This is scandalous. I hope a judge throws the plaintiff out for wasting the court's time.
When I was in fourth grade, a kid in my class put another kid in critical condition by choking him until he was blue in the face and unconscious. Kid went to Juvi for three years and came out much better for it. This just teaches kids to be devious.
"You can get away with stuff if you turn it around on the other person when they beat you!"
Let's get all the facts in before we get too upset. This is- at best- an incompletely reported story. It sounds outrageous and may well be, but we have heard nothing from the school officials other than one woman's description of her understanding of the events, and a 1/4-page view of a BPS letter that does not reveal any details of the actual incident. If I had to bet, I would bet that it is a foolish over-reach by the school, but I don't have to decide right now. I can wait and hear the whole story before blowing up.
The school clearly failed to follow up according to just about any anti-bullying plan in existence. Now the principal is covering her ass at the expense of a 7 year old.
Even bus drivers are required to be trained in this now. No excuses. Principals are supposed to be more responsible for training their staff and their own actions. If this simple a matter got escalated to charges against a 7 year old at all, it is clearly the result of her FAILURE to follow any policy regarding bulling that meets the standards of the state law.
I do agree with you 100% that this is stupid and a failure on the schools part. But a 7 year old should never be charged? what if he/she stabs someone at school??? Dont say NEVER
I feel it's important to KNOW all the facts before making wildly ludicrous blanket statements like the one(s) you made/make, girly. It's too bad you cannot see sarcasm when it's right in front of you, in black and white; perhaps if it kicked you in the groin? I have a feeling that if the seven year old violently harmed your swirley spawn then you might cite special, extenuating swirley circumstances and call for tarring, feathering, life in prison, and execution, etc. for the little rug rat. Full stop.
You are also wrong about "what I would do" if a young child harmed me or my children. Dead wrong. I wouldn't want a child criminally charged because that would do NOTHING about the situation. There are no punishments for such things that matter or mean anything. I would, however, want any negligent or culpable adult prosecuted - say, an adult that left a gun available, had an illegal gun, failed to supervise their child ... and I wouldn't hesitate to sue a school system that didn't do its job of supervision or failed to create or maintain a safe environment. Those are meaningful actions that prevent future problems. These are actions which hold accountable those who should have been responsible - namely, the adults who are supposed to be in charge. Punishing a child too young to understand their own behavior - and most experts and legal systems put that age somewhere between nine and fourteen - produces nothing of value (beyond prosecutor HEY LOOK AT MEEEEE!).
Notice that Liquarry Jackson's cousin wasn't prosecuted for his shooting death? Notice that the adults who failed to be responsible were held responsible by the courts? THAT is what I'm talking about here - prosecuting a young kid for manslaughter or murder would be useless. Nailing the adults for their irresponsibility puts the blame where it lays.
Most of the world gets that prosecuting a seven year old is stupid and pointless. Even "bad" or "backward" parts of the world get that. Much of the United States gets that. I'm sorry that you seem to be more interested in stalking me and engaging in bitter contradiction than employing some basic research skills to find out why such exemptions have been made quite far back in history, or read up on the basics of child mental development.
Oh my Jesus Christmas, girly, how you do go on! Do you win all arguments you have with hubby simply by out-talking him? Does your Mr. jam an ice pick into his ears, or does he just surrender?
SwirlyGrll, not disagreeing with your overall point, but in the case you cite, Lakeisha Gadson was aquitted. She was convicted for lying to the police.
He kicked him. He didn't fondle his balls, he made brushing contact to inflict pain.
Whomever at this school asserts that this is sexual harassment has the IQ of a turnip and should be barred from being within 500 yards of a school or a child.
"Choking" refers to the airway being blocked directly, such as by a piece of food.
I know the word is frequently misused, and the mainstream media is doing it too, but continuing to say that the person was "choking" another person perpetuates the false idea that this is something minor that happens in the course of people horsing around, when in fact it's actually a serious form of assault.
And no, I don't know all the facts here, but if someone was assaulting me in a way that could lead to my death, and the effective self-defense move for ending that assault were kicking the person in the groin, I'd do it too.
If the facts presented are accurate, the people running this school are morons and should be fired immediately. This is a case of self defense, pure and simple. When someone is being savagely attacked, the last thing they are thinking of is sexually assaulting the perpetrator.
The theoretical question begs, however. Just for the hell of it. If it were a girl being choked, and, in self defense, she kicked the male assaulter in the groin, would this misguided cry of sexual harrasment have arisen so blithely?
