WATCH: GA teacher resigns after video captures her ruthlessly knocking over special needs student

First topic message reminder :

A 20-year veteran of the Georgia school system has resigned after surveillance video captured her pausing and then intentionally kneeing a special needs student in the back causing to fall forward, reports WALB. Amelia Stripling, a special needs instructor at Tift County Pre-K Center in Tifton, Georgia, has stepped down after the video was released to the public. According to Sarah Patterson, the mother of the boy, her son just turned 4 years old on Wednesday, days after Stripling casually walked around an open classroom door and shoved her knee in the boys back without warning, causing him to lurch forward and to the ground.

Stripling then helped the boy up with the help of another adult before giving him a shove into the classroom.

According to Tifton County school system officials, the boy was not injured and the incident was reported to the division of family and children services.

Watch the video below via WALB:




http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/watch-ga-teacher-resigns-after-video-captures-her-ruthlessly-knocking-over-special-needs-student/

If there was systematic abuse at the school, or in schools in general, there might be a case for posting such a video, but this was a one-off incident, and if the woman is harassed, then the person who posted it is largely to blame.

Who did release the film?

Syl wrote:Who did release the film?

I don't know Syl. That's what I've been trying to find out.

I don't disagree in general with posting such videos - like the one of the woman who put a cat in a wheely bin, for example. I think this is different - it seems unprofessional to me.

Raggamuffin wrote:If there was systematic abuse at the school, or in schools in general, there might be a case for posting such a video, but this was a one-off incident, and if the woman is harassed, then the person who posted it is largely to blame.

Ask yourself, What is the harm? The beauty of a camera is that it faithfully records the truth. Truth can't be a bad thing.

Its when authorities go hiding in the shadows, concealing such truth-telling devices as cameras and audio recordings, that you wonder what they are up to. Why don't they want to put you together with the truth??

This is a democracy. That means the authorities work for us! Should they be able to lie, or conceal the truth from us?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If there was systematic abuse at the school, or in schools in general, there might be a case for posting such a video, but this was a one-off incident, and if the woman is harassed, then the person who posted it is largely to blame.

Ask yourself, What is the harm?  The beauty of a camera is that it faithfully records the truth.  Truth can't be a bad thing.

Its when authorities go hiding in the shadows, concealing such truth-telling devices as cameras and audio recordings, that you wonder what they are up to.  Why don't they want to put you together with the truth??  

This is a democracy.  That means the authorities work for us!  Should they be able to lie, or conceal the truth from us?

It's more the motive I question. If the evidence had already been seen, and been handed to the police, which seems to be the case, why publish it?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Ask yourself, What is the harm?  The beauty of a camera is that it faithfully records the truth.  Truth can't be a bad thing.

Its when authorities go hiding in the shadows, concealing such truth-telling devices as cameras and audio recordings, that you wonder what they are up to.  Why don't they want to put you together with the truth??  

This is a democracy.  That means the authorities work for us!  Should they be able to lie, or conceal the truth from us?

It's more the motive I question. If the evidence had already been seen, and been handed to the police, which seems to be the case, why publish it?

More appropriately, Why hide it?  When it comes to my vote, or my tax dollar, I want to know what I'm giving it up for.  

Our system depends upon the free-flow of information.  If a truth-revealing device such as a camera or an audio recording is available, it becomes an act of almost deceit to try to keep it from the public.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's more the motive I question. If the evidence had already been seen, and been handed to the police, which seems to be the case, why publish it?

More appropriately, Why hide it?  When it comes to my vote, or my tax dollar, I want to know what I'm giving it up for.  

Our system depends upon the free-flow of information.  If a truth-revealing device such as a camera or an audio recording is available, it becomes an act of almost deceit to try to keep it from the public.

