Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 10:29:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2013 11:12:04 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. Here is a copy of the full letter:
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 13, 2013 11:12:20 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. I am absolutely fine with removing Obama from office Those who choose to be around the President are doing so knowing full well the risk involved. Sorry, my kids have not signed up to take a risk simply by going to school. And I am absolutely fine with locking up a wife-beater for 10-20 years...unfortunately, the bleeding hearts wont' go for it.
|
|
ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Jun 13, 2013 11:12:35 GMT -5
And for all you know your kids could potentially already be in in the same classroom as a kid of some nut job - and you just don't know it because said nut job hasn't shown up at the school -- yet. And what about a total stranger who could be a threat to your kids? It's not like it hasn't happened very recently. Just because the school is a private school, doesn't mean it will be more safe than a public school for your kids - but hey - let's punish the victim and take away her job. And then how is she supposed to just simply: [/font] [/quote] ... if she has no paycheck coming in to get relocated. It isn't as easy as just packing up your life and kids and your problems are solved. As for organizations out there - they can only do so much - and you can't hide under their umbrella forever. There's only so much they can do before you have to fend for yourself again - and without your job anymore, you're pretty much left flapping in the wind and starting over from scratch - and still in danger if this nut job isn't 6 feet under. You won't ever know how difficult it is until you have to do it yourself. It's so easy to sit there be an armchair critic if you've never had to live thought it. .
|
|
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 11:13:15 GMT -5
Yes. He did. Chronological events...
1. Teacher has a "bad weekend" with ex. 2. Teacher goes in on Monday and informs administration to "be on the lookout". 3. Asswipe shows up at school and school goes on lockdown.
The teacher in question obviously felt that the ex was a threat as she informed administration to be on the lookout for him. She obviously felt it was a good possibility he would show up there. Appears she was right.
This is a hard one...
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 13, 2013 11:14:22 GMT -5
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. But you can't have it both ways. You either agree to leave him in a situation that can put him at risk or your pull him (or have the teacher fired) because you care more about his safety than the harship this will cause the victim of domestic violence. I will choose my child's safety each and every time. I will also vote in favor of any law that will mandate an absuer to get 20 years in jail after his first offense...unfortunately, I don't think that will ever fly.
|
|
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 11:14:40 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, did you and I read the same letter from the Diocese? I read the one to which you linked. There is nothing in that letter that indicates anyone other than the teacher and the principal dealt with the abuser. There is no indication of what occurred when those two women encountered the abuser. How do we get to "public domestic abuse" from what was in the letter from the Diocese? I must be missing something here.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,488
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 13, 2013 11:15:12 GMT -5
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? Yes they did. But read Virgil's post again. The school and their legal counsel only learned of this guy's background after the teacher was put on LOA. Virgil makes it sound as if the school was aware of this guy's legal problems long before the incident occurred.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 13, 2013 11:15:41 GMT -5
Yes. He did. Chronological events... 1. Teacher has a "bad weekend" with ex. 2. Teacher goes in on Monday and informs administration to "be on the lookout". 3. Asswipe shows up at school and school goes on lockdown. The teacher in question obviously felt that the ex was a threat as she informed administration to be on the lookout for him. She obviously felt it was a good possibility he would show up there. Appears she was right. This is a hard one... The fact that he would have the balls to show up at her school tells me he in unstable. I've had some doozy fights with my husband over the years and NEVER has he EVER shown up or harrassed me at work.
|
|
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 11:16:16 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. Virgil, what you're sure of does not automatically become fact just because you're sure of it.
