muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Jun 13, 2013 10:31:09 GMT -5
They didn't disarm the bomb, they moved it and said not our problem any more. Look we did something.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jun 13, 2013 10:31:29 GMT -5
Well who knows what any whack job is going to do? The school became aware of the situation and they were obligated to act. That's it.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jun 13, 2013 10:33:08 GMT -5
But it does beg the question of what to do with other abuse victims? If there are kids attending the school with violent parents how does the school then proceed?
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Jun 13, 2013 10:34:12 GMT -5
What risk? There have been several very tragic, very widely publicized school shootings recently, and dozens more over the past couple of decades. I can't recall a single case in which the shooter was an estranged spouse or jilted lover of anyone who worked at the school. Not a single one. There was the one where the shooter was the son of a teacher, though. Maybe we should start ordering mental evaluations for the relatives and family members of teachers? In this situation, the teacher and the four students were very likely the only ones ever in any danger from the actions of her ex-husband. I'm sure her being unemployed and her kids kicked out of school will help matters. I think we like to think we can prevent tragedies like the Newtown shooting, or Columbine, just by putting more safety measures in place. I'm not sure we can. While I don't think schools should be cavalier about these types of safety concerns, firing the teacher doesn't really prevent anything from happening. SHE wasn't the one threatening violence.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 13, 2013 10:34:22 GMT -5
But it does beg the question of what to do with other abuse victims? If there are kids attending the school with violent parents how does the school then proceed? If their enraged ex-husbands show up at the school to threaten the principal in spite of restraining orders, the very same thing they did here.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,488
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 13, 2013 10:34:46 GMT -5
This isn't about righting wrong it is about making another wrong on top of it. or it is about doing something now that sucks, to prevent a worse situation in the future "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" and i can see the headlines now if the school didnt terminate her employment "Gunman shoots up school, kills himself, his ex wife, and 32 other children and faculty"now does that seem like a possibility? if it is even a remote one, then the school had no choice but to act the way they did now and dont tell me about "other potential" problems that we dont know about...this one is a for sure problem that could easily explode they had to disarm the bomb.... The bomb hasn't been disarmed. It has been moved to another location. As for Scottish Lassie successfully getting away from her abusive ex-husband: she lived in fear of him for six years. The fear only ended when the ex died. Until that time, she was the hunted and he was the hunter.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 13, 2013 10:36:53 GMT -5
or it is about doing something now that sucks, to prevent a worse situation in the future "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" and i can see the headlines now if the school didnt terminate her employment "Gunman shoots up school, kills himself, his ex wife, and 32 other children and faculty"now does that seem like a possibility? if it is even a remote one, then the school had no choice but to act the way they did now and dont tell me about "other potential" problems that we dont know about...this one is a for sure problem that could easily explode they had to disarm the bomb.... The bomb hasn't been disarmed. It has been moved to another location. As for Scottish Lassie successfully getting away from her abusive ex-husband: she lived in fear of him for six years. The fear only ended when the ex died. Until that time, she was the hunted and he was the hunter. As a parent, all I care about is the fact that the bomb has been moved OUT of harming MY children.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jun 13, 2013 10:37:41 GMT -5
Yes, the school cannot fix society. They can only act within their own walls to ensure their safety.
