Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Teacher Fired After Being a Victim of Domestic Violence and Her Ex Husband's behavior

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by smyleegrl
Sorry, folks. I can't agree that this was one to protect the kids.

I completely understand putting the children's safety first. But this can be one by informing the police...there are stalking laws in place.

We have threats at my school all the time, an the police take them seriously. There's always a patrol within easy reach, and when we have an active threat, they are in the school. I can't tell you how many people have been arrested on school grounds for violating restraining orders, stalking, and the like.

This woman is already a victim from her husband....now she loses her job, too?

What's to stop any disgruntled ex from showing up and acting threateningly, just to get the ex fired?

We need to address the criminal here, and that is not this woman.
And those stalking laws work well, right? No, they dont. Its something that needs to be fixed, but we have to address things as they are, not as we wish they were.

Ive seen, first hand, the effectiveness (really, the lack thereof) of stalking laws. Ive seen the aftermath of a person that had a restraining order against them, who frankly, did not care.

Did you know that most child abduction cases come back to an estranged parent?




posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by captaintyinknots


the difference is, it is a teachers job to foster a safe environment. Flat out.


So expel the kid with the classy family.

Otherwise you're being inconsistent. This fired teacher wasnt a threat. A relation of hers was, allegedly.

The kid with the classy family isnt a threat. Relations to the kid are, allegedly.

You're trying to force a distinction when there is none.
It is not forcing a distinction to understand the difference between those whose job it is to foster a safe environment, and those who are to be protected under their care.

its not the same thing, no matter how hard you try.

Also, im not really sure what you mean by 'classy family'
edit on 14-6-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


You'd have a point if it were the teacher who posed the threat. However it is not. Therefore there is no distinction.

"Classy family" as referenced in my earlier post about Johnnys drunk and violent daddy.

You live in a utopia where substance abusing, child neglecting, spouse beating, 3rd grade drop outs dont live, work and attend schools in your area? Classy people like those pose a greater threat to kids in and out of schools every hour of everyday simply by virtue of sending their kids (who learn their parents violent behaviors) to the school than do these rogue events such as an angry ex ever do.

You'd have to empty half the schools to keep the other half safe.
edit on 14-6-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 





You'd have a point if it were the teacher who posed the threat. However it is not. Therefore there is no distinction.
She is the focal point of the threat. The catalyst. Therefore there IS a distinction.




"Classy family" as referenced in my earlier post about Johnnys drunk and violent daddy.
Gotcha.




You live in a utopia where substance abusing, child neglecting, spouse beating, 3rd grade drop outs dont live, work and attend schools in your area? Classy people like those pose a greater threat to kids in and out of schools every hour of everyday simply by virtue of sending their kids (who learn their parents violent behaviors) to the school than do these rogue events such as an angry ex ever do.
1)I live in no utopia.
2)Do they? The vast majority of child abduction and murder cases lead back to an estranged parent. And the two are in no way mutually exclusive. They, quite often, are one and the same.




You'd have to empty half the schools to keep the other half safe.


Like I said, I dont agree with children being removed in these situations, so that point is a little moot to me.
edit on 14-6-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   
It isn't wrongful termination as the woman has an existing condition that disrupts and endangers others. The school has little choice but to remove that element for the greater good. Let's say she had a mental condition in which she had an occasional compulsion to start fires. Is the fact that she is a pyromaniac her fault? Of course not, but that condition represents a problem.

Now what the school could have done was to remove her as a teacher, but continued to pay her rate of pay until she was more gainfully employed. But there may be elements to this story that we do not know.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 

So, her ex is an existing condition?
What has SHE done to lose her job and her livelihood?

We just cast her and others aside, to become pariahs of society.

What about her children? Without an income....could she lose them to the potentially dangerous man she has tried to cut ties with?
I can see that is not gonna end well for them :shk:

Yeah, sounds like a really good plan



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
Like I said, I dont agree with children being removed in these situations, so that point is a little moot to me.
edit on 14-6-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)


But the situation is the same. I dont get what you dont or wont understand here.

If Johnny is the target or catalyst for his father then you would want Johnny expelled from school. If you are to remain consistent that is. After all if every student is in danger if the teacher remains then arent they all still in danger if Johnny remains?
edit on 14-6-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Some of my favorite members are making some really great points, but I'm still not changing my mind,


We entrust teachers with our most precious resource.

It's not her fault that the guy is nuts and out of control that's on him. But, it was her choice to engage in a relationship with this person who poses a threat to her and those around her.

Until that situation is severed and resolved in a healthy and safe way, she should not return to a position where she is entrusted to protect minors when the fall out of her own choices and decisions could well put them in jeopardy.

Parents also have a reasonable expectation that a professionally trained teacher be in class with their children, not substitutes, indefinitely, until this teacher sorts things out.
edit on 6/14/2013 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
The school is legally liable for the health and safety of all students and teachers during the school day.

This includes both physical and emotional trauma or stress. In this case, if the teacher wasn't able to confirm and make sure that he would not put the school in a dangerous position, than the school did what it needed to do.

It's unfortunate. I would have liked to have seen more of a compromise, like trying to find her another teaching job in the area or outside the area, but that's not always possible.

As much as I don't like the outcome, it was the proper outcome when we consider the safety and security of the school.

~Tenth



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 





But the situation is the same. I dont get what you dont or wont understand here.
I understand that you are trying to say that there is no distinction between an adult, hired as a teacher, and a child, attending school as a student.

Problem is, its simply not true. A teacher is there as the authority figure, the person in charge, the person who students are to look to. If a teacher cannot provide that, then they have to be removed from the situation. Its not always fair, but its the only way to keep the children's (you know, the entire point of even having school), safety first and foremost.