|
|
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 11:16:21 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. The day after Ms. Charlesworth gave them the heads up, her ex-husband showed up and something--we can only speculate--happened between Ms. Charlesworth, the ex-husband, and the principal (Mrs. Wright) that was serious enough to put the school into lockdown. The diocese did some digging and found out that this man has a lifetime of abuse, threats, and prison under his belt, escalating over time, and that he obviously doesn't respect restraining orders. I think it's safe to say that Ms. Charlesworth's initial disclosure probably wasn't their prime motivation for firing her. Others here seem to be making the argument that this man was all bark and no bite, and that the risk of him "going off" on the students was marginal enough that Ms. Charlesworth should be allowed to keep her job. The diocese obviously disagreed. I don't believe they're unreasonable people. And I've seen no evidence to suggest they made an unreasonable decision. As they say in the letter, they're deeply sorry for Ms. Charlesworth's predicament, but they're not letting their staff and students get dragged into it. I see it as their collective right to do that.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 13, 2013 11:17:13 GMT -5
Didn't the guy show up and the school was put on lockdown? Yes they did. But read Virgil's post again. The school and their legal counsel only learned of this guy's background after the teacher was put on LOA. Virgil makes it sound as if the school was aware of this guy's legal problems long before the incident occurred. The guy shows up and forces the school to go on lockdown. This causes the administration to do research to see if this was an isolated incident or if there was a history....turns out there was a history and they chose the safety of the children and acted accordingly. I don't see the problem here. the fact that they waited to give her the boot until they knew the history shows me that they did not take this lightly.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 10:29:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2013 11:18:17 GMT -5
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. But you can't have it both ways. You either agree to leave him in a situation that can put him at risk or your pull him (or have the teacher fired) because you care more about his safety than the harship this will cause the victim of domestic violence. I will choose my child's safety each and every time. I will also vote in favor of any law that will mandate an absuer to get 20 years in jail after his first offense...unfortunately, I don't think that will ever fly. knowing me, I'd probably pull him out. But I'd still do my very best to explain to him why he's being pulled out and that domestic violence is something that shouldn't be tolerated by ANY of us. I know it's not "having it both ways" but it's the best I'd be able to do. And I'm with you on the 20 years thing. My guess as to why Congress will never go for it is that if you're going to spend 20 years feeding, housing, and clothing someone on the state dime, you better be damn sure that they are guilty.
|
|
deantrip
Established Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:05:42 GMT -5
Posts: 405
|
Post by deantrip on Jun 13, 2013 11:18:38 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. I am absolutely fine with removing Obama from office Those who choose to be around the President are doing so knowing full well the risk involved. Sorry, my kids have not signed up to take a risk simply by going to school. And I am absolutely fine with locking up a wife-beater for 10-20 years...unfortunately, the bleeding hearts wont' go for it. What about the schools and the kids that the President goes to visit, they don't really sign up for the extra risk either? Politics aside, if the President showed up at your work, would you ask him to leave as it increases the threat to you or others there?
|
|
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 11:19:36 GMT -5
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. Virgil, what you're sure of does not automatically become fact just because you're sure of it. Shouting, threats, physical violence are all considered abuse. If you want to believe that none of these took place and yet the school principal still put the school into lockdown, I can't prove otherwise. But you're sucking air as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 10:29:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2013 11:20:59 GMT -5
The sad part is that the diocese can look at this man's history and properly identify him as a serious threat. What is going on with the courts? This isn't one of those iffy situations. It is clear cut. Why is there any debate that this guy will be let out in the fall?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 10:29:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2013 11:21:33 GMT -5
They have 20 year history on the guy.
So tell me: would you let you child go play with a known pedophile because after all you already know he is a pedophile and less harmful than the next person you know nothing about?
They are basing there decisions on facts: - he is nuts - he doesn't care that he has a restraining order - he is not afraid of going to jail - known pattern - he has escalated along the years.
The justice system failed this lady, not the school. The school is protecting their other students an faculty.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 13, 2013 11:21:57 GMT -5
I am absolutely fine with removing Obama from office Those who choose to be around the President are doing so knowing full well the risk involved. Sorry, my kids have not signed up to take a risk simply by going to school. And I am absolutely fine with locking up a wife-beater for 10-20 years...unfortunately, the bleeding hearts wont' go for it. What about the schools and the kids that the President goes to visit, they don't really sign up for the extra risk either? Politics aside, if the President showed up at your work, would you ask him to leave as it increases the threat to you or others there? To be honest, I would probably take the day off...I have no desire to spend the day listening to Obama read from the teleprompter As for my children, I would know there were risks involved and would make the decision to send them or keep them home that day. The choice will be mine and no one else's.