|
|
deantrip
Established Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:05:42 GMT -5
Posts: 405
|
Post by deantrip on Jun 13, 2013 10:38:40 GMT -5
But it does beg the question of what to do with other abuse victims? If there are kids attending the school with violent parents how does the school then proceed? If their enraged ex-husbands show up at the school to threaten the principal in spite of restraining orders, the very same thing they did here. So we are going to start kicking kids out of public schools when their ass-hole abusive parent show's up?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 13, 2013 10:40:49 GMT -5
If their enraged ex-husbands show up at the school to threaten the principal in spite of restraining orders, the very same thing they did here. So we are going to start kicking kids out of public schools when their ass-hole abusive parent show's up? It is nearly impossible to fire a public school teacher (at least around here)...all joking aside, they pretty much have to molest a kid to get the boot! That said, I am not worried about asshole parents...it is the psycho exes that scare the shit out of me. How many people kill their own children just to hurt their ex? Nope, I would not want my child around someone that has a psychotic ex after them. It is heartbreaking for that person but my responsibility is to my children.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,488
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 13, 2013 10:41:09 GMT -5
If their enraged ex-husbands show up at the school to threaten the principal in spite of restraining orders, the very same thing they did here. So we are going to start kicking kids out of public schools when their ass-hole abusive parent show's up? Home schooling! Let's keep the bomb casualties local.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 13, 2013 10:42:34 GMT -5
If their enraged ex-husbands show up at the school to threaten the principal in spite of restraining orders, the very same thing they did here. So we are going to start kicking kids out of public schools when their ass-hole abusive parent show's up? If we believe their abusive parents present a legitimate threat to the staff and the other children, yes. If you read the letter in the link I posted, the diocese enumerates several reasons why this man was a particularly grave threat.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 13, 2013 10:47:01 GMT -5
Where did you get the information that the ex-husband was on the doorstep of the school threatening the principal, Virgil? I haven't read anything like that. What I read mentioned him having been seen in the parking lot. Can you link to the source of your data, please?
ETA: I hadn't seen the link to the letter from the Diocese. I'll go read that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 10:15:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2013 10:47:55 GMT -5
all this "me, mine, I" talk is part of the problem. Why should other kids have to suffer? Abuse/violence is a SOCIETAL problem, not an individual one - no matter how many people are immediately affected. Again, this will make other victims less likely to come forward.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 13, 2013 10:50:42 GMT -5
or it is about doing something now that sucks, to prevent a worse situation in the future "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" and i can see the headlines now if the school didnt terminate her employment "Gunman shoots up school, kills himself, his ex wife, and 32 other children and faculty"now does that seem like a possibility? if it is even a remote one, then the school had no choice but to act the way they did now and dont tell me about "other potential" problems that we dont know about...this one is a for sure problem that could easily explode they had to disarm the bomb.... The bomb hasn't been disarmed. It has been moved to another location. As for Scottish Lassie successfully getting away from her abusive ex-husband: she lived in fear of him for six years. The fear only ended when the ex died. Until that time, she was the hunted and he was the hunter. My devious little mind wanders to the possibility that the crazy ex-husband suddenly gets the urge to go to this particular school and shoot it up because they fired his ex-wife and now she can't support his kids and he's afraid he's going to have to do it.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 13, 2013 10:54:05 GMT -5
all this "me, mine, I" talk is part of the problem. Why should other kids have to suffer? Abuse/violence is a SOCIETAL problem, not an individual one - no matter how many people are immediately affected. Again, this will make other victims less likely to come forward. So you put society's needs above the safety of your son?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 10:15:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2013 10:57:32 GMT -5
i have no issue changing the laws concerning domestic abuse....none
they can lock them up and throw away the key as far as i am concerned
and to that list, you can add the following
child abusers rapists murderers child pornographers
i put them all into the same slime category
none better or worse than the others....they all ABUSE people
but until the states start seeing it that way....we get cases like this
assholes who love to beat on their women...and terrorize their family
i have no mercy in my heart for any of them
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jun 13, 2013 10:57:44 GMT -5