Why publish it? Wasn't it already being dealt with? I think it just gives the parents an excuse to sue the school tbh. The boy wasn't hurt, and there's no suggestion that she habitually did that kind of thing. If it had been a video that a bystander took, I could see the logic in making it public, particularly if nothing had been done about it at the school, but that's not the case here.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:

Its a major news story of neglect that everyone has a right to know about and I applaud the school, who did not try to cover this but were willing to show no fault was with the school
So there is countless reasons as to why your view is wrong

I agree with Rags. Her view isn't "wrong" it just differs from yours.

EVERYBODY else  is wrong if they don't agree with Dodge, kneel at his feet, and praise his great superiority and magnificance on high !

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

More appropriately, Why hide it?  When it comes to my vote, or my tax dollar, I want to know what I'm giving it up for.  

Our system depends upon the free-flow of information.  If a truth-revealing device such as a camera or an audio recording is available, it becomes an act of almost deceit to try to keep it from the public.

Why publish it? Wasn't it already being dealt with? I think it just gives the parents an excuse to sue the school tbh. The boy wasn't hurt, and there's no suggestion that she habitually did that kind of thing. If it had been a video that a bystander took, I could see the logic in making it public, particularly if nothing had been done about it at the school, but that's not the case here.

If I'm the boss--and I am in a democracy--I want my employees to tell me everything.  If they hide something from me, they're fired.  End of...

That's the standard of democracy.  Someone's gotta be in charge.  The system works from the top down, not from special people and authorities laterally...

Now I know it won't always be perfect.  But if I find someone who works for me, is also trying to deceive me...he's fired!  There's no other way to run it.  Otherwise, it all turns into dreck. No discipline, means no functioning...

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why publish it? Wasn't it already being dealt with? I think it just gives the parents an excuse to sue the school tbh. The boy wasn't hurt, and there's no suggestion that she habitually did that kind of thing. If it had been a video that a bystander took, I could see the logic in making it public, particularly if nothing had been done about it at the school, but that's not the case here.

If I'm the boss--and I am in a democracy--I want my employees to tell me everything.  If they hide something from me, they're fired.  End of...

That's the standard of democracy.  Someone's gotta be in charge.  The system works from the top down, not from special people and authorities laterally...

Now I know it won't always be perfect.  But if I find someone who works for me, is also trying to deceive me...he's fired!  There's no other way to run it.  Otherwise, it all turns into dreck.

But it wasn't hidden from the school was it? Are you suggesting that whoever is in charge of surveillance videos posted it instead of telling their employer, and that's how the school found out?

Again I see the same people are up in arms a women who has been charged with child neglect has been ousted and clearly they wish to protect the identity of child abusers.
The school did the right thing to release the CCTV and is not afraid that its own school was involved in such a scandal.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If I'm the boss--and I am in a democracy--I want my employees to tell me everything.  If they hide something from me, they're fired.  End of...

That's the standard of democracy.  Someone's gotta be in charge.  The system works from the top down, not from special people and authorities laterally...

Now I know it won't always be perfect.  But if I find someone who works for me, is also trying to deceive me...he's fired!  There's no other way to run it.  Otherwise, it all turns into dreck.

But it wasn't hidden from the school was it? Are you suggesting that whoever is in charge of surveillance videos posted it instead of telling their employer, and that's how the school found out?

No, no, no...I'm the boss. If they are hiding truth-giving information from me, they are trying to cheat me out of the paycheck I am giving them. I don't like being cheated. They fired...lol, I keep repeating that.

Let me go back. Those are the standards of a democracy. Only National Security should justify withholding information from your boss. And because there is such a fine line between national security and just plain, old cheating, it should be a violation of the Espionage Act to misuse the national security tag.

I'm talking about transparency. I don't wanna hear about 'it's being handled... If I ask, I want answers. End of... I know I'm a tough boss. But it's a tough world.

That's my view on these cameras. And apparently someone agrees with me. Look at all the dash-cams and body-cams that the police have today.