|
|
deantrip
Established Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:05:42 GMT -5
Posts: 405
|
Post by deantrip on Jun 13, 2013 11:22:59 GMT -5
Virgil, what you're sure of does not automatically become fact just because you're sure of it. Shouting, threats, physical violence are all considered abuse. If you want to believe that none of these took place and yet the school principal still put the school into lockdown, I can't prove otherwise. But you're sucking air as far as I'm concerned. I am not disagreeing that threats were presented, I think they went about the resolving it the wrong way, getting rid of the teacher delays the problem for someone else? What if she were at church when it happened and not at school? Same institution as it is a Catholic school, what would the result have been? If the person presented that much of a threat why didn't the school press charges and get him locked away for good? There are other options that can be taken.
|
|
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 11:23:55 GMT -5
Okay, I've actually dealt with a situation that was probably all but identical to this one, discounting the venue. For me, it was a hospital. For this case, it was a school. Both contain a large number of vulnerable individuals. In our case, it was the estranged husband of a member of our staff who showed up in spite of a restraining order. Just as in the case being discussed, the staff member had brought her dilemma to the attention of the hospital management. All first-line supervision and security had a picture of the estranged husband. All departments were notified to call the police, our security, and our nursing supervisor should the estranged husband be seen on campus.
Sure enough, he showed up late one night on my shift (naturally!). By the time I got the call, the police had been notified and security was in place. All outside doors were locked except one, and it was double-guarded. By the time I got to where the individual was expected to try to enter the hospital, the police were already rolling in. It was a non-event. Tough guy didn't look particularly tough as the police loaded him into their vehicle.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Jun 13, 2013 11:24:09 GMT -5
I'm don't, either, Shoobs. What I do know is: There's got to be a better answer than the one chosen here. Putting heads together, asking for help from the community, laying down a plan of action, involving the police and other community resources ... those steps come immediately to mind. A lot of private schools, especially Catholic ones, don't have anywhere near the resources that the public schools do. I've lived in a lot of places where a public school teacher would get police protection but a Catholic school would not or where the police are just too swamped to give adequate protection for this situation. I find it hard to believe that the school administrators made this decision lightly, without contacting law enforcement to find out how much (or little) protection they would provide. Like others have said, this is a PR nightmare no matter how you slice it. Cutting her loose causes all kinds of problems too--teacher morale, pissed off parents, etc.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 13, 2013 11:24:30 GMT -5
But you can't have it both ways. You either agree to leave him in a situation that can put him at risk or your pull him (or have the teacher fired) because you care more about his safety than the harship this will cause the victim of domestic violence. I will choose my child's safety each and every time. I will also vote in favor of any law that will mandate an absuer to get 20 years in jail after his first offense...unfortunately, I don't think that will ever fly. knowing me, I'd probably pull him out. But I'd still do my very best to explain to him why he's being pulled out and that domestic violence is something that shouldn't be tolerated by ANY of us. I know it's not "having it both ways" but it's the best I'd be able to do. And I'm with you on the 20 years thing. My guess as to why Congress will never go for it is that if you're going to spend 20 years feeding, housing, and clothing someone on the state dime, you better be damn sure that they are guilty. Then you are no different from me (I also would yank my children if she wasn't let go)...problem is, this is a private school. You get enough parents pulling their children out because they care more about their child's safety than the right of the victim (and make no mistake, I DO feel for this woman) and the school is going to go under. Wtihout parents willing to fork over tuition, this woman is still out of a job...only all of the other teachers and staff are also out of a job.