If Johnny is the target or catalyst for his father then you would want Johnny expelled from school. If you are to remain consistent that is. After all if every student is in danger if the teacher remains then arent they all still in danger if Johnny remains?
Because johnny is not in the person whose responsibility it is to keep the students safe. A teacher is there as the authority figure, the person in charge, the person who students are to look to. If a teacher cannot provide that, then they have to be removed. There is nothing inconsistent about it.
This insistence that there is no distinction between student and teacher is just utter nonsense.

edit on 14-6-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


So the teacher couldnt look after the students and that's why she was fired?

Funny, the article says she was fired because her husband scared the staff into thinking he may harm the students.

I dont see how the staff fearing a third party interferes with the teachers ability to keep her students from choking on erasers or jamming pencils in their eyes.

The third party here is the threat. The ex husband and Johnnys father. Therefore the 2nd party in each case, the teacher and Johnny, according to you, should be removed from the school?[

The idea that the students were unsafe is itself absurd anyway. His target if it is anyone would be her. So the school cast her from the safest place she could be out into the street where her husband could get her anytime. Makes sense to me.
edit on 14-6-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


But if she has a threat to her own personal safety, then those in her immediate vicinity are also unsafe, in this case, children, who have been entrusted to her care and who look to her to protect them. How can she reasonably do that if she is also afraid enough to alert the school administrators to the possibility of him showing up and also file a restraining order against him?



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


That brings us back to Johnny and captain's irreconcilable notion that Johnny being a target is okay in the school but the teacher being a target is not.

I think we need to define what sort of protection and care a teacher is apparently obligated to provide here.

Isnt the teachers job just to teach? That's what I hear from those who oppose armed teachers. So when did fending off abusive ex's become part of the job? Would the administration of the school just let her ex in and say "that's not my problem, that's the teachers problem"?

While I'm still here your criteria would warrant termination from any job held by anyone. How can anyone be expected to perform a function to the best of their abilities while in a situation similar to hers? So then every abuse victim or stalker victim should just be fired.
edit on 14-6-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I agree, you raise some interesting points, I'm not sure how I feel about that scenario.

I could see, in the not too distant future, a child being exempt from school attendance due to domestic violence issue like that.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that I can see it evolving.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 




So the teacher couldnt look after the students and that's why she was fired?

Nope, like I already said, the teacher was a catalyst in creating an unsafe environment.




Funny, the article says she was fired because her husband scared the staff into thinking he may harm the students.
Yup, just as I have said, about a half dozen times now.




I dont see how the staff fearing a third party interferes with the teachers ability to keep her students from choking on erasers or jamming pencils in their eyes.
Thats all you think a teacher does to keep kids safe? I suggest you spend some time at a local school, helping out teachers, to see what their real responsibilities are.

You know those teachers at Newtown who died running toward the gunman? Thats wasnt an accident. Thats what teachers are taught. No matter what, the kids come first.




The third party here is the threat. The ex husband and Johnnys father. Therefore the 2nd party in each case, the teacher and Johnny, according to you, should be removed from the school?[

Just like the virus would be a real threat if a teacher had TB, but they still wouldnt be allowed to be around the kids.




The idea that the students were unsafe is itself absurd anyway. His target if it is anyone would be her. So the school cast her from the safest place she could be out into the street where her husband could get her anytime. Makes sense to me.
Well, then, I guess it would be just fine if he came in and slit her throat in front of her class....


As unfair as it is, this isnt about keeping her safe. Its about the priority for schools, which is the kids.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Teachers are taught to catch bullets? I'm going to have to remember this thread and all the responsibilities teachers (sorry, suicide warriors) now apparently have the next time a hubub brews over suggesting they might want to considering being armed in schools.

And he'll just have to slit Johnnys throat in front of the class too, right? You wont expell him.
edit on 14-6-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 




That brings us back to Johnny and captain's irreconcilable notion that Johnny being a target is okay in the school but the teacher being a target is not.

Nothing irreconcilable about it.




I think we need to define what sort of protection and care a teacher is apparently obligated to provide here.
Its pretty well defined, to teachers.




Isnt the teachers job just to teach?
Nope.




That's what I hear from those who oppose armed teachers.
You wont ever hear it from a person that actually teaches, I can tell you that much.




. So when did fending off abusive ex's become part of the job?
As has been explained, the moment he became a safety issue to her students.




? Would the administration of the school just let her ex in and say "that's not my problem, that's the teachers problem"?
Because we have all seen that people can NEVER get into a locked school, right?




While I'm still here your criteria would warrant termination from any job held by anyone. How can anyone be expected to perform a function to the best of their abilities while in a situation similar to hers? So then every abuse victim or stalker victim should just be fired.
As I already said, working in a school is different than almost any other job.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 





I'm going to have to remember this thread and all the responsibilities teachers (sorry, suicide warriors) now apparently have the next time a hubub brews over suggesting they might want to considering being armed in schools.
Are you really going to turn this into a gun conversation now?
edit on 14-6-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I'm just looking for some consistency.

You want the teacher out because he might slit her throat in class.

You dont want Johnny out because he's a kid even though he might slit his throat in front of the class.

Teachers cant be responsible enough to be armed in a classroom but they're supposed to shield the kids from the Apocalypse. I must have missed that section of the Praxis by the way.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I'm just looking for some consistency.

You want the teacher out because he might slit her throat in class.

You dont want Johnny out because he's a kid even though he might slit his throat in front of the class.

Teachers cant be responsible enough to be armed in a classroom but they're supposed to shield the kids from the Apocalypse. I must have missed that section of the Praxis by the way.
Ive explained it as much as I can. I see no point in saying it again.

You wont get an argument from me when it comes to armed teachers, I just find it a little....distasteful to try and turn every conversation into a gun debate.





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join