So if a woman kicks an attacker/rapist in the balls on the Esplanade while she is jogging then she is guilty of sexual harassment? You've got to sh*tting me. What the bell is wrong with these people?
The boy is a victim of violent crime, attempted murder, and theft. Publishing his name and photo associated with the shamefully misguided charge of sexual assault against him for kicking the bully and thief in the groin will make this come up in the Goog forevermore. And where is the aggressor's name and picture? Blame the victim, protect the offender. The other outlets are just repeating Thursday's Glob story, repeating the Glob's questionable editorial ethics.
Leslie Gant should be ashamed of herself, and an investigation should consider removing her from the profession permanently. Fat chance of that happening, though. These pencil pushers don't ever try to understand what happened, but just follow the regs through the easiest route to the holy land of CYA. She probably hasn't even reported the initial bullying incident as required but just defined it as "not bullying." They don't have to fill out forms that way, so the principals never want to call anything bullying. But the flow chart must lead to anything involving the word testicles going to DCR.
The crock of crap begins with the bus driver.
When she asked him what was wrong, Lynch said, he told her another boy had choked him and taken his new gloves. Lynch said she stormed up to the bus driver and asked him what he saw.
“He just smiled and shrugged,’’ she said. Lynch said she called the school repeatedly but got no answer.
Odds are fair he didn't speak English very well, and was just hoping the mad lady would get off his bus so he wouldn't lose time and possibly his paycheck. Keeping order is not his job. Anything that might slow down his careening bus is not his job.
And there's a big difference between what a normal mother like Lynch did and what some parents do. This is not the way you act if you are used to shaking down government bureaucracies for a living.
The following Monday, Lynch said, she told her older son, who is 11, to take Mark to the principal’s office and explain what happened.
“I just thought they were going to call the parents, tell us both to come in and make the boys shake hands,’’ Lynch said. At best, she said the other boy would apologize and return her son’s gloves.
What do you want to bet the other parent called first with her spin on things? People who have experience in the system know how to play it.
And here's where Leslie Gant begins to display the bad judgment that should disqualify her from working with children.
Instead, Lynch said, officials kept him inside the office and began questioning him.
Lynch said the boy later told her he was so rattled by the questioning he told school officials he started the fight.
“They didn’t believe me,’’ Mark said softly. “I didn’t get my gloves back.’’
In adult criminal matters, a substantial percentage of people will make false confessions if they are harassed, pressured, and browbeaten long enough. It's common sense that children will too. Shutting somebody else's small child in with a group of strange grown-ups pressuring him to spill the beans is not an effective way to get the truth, because at some point the child will be so frightened he will start telling you what he thinks you want to hear. If I were a lawyer in this case, this is the point I'd start focusing on. Leslie Gant placed this boy on trial with no ability to defend himself, and no authority to do so. She acted inappropriately at this point, and her ability to sequester children should be removed immediately.
From the interrogation session it went to DCR, the letter, etc. Ms. Gant punted it to higher authorities and went back to sniffing her pencils, confident she'd covered her ass.
The kid himself? He's scared to go back to school, scared to ride the bus. Because Leslie Gant stated clearly and unequivocally with her actions that it's all right with her if the boy is strangled, and his physical safety doesn't matter a whit to her. Far from helping protect the boy from bullying, she participated in it herself. How is it with the victim himself?
“He said he felt totally alone,’’ she said. “Nobody believed him. Nobody was there for him.’’
It's time for an investigation of the principal's actions in this matter. But don't bother going "through channels," because the first thing they do is circle the wagons. The child will have the option of going to another, worse school (because no other kind has open seats). At worst, the principal will get recycled through the system to go victimize kids at another school, The bully himself will go on to further "incidents other than bullying" against other kids. And that'll be an acceptable resolution as far as the system is concerned.
Massachusetts needs a mechanism outside the school system bureaucracy to investigate malfeasance by principals. And this family should not appear before the "hearing" without legal representation.
Seriously...what other choice did the kid have but to defend himself when his life was clearly in danger?
Who are the morons who're charging the 7 year old kid with sexual harassment? They need to have their heads examined. On second thought, it doesn't matter what age somebody who's being attacked and choked by another person with no provocation whatsoever. It was clearly an act of self-defense.
Please get off your goddamn hobby horse, useless anon.
This isn't "political correctness"
This is stupidity, idiocy, unaceptable and unprofessional conduct, ass covering at the expense of a child, failure to discipline bullies, fear of dealing with parents, and adults not worthy of the term "adult".