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Jun 13, 2013 11:25:37 GMT -5
Virgil, what you're sure of does not automatically become fact just because you're sure of it. Shouting, threats, physical violence are all considered abuse. If you want to believe that none of these took place and yet the school principal still put the school into lockdown, I can't prove otherwise. But you're sucking air as far as I'm concerned. Or the school was put on lockdown because he showed up. You don't tell your boss, hey my ex is crazy and if he shows up we'll deal with it. You put the school on lockdown the moment he shows up regardless of what he does. Period. That is being proactive and preventing a situation.
|
|
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 11:25:50 GMT -5
I haven't seen anybody make a remark even close to that, Virgil. You're making assumptions. Don't assume everyone else does. That just complicates the issue.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 13, 2013 11:26:09 GMT -5
Shouting, threats, physical violence are all considered abuse. If you want to believe that none of these took place and yet the school principal still put the school into lockdown, I can't prove otherwise. But you're sucking air as far as I'm concerned. I am not disagreeing that threats were presented, I think they went about the resolving it the wrong way, getting rid of the teacher delays the problem for someone else? What if she were at church when it happened and not at school? Same institution as it is a Catholic school, what would the result have been? If the person presented that much of a threat why didn't the school press charges and get him locked away for good? There are other options that can be taken. How can a school press charges? What can they get him for..tresspassing? Unless he threatended one of the staff members, I'm not sure what they could charge him with.
|
|
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 11:26:34 GMT -5
The sad part is that the diocese can look at this man's history and properly identify him as a serious threat. What is going on with the courts? This isn't one of those iffy situations. It is clear cut. Why is there any debate that this guy will be let out in the fall? There are sentencing guidelines the courts have to follow. A judge can't just send a guy to prison for 20 years when sentencing guidelines say, for instance, 30 to 90 days. That is why a lot of people are advocating for a change in those sentencing guidelines. There is progress being made. For example, in my state, it no longer just Assault to beat up your wife (or husband). It is now considered Domestic Abuse Assault and carries a stiffer penalty than a simple or serious Assault charge. Violating an order of protection carries stiffer penalties that is used to. Progress is being made but, unfortunately, it's not coming fast enough. I don't know if the lawmakers consist of those who still feel it's ok to beat your wife as long as the stick isn't any bigger than your thumb or what, but it isn't coming fast enough. In fact, it's way too late for many, many victims.
|
|
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 11:26:37 GMT -5
Shouting, threats, physical violence are all considered abuse. If you want to believe that none of these took place and yet the school principal still put the school into lockdown, I can't prove otherwise. But you're sucking air as far as I'm concerned. I am not disagreeing that threats were presented, I think they went about the resolving it the wrong way, getting rid of the teacher delays the problem for someone else? What if she were at church when it happened and not at school? Same institution as it is a Catholic school, what would the result have been? If the person presented that much of a threat why didn't the school press charges and get him locked away for good? There are other options that can be taken. As far as I know, they did press charges. He's presently incarcerated. As for your "other options", let's hear them. Suppose you're the superintended and writing to me, a concerned parent of a child attending your school. Explain the measures you've put in place to ensure that my child is protected.
|
|
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 11:27:09 GMT -5
Virgil, what you're sure of does not automatically become fact just because you're sure of it. Shouting, threats, physical violence are all considered abuse. If you want to believe that none of these took place and yet the school principal still put the school into lockdown, I can't prove otherwise. But you're sucking air as far as I'm concerned. And you're dramatizing as far as I'm concerned. I don't know what happened and I'm willing to admit that rather than making assumptions and assigning truth to them. I've dealt with this situation. Have you?
|
|
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 11:27:44 GMT -5
I am not disagreeing that threats were presented, I think they went about the resolving it the wrong way, getting rid of the teacher delays the problem for someone else? What if she were at church when it happened and not at school? Same institution as it is a Catholic school, what would the result have been? If the person presented that much of a threat why didn't the school press charges and get him locked away for good? There are other options that can be taken. How can a school press charges? What can they get him for..tresspassing? Unless he threatended one of the staff members, I'm not sure what they could charge him with. Violating a restraining order. That's what our intruder was picked up for.
|
|
deantrip
Established Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:05:42 GMT -5
Posts: 405
|
Post by deantrip on Jun 13, 2013 11:27:56 GMT -5
I think it is really great as well the fact that this is a private Catholic school, is willing to sacrifice one of it's flock to the wolf to protect the rest, show's a real great example of following the bible's teachings.
|
|
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 11:28:33 GMT -5
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? We put the hospital on lockdown just because the perp showed up.
|
|