So while the mom is out looking for a new job, the kids go to public school, tax-payer funded school, dad get's out of jail, it becomes society's problem as he might show up at a public school for his kids and cause hell as well. It doesn't solve the problem, it just kicks it down the road. Society as a whole needs to change and be more supportive of victims and more punitive to assholes like this! What if she were a doctor working in an ER? Nobody would expect her to leave her ER job because of ass-hat coming around? I understand protecting the kids, you do that by going after the asshole who is causing the problems, not the victim. Amen. This isn't a case of what the school should do or what the community should do. This is a case of what the criminal justice system should do. Something like a mandatory prison term of 10 years for violating an order of protection. Ten years gives this woman a whole lot of time to relocate herself and her children. And no. That's not fair either, but it's better than being dead. The problem lies in lenient sentencing for abusers. "I gotta spend the night in jail? So what? It's worth it to give that bitch a good beat down." Until the courts start getting tough on offenders, you are going to see more and more of this because the good of many, most of the time, is going to win out over the good of a few.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 13, 2013 10:58:27 GMT -5
all this "me, mine, I" talk is part of the problem. Why should other kids have to suffer? Abuse/violence is a SOCIETAL problem, not an individual one - no matter how many people are immediately affected. Again, this will make other victims less likely to come forward. Then they clearly haven't read the diocese's rationale for firing the woman, because it had nothing to do with her disclosure of private domestic abuse problems. These were in fact very public domestic abuse problems, and their own employees and students had already been affected by them. This is a classic case of individual versus collective rights, and I'm sorry but if the diocese has a strong, reasonable belief that this man poses a threat to their staff and students--and all indications are that this is indeed the case--their right to protect themselves supersedes Ms. Charlesworth's right to a job.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 13, 2013 10:59:50 GMT -5
That's the only sentence I can find in the letter from the Diocese that refers to the ex-husband and the school principal. It gives absolutely no detail as to what connection there was between the two; nor, does it define what, if anything, happened between the teacher, the principal, and the ex-husband.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 13, 2013 11:00:10 GMT -5
So while the mom is out looking for a new job, the kids go to public school, tax-payer funded school, dad get's out of jail, it becomes society's problem as he might show up at a public school for his kids and cause hell as well. It doesn't solve the problem, it just kicks it down the road. Society as a whole needs to change and be more supportive of victims and more punitive to assholes like this! What if she were a doctor working in an ER? Nobody would expect her to leave her ER job because of ass-hat coming around? I understand protecting the kids, you do that by going after the asshole who is causing the problems, not the victim. Amen. This isn't a case of what the school should do or what the community should do. This is a case of what the criminal justice system should do. Something like a mandatory prison term of 10 years for violating an order of protection. Ten years gives this woman a whole lot of time to relocate herself and her children. And no. That's not fair either, but it's better than being dead. The problem lies in lenient sentencing for abusers. "I gotta spend the night in jail? So what? It's worth it to give that bitch a good beat down." Until the courts start getting tough on offenders, you are going to see more and more of this because the good of many, most of the time, is going to win out over the good of a few. I agree with locking the guy up. But as long as that psycho is out and gunning for his ex, I do not want my kids anywhere near her.
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Jun 13, 2013 11:01:54 GMT -5
all this "me, mine, I" talk is part of the problem. Why should other kids have to suffer? Abuse/violence is a SOCIETAL problem, not an individual one - no matter how many people are immediately affected. Again, this will make other victims less likely to come forward. So you put society's needs above the safety of your son? I feel the threat to my children is very minimal if this woman is their teacher. By her speaking out and as a society DEALING with it instead of pushing it aside and saying it is for the good of the children that "we don't renew her contract", that risk is reduced even more. I feel the threat to this woman when with no job is significantly greater than if she had a job and that job is aware of the threat. I think the threat to her children to either witness abuse, be abused, go hungry at some point becomes almost 100% by her being fired. I think the threat to my children is less than 1% if she stays on board. So, yeah I think society's needs go above the potential risk to my kids. They are far more likely to be shot at school by a deranged classmate than a deranged ex-husband. And even more likely to be killed in a car accident. So, hey there potential threat to my kids, maybe I shouldn't drive any more.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 13, 2013 11:02:24 GMT -5
If we believe their abusive parents present a legitimate threat to the staff and the other children, yes. And what exactly, is do be done with these children of psychos? Where are their rights? Their protections? Whatever is afforded by the various child protection acts federally and by the state. Frankly, if the school board expelled a student out of safety concerns vis a vis the parent, they would be criminally remiss not to report their full interactions with the parent to child services. But putting other kids and staff members in harm's way? Doesn't solve the problem. Doesn't address the threat.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 13, 2013 11:03:30 GMT -5
That's the only sentence I can find in the letter from the Diocese that refers to the ex-husband and the school principal. It gives absolutely no detail as to what connection there was between the two; nor, does it define what, if anything, happened between the teacher, the principal, and the ex-husband. With all the language about his 20-year history of abusing women and threatening anybody who got in his way, I'm sure he was there to invite her to tea and crumpets. They put the school into lockdown because they ran out of crumpets halfway through and needed to run to the grocer to get some more.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 13, 2013 11:06:02 GMT -5