Cram the "oh just PC blah blah blah" up your favorite orifice already. If you get a sexual thrill, that's on you, not me. I hope this stupid adminstrator gets her underwear sued off for not providing a safe environment in the first place and not proceeding according to the anti-bullying plan, cowardice, and utterly amazing lack of common sense.
The fact that the kid is being condemned and charged with sexual harassment for defending himself is as disgusting as the fact that the administrators of the school failed to provide a safe environment in the first place. There seems to be a lot of condemning of people who do defend themselves in the event that they're being physically attacked, and that's what I mean by political correctness. Cool it, will you, Swirlybaby?!
In middle school, I recall being attacked on the playground by one of the larger girls. She had her growth spurt early on, and was quite tomboyish in general. She attempted to pin me down so I pushed her away. Then she ran off to one of the teachers and claimed that I had "sexually harassed" her by touching her chest. When we sat down in the office later, however, that claim was quietly ignored, as it was patently ridiculous.
Nearly twenty years later, I ran into the same person again. She was working in a coffee stand and recognized me. She had, of course, gone openly lesbian by this point. She served me coffee and we chatted about the old school days a little, no hard feelings. Just a bit surreal.
A couple boys in 5th grade tried to do what they did to many girls: pin my arms and pull up my shirt to expose my developing breasts.
I kicked one of them in the balls and gave the other a bloody nose with a head butt.
Does that make me a lesbian? Or a sexual harasser?
(Back then, they got some minor consequences and a "talking to" and their parents had to come in to get them - which also likely meant a good ass-kicking at home, as well as the humiliation of being whacked by a girl. I got rather popular for a while with the other girls.)
Comments
Seriously?
This is scandalous. I hope a judge throws the plaintiff out for wasting the court's time.
When I was in fourth grade, a kid in my class put another kid in critical condition by choking him until he was blue in the face and unconscious. Kid went to Juvi for three years and came out much better for it. This just teaches kids to be devious.
"You can get away with stuff if you turn it around on the other person when they beat you!"
Everyone Take a Deep Breath
Let's get all the facts in before we get too upset. This is- at best- an incompletely reported story. It sounds outrageous and may well be, but we have heard nothing from the school officials other than one woman's description of her understanding of the events, and a 1/4-page view of a BPS letter that does not reveal any details of the actual incident. If I had to bet, I would bet that it is a foolish over-reach by the school, but I don't have to decide right now. I can wait and hear the whole story before blowing up.
Spare Us
The school clearly failed to follow up according to just about any anti-bullying plan in existence. Now the principal is covering her ass at the expense of a 7 year old.
Even bus drivers are required to be trained in this now. No excuses. Principals are supposed to be more responsible for training their staff and their own actions. If this simple a matter got escalated to charges against a 7 year old at all, it is clearly the result of her FAILURE to follow any policy regarding bulling that meets the standards of the state law.
It is really that simple.
Well . . .
. . . you were there, so you should know.
It doesn't matter
Simple version for a simple mind: A seven year old should never be charged with a criminal offense. Full stop.
So you have, say, two more years, right? Oh, sorry, your mental age decrements are clearly a permanent condition.
SWIRLY
I do agree with you 100% that this is stupid and a failure on the schools part. But a 7 year old should never be charged? what if he/she stabs someone at school??? Dont say NEVER
I feel it's important to KNOW
I feel it's important to KNOW all the facts before making wildly ludicrous blanket statements like the one(s) you made/make, girly. It's too bad you cannot see sarcasm when it's right in front of you, in black and white; perhaps if it kicked you in the groin? I have a feeling that if the seven year old violently harmed your swirley spawn then you might cite special, extenuating swirley circumstances and call for tarring, feathering, life in prison, and execution, etc. for the little rug rat. Full stop.
Seven Year olds
Do not have the mental capacity to understand consequences of their actions sufficient to charge them with felony crimes.
You lack the moral reasoning capacity to understand that.
Sorry, it doesn't matter
There are several states that don't charge children under eight, because they lack adult reasoning to understand the consequences of their actions. Most countries won't charge a seven year old, either: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/05/uk-age-of-criminal-responsibility
Helpful but long history/explanation: http://www.trowbridgefoundation.org/docs/childhood_incapacity.htm
You are also wrong about "what I would do" if a young child harmed me or my children. Dead wrong. I wouldn't want a child criminally charged because that would do NOTHING about the situation. There are no punishments for such things that matter or mean anything. I would, however, want any negligent or culpable adult prosecuted - say, an adult that left a gun available, had an illegal gun, failed to supervise their child ... and I wouldn't hesitate to sue a school system that didn't do its job of supervision or failed to create or maintain a safe environment. Those are meaningful actions that prevent future problems. These are actions which hold accountable those who should have been responsible - namely, the adults who are supposed to be in charge. Punishing a child too young to understand their own behavior - and most experts and legal systems put that age somewhere between nine and fourteen - produces nothing of value (beyond prosecutor HEY LOOK AT MEEEEE!).