Didge wrote:Again I see the same people are up in arms a women who has been charged with child neglect has been ousted and clearly they wish to protect the identity of child abusers.
The school did the right thing to release the CCTV and is not afraid that its own school was involved in such a scandal.

We're merely discussing the issue in a civilised manner - something you're not capable of.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But it wasn't hidden from the school was it? Are you suggesting that whoever is in charge of surveillance videos posted it instead of telling their employer, and that's how the school found out?

No, no, no...I'm the boss.  If they are hiding truth-giving information from me, they are trying to cheat me out of the paycheck I am giving them.  I don't like being cheated.  They fired...lol, I keep repeating that.

Let me go back.  Those are the standards of a democracy.  Only National Security should justify withholding information from your boss.  And because there is such a fine line between national security and just plain, old cheating, it should be a violation of the Espionage Act to misuse the national security tag.

I'm talking about transparency.  I don't wanna hear about 'it's being handled...  If I ask, I want answers.  End of...  I know I'm a tough boss.  But it's a tough world.

That's my view on these cameras.  And apparently someone agrees with me.  Look at all the dash-cams and body-cams that the police have today.

As in the general public being "the boss"?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:Again I see the same people are up in arms a women who has been charged with child neglect has been ousted and clearly they wish to protect the identity of child abusers.
The school did the right thing to release the CCTV and is not afraid that its own school was involved in such a scandal.

We're merely discussing the issue in a civilised manner - something you're not capable of.

I am not going to get drawn into another one of your tantrums, you are arguing off censuring a child abuser

That in my book is disgusting

You are not civilized full stop, if you were, you would have moved on 4 days ago

Grow up

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If I'm the boss--and I am in a democracy--I want my employees to tell me everything.  If they hide something from me, they're fired.  End of...

That's the standard of democracy.  Someone's gotta be in charge.  The system works from the top down, not from special people and authorities laterally...

Now I know it won't always be perfect.  But if I find someone who works for me, is also trying to deceive me...he's fired!  There's no other way to run it.  Otherwise, it all turns into dreck.

But it wasn't hidden from the school was it? Are you suggesting that whoever is in charge of surveillance videos posted it instead of telling their employer, and that's how the school found out?

Surely if the school had access to the video, saw what had happened, did not try to conceal it from the boys parents, accepted the womans notice, reported it to social services so they could ensure she was on a register not to work with children (or any vulnerable person) again......and if there had been no prior incidents involving her treatment of children.....would that not have sufficed in this event?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

We're merely discussing the issue in a civilised manner - something you're not capable of.

I am not going to get drawn into another one of your tantrums, you are arguing off censuring a child abuser

That in my book is disgusting

You are not civilized full stop, if you were, you would have moved on 4 days ago

Grow up

Moved on from what? You're the one harassing me all over the forum again.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But it wasn't hidden from the school was it? Are you suggesting that whoever is in charge of surveillance videos posted it instead of telling their employer, and that's how the school found out?

Surely if the school had access to the video, saw what had happened, did not try to conceal it from the boys parents, accepted the womans notice, reported it to social services so they could ensure she was on a register not to work with children (or any vulnerable person) again......and if there had been no prior incidents involving her treatment of children.....would that not have sufficed in this event?

I would have thought so, yes.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, no, no...I'm the boss.  If they are hiding truth-giving information from me, they are trying to cheat me out of the paycheck I am giving them.  I don't like being cheated.  They fired...lol, I keep repeating that.

Let me go back.  Those are the standards of a democracy.  Only National Security should justify withholding information from your boss.  And because there is such a fine line between national security and just plain, old cheating, it should be a violation of the Espionage Act to misuse the national security tag.

I'm talking about transparency.  I don't wanna hear about 'it's being handled...  If I ask, I want answers.  End of...  I know I'm a tough boss.  But it's a tough world.

That's my view on these cameras.  And apparently someone agrees with me.  Look at all the dash-cams and body-cams that the police have today.

