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

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

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?

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

Original Quill 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

Argument isn't about more adjectives.  You're just repeating yourself when you find different ways of coloring it.

We do lot's of things deliberately.  Every step you take, etc.  But was the act done maliciously?  I see on evidence that would distinguish the actions from merely bumping or nudging the boy.

What happened thereafter was accidental.The video shows nothing more.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Argument isn't about more adjectives.  You're just repeating yourself when you find different ways of coloring it.

We do lot's of things deliberately.  Every step you take, etc.  But was the act done maliciously?  I see on evidence that would distinguish the actions from merely bumping or nudging the boy.

What happened thereafter was accidental.The video shows nothing more.

Bull,. its not accidentel in any shape or form when you lift your knee forward

That shows you are making the biggest load of bullshit defense possible

Didge wrote:She pushed him forward with her knee, that is not accidental

Didge wrote:...and to claim so shows you fail to see how what a size difference there is between the two, where she clearly saw him and only then reacted when the other adult came into views
Your argument is flawed based off the poor assumption you have based on not even understanding how the human body even walks

Original Quill 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

Argument isn't about more adjectives.  You're just repeating yourself when you find different ways of coloring it.

We do lot's of things deliberately.  Every step you take, etc.  But was the act done maliciously?  I see on evidence that would distinguish the actions from merely bumping or nudging the boy.

What happened thereafter was accidental.The video shows nothing more.

Original Quill wrote:
Nevertheless, it's a solid point.  She only nudged the boy to get him to move forward into the room.  Thereafter it was accidental.  The unmitigated fact is there is no evidence of anything to show malice. Nor does it indicate malace, or anything to suggest it was intended other than a nudge.  What I said was accidental was what happened thereafter. And where have you established that she was "understanding how the human body even walks..."  Remember...innocent until shown otherwise.  That means each point of your affirmative case must be established by evidence.  No assumptions allowed.   The defense, on the contrary, doesn't have to assume anything, except 'not guilty.'  So if you want to convince a jury she did it with malice, and not an accident, where is your evidence of malice (and not accident)?  At least prove one or the other...they are not the same, and after the judge's instructions, a jury isn't going to buy them as the same.

Lord Foul wrote:topic split...

your argument is in the fight club...keep it there

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:




Arrested means nothing.  The prosecutor is just someone with an opinion at this juncture.  The status of the record is she has never been convicted, and so there is no legal basis at present to associate her with child abuse.

It’s becoming a joke the way you continue to change your answers Quill.
You have gone from claiming fundamentally she did this deliberately by going off the view she was trying to herd the boy by using her leg. We then had your accusations that I or others would use our legs to herd children. Which I guess must be based on your own experience, but don not dare to label the rest of us as poor parents when you act inappropriately thinking such an action is acceptable. What she did was a deliberate act. If as you claim she was herding the child. You then change this to claim it was an accident. Which does not fit at all the frame by frame of the video? You cannot even give me or provide a reason why it would be justifiable for a teacher to treat a child in this manner? Most teachers or parents would drop down to a knee. In order to be as close as possible to the eye level of the child. When speaking to them. Any parent knows that you go down to a child’s level top talk to them and her action goes against any way or means to ask a child to move into a class. 

If you watch again, her eyes are fixed actually downwards on the boy. Her knee is raised and her body arching slightly backwards to provide extra "thrust" to the extended knee and pushes this into his back. Which makes his head go back, his legs buckle under him and his body pushed forward. That his whole body is now concave. He could have been seriously hurt and it was by sheer luck he was not seriously hurt. I mean at every level you neglect the size and weight ratio of each person here and your only defence is to claim this is her first offense? Which we have no idea if she has done this before and if this is the first time she has been caught? This is why it’s vital that other parents saw this. They may have had children that were taught by her. Is it then possible other children may have claimed of similar events and that parents had just ignored what their child claimed? Thinking it was a tall tale but now might thing back in horror they were telling the truth.

