no sound. I am confused to what you are seeing and possibly hearing, as evidently no traditional or new age gestures were used to portray a threatening manner by the child. In fact the only threatening gesture I can see is the excessive force used by the physical instigator.

I can understand your stance in that some people can only retaliate with primal instincts to verbal abuse, but I would only expect that from an individual who is not working with children in a supposed and expected highly trained position.

It would also be appropriate that you are now twisting my comments inaccurately in what seems to be an attempt at destroying my credibility. Shame on you.

reply to post by WhisperingWinds


I agree with you WhisperingWinds. Although I really don't want these two to hijack the thread with their barbaric and inaccurate assumptions.

It doesn't matter what you state, it's called reading between the lines. You've been personally attacking the adult and lamenting about how he used violent means to restrain a kid. When you read between the lines, that's precisely what you are trying to argue, you're just not saying it directly because you know if you say it directly you can't win. It's an untenable position to deny this fact that the adult was acting properly as well as defending the other kids who could've been threatened by this violent kid.

And you do believe that an adult should never use violence under any circumstances.

So you don't have to say it. It's pretty obvious that you care more for children than adults.

You;re just using semantic bs to hide behind.

Anmd you're the one who's trying to twist my words to make me out to be a monster.

Originally posted by Strainz
reply to post by WhisperingWinds

 

I agree with you WhisperingWinds. Although I really don't want these two to hijack the thread with their barbaric and inaccurate assumptions.

Thats a great point, and I think they have scared off many who may be opposed to their view.

Thanks for interjecting your wisdom.. I know I have appreciated it so much..

Carry on, you're doing a great job explaining many things, and the arguments against you are just revealing how your sanity and position in this clearly wins !

I feel your becoming overtly agitated EvilSadam and I do not want to encourage people to view you as a monster, so I am going to monitor this thread, to see other peoples opinions on the matter at hand. I would appreciate you holding back on your opinion to also allow others to point out their views.

reply to post by Strainz


I have no wish to participate any further. You people have the popular opinion, and I have an unpopular opinion, and the popular opinion always tries to drown out the unpopular opinion any way they can.

I'm just incredibly frustrated with certain attitudes. They are:

It's never okay to use violence.

And

It's okay to verbally assault a person and antagonize them all to hell and back and they can't respond in self defense in any way.

I'm not violent, nor am I a pacifist, but I will only user violence in self defense, and only when I absolutely have to. I much prefer peaceful resolution. Pacifists can't understand that that some people will never respond to reason and platitudes and will do violence to them anyway.

I really do not understand these attitudes. Verbal assaults hurts just as much as a physical one, while it doesn't cause physical injury, it does cause psychological injury.

I can understand an aversion to physical injury, but it's wrong to ignore the fact that verbal assaults can hurt just as much.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone

It's okay to verbally assault a person and antagonize them all to hell and back and they can't respond in self defense in any way.

You are exaggerating your claims about others, and that's not fair. I didn't see this kid verbally assaulting anyone to hell and back. That was all assumption on your part.

I can understand an aversion to physical injury, but it's wrong to ignore the fact that verbal assaults can hurt just as much.

Yes they can hurt just as bad, and even worse. But that is not the point .

The point is these people in positions of high authority are TRAINED to deal with emotional outbursts , as well as physical outbursts. They are ADULTS dealing with kids, and there are appropriate ways outlined to deal with insubordination and outbursts. I don't feel the way this security guard handled it was appropriate.

reply to post by WhisperingWinds



I am not exaggerating, I am being straightforward. It has been you people who have been twisting things as well as ignoring things.

I do feel it was appropriate. Some kids you can not take it easy on. However, rather than generalize like you guys have been doing, I say it should depend upon the individual circumstances and cause and effect. If a kid threatens to do physical harm to you, you have every right to retaliate in that kind of a manner.

The difference between me and you is I am not trying to impose my will upon them.

Now please, you are not going to convince me and I am not going to convince you. We should agree to disagree and leave it at that.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone

I am not exaggerating, I am being straightforward. It has been you people who have been twisting things as well as ignoring things.

I am being straightforward as well. Not ignoring anything, just saying that it wasn't handled appropriately , by what I viewed.

The difference between me and you is I am not trying to impose my will upon them.

That is subject to personal opinion.

Now please, you are not going to convince me and I am not going to convince you. We should agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Yes, I think I mentioned that as well at some point, perhaps in a few posts.

I agree to disagree with you.

From the video it looks like the man was going to escort the boy out.. when grabbed he probably mouthed off and the man did not begin to get violent with him until the boy swung is arm in an attempt to get loose. The mans job is the safety of other children so i really do not know what he was supposed to to do.

do his job or not. If he had not done his job and one kid like this one gets through and the result is some tragic event it would all be on him.

Children to today are mouthy little punks. They do not respect adults and it is very hard to deal with them.
Words lead to physical altercations and children are not taught to mind their tongue. I am pretty sure this boy was giving the usual mouthing off teens do which puts people on edge. Once grabbed to be escorted out his attempt to break loose pretty much caused the man to put force on him.

The force was not very bad. Except many people have a very weak stomach. This does not mean i am some kind of brute but usually things look worse than they are. I had to watch the video twice to attempt to see why the outrage. it looked clear case of kid does not do as told, gives attitude, has to be removed, attempts to fight back and security follows procedure.

what really bothers me is that the same people whining about this man stopping this boy he saw as a problem are the same people who called for him to have that position as security in the first place. people wanted more security at schools and now that they have it they get upset when security is upheld.

We would not need security if parents would teach their children to respect adults and their peers but nope that is too hard we need to take the shortcut we will just smack on some security.

It looks like he was giving everyone a hard time, and not just the obese teacher. This is very typical of children to lash out and it looks like the teacher did not respond with brute force rather a apprehension.