As in the general public being "the boss"?

Exactly. A democracy depends upon free-flow of information. Ordinarily, info is transmitted through written reports and such. Rarely does it come in such pure, unadulterated form as a video or audio recording. There should be absolutely no reason for adulterating or withholding such a pure record.

There should be laws passed to that effect. If I lie or withhold information to a police investigation, it's withholding evidence--obstructing justice, a felony. To withhold a video or audio recording should be a form of obstructing justice. Only personal privacy or national security should be exceptions.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

I am not going to get drawn into another one of your tantrums, you are arguing off censuring a child abuser

That in my book is disgusting

You are not civilized full stop, if you were, you would have moved on 4 days ago

Grow up

Moved on from what? You're the one harassing me all over the forum again.

You are not a victim no matter who much you claim otherwise and nobody has bought any of your reports

Quelle surprise


You are complaining about the school doing the right thing by releasing footage of a woman, who now know mother or father would allow within 50 feet of looking after their children and I would not blame them. A this woman clearly should not be looking after children anymore and the public  have a right to know

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But it wasn't hidden from the school was it? Are you suggesting that whoever is in charge of surveillance videos posted it instead of telling their employer, and that's how the school found out?

Surely if the school had access to the video, saw what had happened, did not try to conceal it from the boys parents, accepted the womans notice, reported it to social services so they could ensure she was on a register not to work with children (or any vulnerable person) again......and if there had been no prior incidents involving her treatment of children.....would that not have sufficed in this event?

Absolutely not. Nothing justifies withholding from the public. It should be available when asked for, without hesitation.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

As in the general public being "the boss"?

Exactly.  A democracy depends upon free-flow of information.  Ordinarily, info is transmitted through written reports and such.  Rarely does it come in such pure, unadulterated form as a video or audio recording.  There should be absolutely no reason for adulterating or withholding such a pure record.

There should be laws passed to that effect.  If I lie or withhold information to a police investigation, it's withholding evidence--obstructing justice, a felony.  To withhold a video or audio recording should be a form of obstructing justice.  Only personal privacy or national security should be exceptions.

Ok, so you were not being literal.

I don't know Quill. With the advent of the internet and the increase of such incidents being posted as videos, there also seems to be a corresponding rise in people being harassed and threatened.

The public isn't going to be trying this case, so why do they need to see it?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Surely if the school had access to the video, saw what had happened, did not try to conceal it from the boys parents, accepted the womans notice, reported it to social services so they could ensure she was on a register not to work with children (or any vulnerable person) again......and if there had been no prior incidents involving her treatment of children.....would that not have sufficed in this event?

Absolutely not.  Nothing justifies withholding from the public.  It should be available when asked for, without hesitation.

Agreed

Original Quill wrote:

Stormee wrote:Iam sick to death of all this sh** which Didge spouts on a daily rant. name calling, unsults, spamming, trolling.

HE IS OUT OF CONTROL

He has never shut up his rantings since I have been here.

W/b Stormee.  The trick is to leave him alone or anyone like that.  When you don't talk back, there's no grist for his mill.

I give him two or three answers, then leave it.  Occasionally, when you have a specific point, you might make it in addition.  But silence is the prescription.

It's a failure of impulse-control.  Sad to say, but when people like that realize that no one will come out and play with them, then they quiet down.  

Can't argue with that.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Surely if the school had access to the video, saw what had happened, did not try to conceal it from the boys parents, accepted the womans notice, reported it to social services so they could ensure she was on a register not to work with children (or any vulnerable person) again......and if there had been no prior incidents involving her treatment of children.....would that not have sufficed in this event?

Absolutely not.  Nothing justifies withholding from the public.  It should be available when asked for, without hesitation.

I don't agree with that at all. If I walked into a place of business and demanded to see their surveillance videos, I don't think they'd agree. Nothing supports this video being made public - it's just malice IMO.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Absolutely not.  Nothing justifies withholding from the public.  It should be available when asked for, without hesitation.