So you put society's needs above the safety of your son? I feel the threat to my children is very minimal if this woman is their teacher. By her speaking out and as a society DEALING with it instead of pushing it aside and saying it is for the good of the children that "we don't renew her contract", that risk is reduced even more. I feel the threat to this woman when with no job is significantly greater than if she had a job and that job is aware of the threat. I think the threat to her children to either witness abuse, be abused, go hungry at some point becomes almost 100% by her being fired. I think the threat to my children is less than 1% if she stays on board. So, yeah I think society's needs go above the potential risk to my kids. They are far more likely to be shot at school by a deranged classmate than a deranged ex-husband. And even more likely to be killed in a car accident. So, hey there potential threat to my kids, maybe I shouldn't drive any more. I see the threat as much bigger than that. The younger sister of one of my high school friends was in a very abusive relationship. She finally broke up with the psycho and hid out at her parents' house for "safety" because we all think our dads can protect us. Crazy ass goes to the parents house, breaks in and demands have the girl leave with him. She is locked safely away in a bedroom so crazy ass shoots her dad. Luckily the dad survived but it was a real lesson to me to stay away from crazy ass domestic violence situations. So you might se the risk as minimal that crazy ass would come to the school and harm other children, but I don't.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,488
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 13, 2013 11:07:03 GMT -5
all this "me, mine, I" talk is part of the problem. Why should other kids have to suffer? Abuse/violence is a SOCIETAL problem, not an individual one - no matter how many people are immediately affected. Again, this will make other victims less likely to come forward. Then they clearly haven't read the diocese's rationale for firing the woman, because it had nothing to do with her disclosure of private domestic abuse problems. These were in fact very public domestic abuse problems, and their own employees and students had already been affected by them. This is a classic case of individual versus collective rights, and I'm sorry but if the diocese has a strong, reasonable belief that this man poses a threat to their staff and students--and all indications are that this is indeed the case--their right to protect themselves supersedes Ms. Charlesworth's right to a job. Virgil you make it sound like the school had been aware of this domestic violence problem long before the teacher gave the principles a heads up. I don't believe the authorities knew anything about this until the teacher stepped forward. That is how I read the school's April letter to the teacher.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 13, 2013 11:09:04 GMT -5
Then they clearly haven't read the diocese's rationale for firing the woman, because it had nothing to do with her disclosure of private domestic abuse problems. These were in fact very public domestic abuse problems, and their own employees and students had already been affected by them. This is a classic case of individual versus collective rights, and I'm sorry but if the diocese has a strong, reasonable belief that this man poses a threat to their staff and students--and all indications are that this is indeed the case--their right to protect themselves supersedes Ms. Charlesworth's right to a job. Virgil you make it sound like the school had been aware of this domestic violence problem long before the teacher gave the principles a heads up. I don't believe the authorities knew anything about this until the teacher stepped forward. That is how I read the school's April letter to the teacher. Didn't the guy show up and the school was put on lockdown?
|
|
deantrip
Established Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:05:42 GMT -5
Posts: 405
|
Post by deantrip on Jun 13, 2013 11:10:02 GMT -5
So using the same logic regarding threatening behavior (taken to the extreme, I know) we should remove the president from office because him being there poses a threat to those around him due to nutjobs who don't like him and want to do him harm? Where do we draw the line? I prefer to draw the line at removing the problem nutjob.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,762
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 13, 2013 11:10:11 GMT -5
My devious little mind wanders to the possibility that the crazy ex-husband suddenly gets the urge to go to this particular school and shoot it up because they fired his ex-wife and now she can't support his kids and he's afraid he's going to have to do it. I was actually wondering if the school is going to send a letter to the ex telling him that she and her kids are no longer at the school. I mean, just because she has been removed doesn't mean she is going to call and tell him that. So, he will show up at the school anyway, and be told that they aren't there. And he will politely say "Oh, my bad. Thank you for the information. Do you perhaps know where I can find her so I can kill her?"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 10:15:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2013 11:10:53 GMT -5
all this "me, mine, I" talk is part of the problem. Why should other kids have to suffer? Abuse/violence is a SOCIETAL problem, not an individual one - no matter how many people are immediately affected. Again, this will make other victims less likely to come forward. So you put society's needs above the safety of your son? no, but I also don't want him to grow up with the notion that he should stop caring about abuse/violence when it ceases to affect him.
|
|