The most damning parts on all this and what you fail to even acknowledge is the fact she resigned. A person not guilty of a deliberate act, is not going to resign, if they are innocent. That just makes no sense at al and farther is evidence she knows what she did was wrong and was in fact child neglect. Not only that she went in to hand herself top the Police and my money is on her pleading guilty to the charge of child neglect. There was also a witness to the event also. The school also acted very well by sending her home clearly suspended on the day of the incident, showing again this was reported by a witness. Throughout this you have given excuses for her poor action and even worse argued that it was okay to treat children in this manner, which it will never be acceptable. She is guilty as sin of child neglect and I hope they give her the maximum sentence as near enough every parent would have done far worse if they had done this to their child.

You don’t treat children like herded animals.
Full stop.


That is better

Raggamuffin wrote:Re the business of her resigning, that's not necessarily an admission of guilt. We don't know what was said to her by her employer, but if she really didn't mean to be nasty to the child, she may well have resigned because she was being accused of being malicious.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Re the business of her resigning, that's not necessarily an admission of guilt. We don't know what was said to her by her employer, but if she really didn't mean to be nasty to the child, she may well have resigned because she was being accused of being malicious.

So innocent people resign when they know they are innocent then?

Nonsense on every level, and the fact she handed herself into the Police

She was suspended on the very day it happened pending an investigation, clearly she resigned, as you normally have a few days before a disciplinary

I expect this is not the first time she has done this and its the first time she has been found out, why its even more important for other parents to see this

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


So innocent people resign when they know they are innocent then?

Nonsense on every level, and the fact she handed herself into the Police

She was suspended on the very day it happened pending an investigation, clearly she resigned, as you normally have a few days before a disciplinary

I expect this is not the first time she has done this and its the first time she has been found out, why its even more important for other parents to see this

Yes of course they do. If someone is accused of child abuse, and they accidently pushed a kid, they may well resign. It's quite common for people who are suspended to resign.

You have no evidence that she's done anything before.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes of course they do. If someone is accused of child abuse, and they accidently pushed a kid, they may well resign. It's quite common for people who are suspended to resign.

You have no evidence that she's done anything before.

No they will not, show me at least 10 examples where innocent people have resigned to a suspected offense?

So its not common and you are just making it up to defend a woman who is up for child abuse

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


No they will not, show me at least 10 examples where innocent people have resigned to a suspected offense?

So its not common and you are just making it up to defend a woman who is up for child abuse

I'm not making it up. I know people who were suspended and then resigned.

You're inventing other "offences" committed by this woman.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not making it up. I know people who were suspended and then resigned.

You're inventing other "offences" committed by this woman.

Present at least 10 examples

Otherwise its nothing more than nonsense

She again clearly resigned before they could even give a disciplinary, that is showing an admittance of guilt, plus the video showing damning evidence of the fact it was a deliberate act

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Present at least 10 examples

Otherwise its nothing more than nonsense

She again clearly resigned before they could even give a disciplinary, that is showing an admittance of guilt, plus the video showing damning evidence of the fact it was a deliberate act

I'm not going to tell you about people I know obviously.

She probably resigned because she didn't like being accused. It's not an admission of guilt.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not going to tell you about people I know obviously.

She probably resigned because she didn't like being accused. It's not an admission of guilt.

Then you are done, as you cannot offer anything to substantiate your claim

The rest of your views are hearsay, which do not fit the facts of the events

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Then you are done, as you cannot offer anything to substantiate your claim

The rest of your views are hearsay, which do not fit the facts of the events

You were done a long time ago Didge. You have no evidence that this woman resigned because she knew she was guilty, or that she's done anything before. In fact, she won a teaching award a couple of years ago.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You were done a long time ago Didge. You have no evidence that this woman resigned because she knew she was guilty, or that she's done anything before. In fact, she won a teaching award a couple of years ago.

Nope all can see you made an unfounded claim, not backed by anything

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Nope all can see you made an unfounded claim, not backed by anything

You're the one making unfounded claims - as usual.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're the one making unfounded claims - as usual.

have your last word rags, it still renders your views without any support or evidence

Knock yourself out

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


have your last word rags, it still renders your views without any support or evidence

Knock yourself out

I'm glad you understand that your posts are just opinions, and that others are entitled to their own opinions.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm glad you understand that your posts are just opinions, and that others are entitled to their own opinions.

Hilarious ha ha

PMSL

When you have some evidence come back or just continue posting up your inane ignorance as per usual

Its your trade mark it seems

Now its clear you have nothing to add but keep gushing over talking to me