I don't agree with that at all. If I walked into a place of business and demanded to see their surveillance videos, I don't think they'd agree. Nothing supports this video being made public - it's just malice IMO.

Which means you wish to censer what is the public right to see of a woman neglecting a child
Everything supports this video being made public including every parent in the US having the right to see it, to safe guard their own children

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't agree with that at all. If I walked into a place of business and demanded to see their surveillance videos, I don't think they'd agree. Nothing supports this video being made public - it's just malice IMO.

Which means you wish to censer what is the public right to see of a woman neglecting a child
Everything supports this video being made public including every parent in the US having the right to see it, to safe guard their own children

I don't agree. It's just malice IMO.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Surely if the school had access to the video, saw what had happened, did not try to conceal it from the boys parents, accepted the womans notice, reported it to social services so they could ensure she was on a register not to work with children (or any vulnerable person) again......and if there had been no prior incidents involving her treatment of children.....would that not have sufficed in this event?

Absolutely not.  Nothing justifies withholding from the public.  It should be available when asked for, without hesitation.

Available to be put on YouTube and have the woman subjected to abuse from any deranged keyboard warrior who thinks it's his/her right to issue death threats and the like, because that's exactly what happens when events like this go public and people are named "without hesitation"

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Exactly.  A democracy depends upon free-flow of information.  Ordinarily, info is transmitted through written reports and such.  Rarely does it come in such pure, unadulterated form as a video or audio recording.  There should be absolutely no reason for adulterating or withholding such a pure record.

There should be laws passed to that effect.  If I lie or withhold information to a police investigation, it's withholding evidence--obstructing justice, a felony.  To withhold a video or audio recording should be a form of obstructing justice.  Only personal privacy or national security should be exceptions.

Ok, so you were not being literal.

I don't know Quill. With the advent of the internet and the increase of such incidents being posted as videos, there also seems to be a corresponding rise in people being harassed and threatened.

The public isn't going to be trying this case, so why do they need to see it?

Because they are the public.  The boss.  The absolute God.  Haha...that's the way it works in a democracy.  

A democracy isn't run for the benefit of middle-level management.  It's run for the boss.  It's a vertical flow of power.  If there is leakage as the power flows, then the system is broken.  The seals are warped.

A well run organization depends upon the uninterrupted flow of command and response.  Every military person knows that.  If we allow the line people--the teachers and policemen--to corrupt the system, then it won't be dependable.  It won't work.

The problem with democracy is that certain types can't get that into their heads.  They treat the people like 'the sheep' or collateral inconveniences.  Those people only learn how important the people are when they try to corrupt the system.  

There's nothing worse than lying...except covering up the lie.  That's when the shit comes down.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Which means you wish to censer what is the public right to see of a woman neglecting a child
Everything supports this video being made public including every parent in the US having the right to see it, to safe guard their own children

I don't agree. It's just malice IMO.

Absurd, the public has a right to know, even more if this was not public and she was then looking after other children.

You would be placing them at risk, all because you offer no valid reason to censer other than an invented claim to malice

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't agree. It's just malice IMO.

Absurd, the public has a right to know, even more if this was not public and she was then looking after other children.

You would be placing them at risk, all because you offer no valid reason to censer other than an invented claim to malice

No they don't. What right do you have to know what a woman did in the US? It's not like it's your business or anything.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Absurd, the public has a right to know, even more if this was not public and she was then looking after other children.

You would be placing them at risk, all because you offer no valid reason to censer other than an invented claim to malice

No they don't. What right do you have to know what a woman did in the US? It's not like it's your business or anything.

I have every right to know if she has committed a crime, of which she has.

Again defending a child abuser, that says it all to me with you

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No they don't. What right do you have to know what a woman did in the US? It's not like it's your business or anything.