Notice that Liquarry Jackson's cousin wasn't prosecuted for his shooting death? Notice that the adults who failed to be responsible were held responsible by the courts? THAT is what I'm talking about here - prosecuting a young kid for manslaughter or murder would be useless. Nailing the adults for their irresponsibility puts the blame where it lays.
Most of the world gets that prosecuting a seven year old is stupid and pointless. Even "bad" or "backward" parts of the world get that. Much of the United States gets that. I'm sorry that you seem to be more interested in stalking me and engaging in bitter contradiction than employing some basic research skills to find out why such exemptions have been made quite far back in history, or read up on the basics of child mental development.
I give up s. g.
Oh my Jesus Christmas, girly, how you do go on! Do you win all arguments you have with hubby simply by out-talking him? Does your Mr. jam an ice pick into his ears, or does he just surrender?
ad-hominem
Can't win the argument, so you move to personal attacks.
Herald comment sections have room for that drab, but try to conduct yourself with a little more self respect here at UHub buddy.
Don't act the fool.
Adult responsibility, e.g. Liquarry Jackson case
SwirlyGrll, not disagreeing with your overall point, but in the case you cite, Lakeisha Gadson was aquitted. She was convicted for lying to the police.
Sexual harassment?
He kicked him. He didn't fondle his balls, he made brushing contact to inflict pain.
Whomever at this school asserts that this is sexual harassment has the IQ of a turnip and should be barred from being within 500 yards of a school or a child.
The word you want
is "strangling."
"Choking" refers to the airway being blocked directly, such as by a piece of food.
I know the word is frequently misused, and the mainstream media is doing it too, but continuing to say that the person was "choking" another person perpetuates the false idea that this is something minor that happens in the course of people horsing around, when in fact it's actually a serious form of assault.
And no, I don't know all the facts here, but if someone was assaulting me in a way that could lead to my death, and the effective self-defense move for ending that assault were kicking the person in the groin, I'd do it too.
Choking ... by compressing or obstructing the trachea
Merriam Webster's Tenth Collegiate is a little old; but, here is what its first definition has to say:
Morons running the school
If the facts presented are accurate, the people running this school are morons and should be fired immediately. This is a case of self defense, pure and simple. When someone is being savagely attacked, the last thing they are thinking of is sexually assaulting the perpetrator.
The theoretical question begs, however. Just for the hell of it. If it were a girl being choked, and, in self defense, she kicked the male assaulter in the groin, would this misguided cry of sexual harrasment have arisen so blithely?
Acting under the color of Law
The Boston Strangler - Albert Desalvo
Completed the act on several nurses -- shocking at the time.
Employees of the school are criminally responsible for not
defending the non-aggressor by marking the initial act of
aggressor.
really
So if a woman kicks an attacker/rapist in the balls on the Esplanade while she is jogging then she is guilty of sexual harassment? You've got to sh*tting me. What the bell is wrong with these people?
Horrible, though it could be worse
6 year olds are having a much worse time in our legal system.
Bad on the Globe too
The boy is a victim of violent crime, attempted murder, and theft. Publishing his name and photo associated with the shamefully misguided charge of sexual assault against him for kicking the bully and thief in the groin will make this come up in the Goog forevermore. And where is the aggressor's name and picture? Blame the victim, protect the offender. The other outlets are just repeating Thursday's Glob story, repeating the Glob's questionable editorial ethics.
Leslie Gant should be ashamed of herself, and an investigation should consider removing her from the profession permanently. Fat chance of that happening, though. These pencil pushers don't ever try to understand what happened, but just follow the regs through the easiest route to the holy land of CYA. She probably hasn't even reported the initial bullying incident as required but just defined it as "not bullying." They don't have to fill out forms that way, so the principals never want to call anything bullying. But the flow chart must lead to anything involving the word testicles going to DCR.
The crock of crap begins with the bus driver.
Odds are fair he didn't speak English very well, and was just hoping the mad lady would get off his bus so he wouldn't lose time and possibly his paycheck. Keeping order is not his job. Anything that might slow down his careening bus is not his job.
And there's a big difference between what a normal mother like Lynch did and what some parents do. This is not the way you act if you are used to shaking down government bureaucracies for a living.