I have every right to know if she has committed a crime, of which she has.

Again defending a child abuser, that says it all to me with you

What does it say to you?

Will you guys knock it off?  I don't wanna play in this sandbox if this is the way y'all are going to behave.

Original Quill wrote:Will you guys knock it off?  I don't wanna play in this sandbox if this is the way y'all are going to behave.

Er I am having a debate, sorry if others have different views to you.

Best you get used to that

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


I have every right to know if she has committed a crime, of which she has.

Again defending a child abuser, that says it all to me with you

What does it say to you?

That you are defending the censorship of a child abuser

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What does it say to you?

That you are defending the censorship of a child abuser

I wouldn't call her a child abuser - I think she was nudging the kid and she did it too hard by mistake.

This thread is now like groundhog day.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


That you are defending the censorship of a child abuser

I wouldn't call her a child abuser - I think she was nudging the kid and she did it too hard by mistake.

So you are claiming child neglect is not child abuse??

So you are now also defending and claiming it was not deliberate

Seriously how much do you hate children rags

As so often where children are involved you show very little sympathy or empathy?

Syl wrote:This thread is now like groundhog day.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I wouldn't call her a child abuser - I think she was nudging the kid and she did it too hard by mistake.

So you are claiming child neglect is not child abuse??

So you are now also defending and claiming it was not deliberate

Seriously how much do you hate children rags

As so often where children are involved you show very little sympathy or empathy?

I told you - I think it was accidental. So does Quill, so are you going to accuse him of hating children too?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


So you are claiming child neglect is not child abuse??

So you are now also defending and claiming it was not deliberate

Seriously how much do you hate children rags

As so often where children are involved you show very little sympathy or empathy?

I told you - I think it was accidental. So does Quill, so are you going to accuse him of hating children too?

Well I think you need to go to specsavers then, if you think that was accidental

I never said you hated but lacked empathy

lol

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I told you - I think it was accidental. So does Quill, so are you going to accuse him of hating children too?

Well I think you need to go to specsavers then, if you think that was accidental

I never said you hated but lacked empathy

lol

I don't need spectacles. I don't care about the empathy thing - I prefer common sense.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Well I think you need to go to specsavers then, if you think that was accidental

I never said you hated but lacked empathy

lol

I don't need spectacles. I don't care about the empathy thing - I prefer common sense.

Thank your for proving what the real issue here is

Your lack of empathy, for children

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't need spectacles. I don't care about the empathy thing - I prefer common sense.

Thank your for proving what the real issue here is

Your lack of empathy, for children

No it's not - the real issue is what I saw in the video compared to what you saw.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Thank your for proving what the real issue here is

Your lack of empathy, for children

No it's not - the real issue is what I saw in the video compared to what you saw.

Yes and all could see she deliberately kneed him in the back

That is as plain as day

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No it's not - the real issue is what I saw in the video compared to what you saw.

Yes and all could see she deliberately kneed him in the back

That is as plain as day

In order to nudge him into the class, but she did it too much by accident.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Yes and all could see she deliberately kneed him in the back

That is as plain as day

In order to nudge him into the class, but she did it too much by accident.

So show me the teacher guide that states to knee children in the back in order to get them into class?

She did it deliberately and I am glad the child abuser has been ousted for the child neglect she committed

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

In order to nudge him into the class, but she did it too much by accident.

So show me the teacher guide that states to knee children in the back in order to get them into class?

She did it deliberately and I am glad the child abuser has been ousted for the child neglect she committed

What teacher guide?

I doubt she's a child abuser.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


So show me the teacher guide that states to knee children in the back in order to get them into class?

She did it deliberately and I am glad the child abuser has been ousted for the child neglect she committed

What teacher guide?

I doubt she's a child abuser.

She has been arrested for child neglect

Which is a form of child abuse

Show me the teacher guide that permits a a teacher to knee a child in the back to move them along?