What do you want to bet the other parent called first with her spin on things? People who have experience in the system know how to play it.
And here's where Leslie Gant begins to display the bad judgment that should disqualify her from working with children.
In adult criminal matters, a substantial percentage of people will make false confessions if they are harassed, pressured, and browbeaten long enough. It's common sense that children will too. Shutting somebody else's small child in with a group of strange grown-ups pressuring him to spill the beans is not an effective way to get the truth, because at some point the child will be so frightened he will start telling you what he thinks you want to hear. If I were a lawyer in this case, this is the point I'd start focusing on. Leslie Gant placed this boy on trial with no ability to defend himself, and no authority to do so. She acted inappropriately at this point, and her ability to sequester children should be removed immediately.
From the interrogation session it went to DCR, the letter, etc. Ms. Gant punted it to higher authorities and went back to sniffing her pencils, confident she'd covered her ass.
The kid himself? He's scared to go back to school, scared to ride the bus. Because Leslie Gant stated clearly and unequivocally with her actions that it's all right with her if the boy is strangled, and his physical safety doesn't matter a whit to her. Far from helping protect the boy from bullying, she participated in it herself. How is it with the victim himself?
It's time for an investigation of the principal's actions in this matter. But don't bother going "through channels," because the first thing they do is circle the wagons. The child will have the option of going to another, worse school (because no other kind has open seats). At worst, the principal will get recycled through the system to go victimize kids at another school, The bully himself will go on to further "incidents other than bullying" against other kids. And that'll be an acceptable resolution as far as the system is concerned.
Massachusetts needs a mechanism outside the school system bureaucracy to investigate malfeasance by principals. And this family should not appear before the "hearing" without legal representation.
This "Political Correctness" business has gone way too far!
Seriously...what other choice did the kid have but to defend himself when his life was clearly in danger?
Who are the morons who're charging the 7 year old kid with sexual harassment? They need to have their heads examined. On second thought, it doesn't matter what age somebody who's being attacked and choked by another person with no provocation whatsoever. It was clearly an act of self-defense.
Oh here we go with the "political correctness" again
Please get off your goddamn hobby horse, useless anon.
This isn't "political correctness"
This is stupidity, idiocy, unaceptable and unprofessional conduct, ass covering at the expense of a child, failure to discipline bullies, fear of dealing with parents, and adults not worthy of the term "adult".
Cram the "oh just PC blah blah blah" up your favorite orifice already. If you get a sexual thrill, that's on you, not me. I hope this stupid adminstrator gets her underwear sued off for not providing a safe environment in the first place and not proceeding according to the anti-bullying plan, cowardice, and utterly amazing lack of common sense.
No...YOU get off of YOUR hobbyhorse, SwirlyGrrl!
The fact that the kid is being condemned and charged with sexual harassment for defending himself is as disgusting as the fact that the administrators of the school failed to provide a safe environment in the first place. There seems to be a lot of condemning of people who do defend themselves in the event that they're being physically attacked, and that's what I mean by political correctness. Cool it, will you, Swirlybaby?!
.
.
Then and now
In middle school, I recall being attacked on the playground by one of the larger girls. She had her growth spurt early on, and was quite tomboyish in general. She attempted to pin me down so I pushed her away. Then she ran off to one of the teachers and claimed that I had "sexually harassed" her by touching her chest. When we sat down in the office later, however, that claim was quietly ignored, as it was patently ridiculous.
Nearly twenty years later, I ran into the same person again. She was working in a coffee stand and recognized me. She had, of course, gone openly lesbian by this point. She served me coffee and we chatted about the old school days a little, no hard feelings. Just a bit surreal.
Not that I'm that interested but it is bugging me
Matthew,
What does her being a lesbian have to do with anything? And you say "of course" she is one?
context
I probably shouldn't have written "of course" since none of you were there to see. I'll just say that it was no surprise to any of my friends or me.
Long ago and far away
A couple boys in 5th grade tried to do what they did to many girls: pin my arms and pull up my shirt to expose my developing breasts.
I kicked one of them in the balls and gave the other a bloody nose with a head butt.
Does that make me a lesbian? Or a sexual harasser?
(Back then, they got some minor consequences and a "talking to" and their parents had to come in to get them - which also likely meant a good ass-kicking at home, as well as the humiliation of being whacked by a girl. I got rather popular for a while with the other girls.)
That makes me a saaad panda
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s03e06-sexual-harassment-panda
why do i get the feeling ....
this isnt the first time a kid got kicked in the balls in southie? the pussification of america continues.