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

Raggamuffin wrote:If I was Quill, I'd report that, but I'm not so I won't.

Raggamuffin wrote:If I was Quill, I'd report that, but I'm not so I won't.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's disgusting to accuse another member of being a child abuser.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If I was Quill, I'd report that, but I'm not so I won't.

I think it's a good address of the subject-matter, using the example right before you.  After all, we are talking about an adult-child interaction.  And we are talking about how emotional states motivate one's immediate responses.

In the present case, the teacher was overloaded, probably late, trying to introduce urgency and move the child along to get things started.  It's natural to begin to get physical as frustrations rise.  It's appropriate to point out how emotions give rise to physical gestures.

Didge wrote:Police arrest teacher who knocked down special needs student

TIFTON, GA (WALB) -
Police announced that they have arrested a teacher who was caught on surveillance video knocking over a child with special needs.

The teacher, identified as 71 year old Amelia Stripling, turned herself in to police Friday afternoon, after warrants were issued for her arrest.

She was charged with 2nd degree cruelty to a child.

http://www.walb.com/story/31568040/police-arrest-teacher-who-knocked-down-special-needs-student


So much for our resident bullshit judge it seems

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think it's a good address of the subject-matter, using the example right before you.  After all, we are talking about an adult-child interaction.  And we are talking about how emotional states motivate one's immediate responses.

In the present case, the teacher was overloaded, probably late, trying to introduce urgency and move the child along to get things started.  It's natural to begin to get physical as frustrations rise.  It's appropriate to point out how emotions give rise to physical gestures.

It's not right that you should be accused of being a child abuser just because you don't think the woman was being malicious. I know you and I have our tiffs, but that was going way too far.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think it's a good address of the subject-matter, using the example right before you.  After all, we are talking about an adult-child interaction.  And we are talking about how emotional states motivate one's immediate responses.

In the present case, the teacher was overloaded, probably late, trying to introduce urgency and move the child along to get things started.  It's natural to begin to get physical as frustrations rise.  It's appropriate to point out how emotions give rise to physical gestures.

It's not right that you should be accused of being a child abuser just because you don't think the woman was being malicious. I know you and I have our tiffs, but that was going way too far.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not right that you should be accused of being a child abuser just because you don't think the woman was being malicious. I know you and I have our tiffs, but that was going way too far.

Reported

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not right that you should be accused of being a child abuser just because you don't think the woman was being malicious. I know you and I have our tiffs, but that was going way too far.

I don't think she was being "accused of being a child abuser..." because of malice.  I think the lack of evidence of malice is what is paramount.  To me, I see a situation of frustration, urgency, and a teacher trying to sweep all things together, using hands, feet, etc., to get a class started.  

It was a situation of frustration, not malice.  That is the point.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't think she was being "accused of being a child abuser..." because of malice.  I think the lack of evidence of malice is what is paramount.  To me, I see a situation of frustration, urgency, and a teacher trying to sweep all things together, using hands, feet, etc., to get a class started.  

It was a situation of frustration, not malice.  That is the point.

You were accused of being a child abuser - twice.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not right that you should be accused of being a child abuser just because you don't think the woman was being malicious. I know you and I have our tiffs, but that was going way too far.

I don't think she was being "accused of being a child abuser..." because of malice.  I think the lack of evidence of malice is what is paramount.  To me, I see a situation of frustration, urgency, and a teacher trying to sweep all things together, using hands, feet, etc., to get a class started.  

It was a situation of frustration, not malice.  That is the point.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't think she was being "accused of being a child abuser..." because of malice.  I think the lack of evidence of malice is what is paramount.  To me, I see a situation of frustration, urgency, and a teacher trying to sweep all things together, using hands, feet, etc., to get a class started.  

It was a situation of frustration, not malice.  That is the point.

You were accused of being a child abuser - twice.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You were accused of being a child abuser - twice.

Nonsense, all of my children are grown.  And nobody has accused me of anything.

You can bet all you like, which just shows how immature you have that you would even equate others to being a child abuser like yourself.

He was claiming I did actually, but never mind you it seems you are still having the hump four days later and to me if Quill believes that is okay to do that to a child, then I would not trust him around children as to me that is child abuse what happened to the child

So yes based on his views I do think he is a child abuser

Didge wrote:"Herd" thus equating the child to some herd of animals?

It does not get anymore abusive a thing to say towards children and kneeing a child in the back, when she could ask him to move is just excusing violence to a 4 year old

Original Quill wrote:Yeah.  It's an instinct we all follow.  I'll bet you've done it with your kids.



Oh didge, you always think abusiveness is the answer.  Are you that afraid?  We won't hurt you.


How do physical properties, such as mass and causation, equate into attitude?  I wish you had a more analytical mind.  I'll bet most wars in history have begun by people misinterpreting physical properties into attitudinal purposes.

Raggamuffin wrote:If I was Quill, I'd report that, but I'm not so I won't.

Raggamuffin wrote:I didn't derail it by accusing someone of being a child abuser ...

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill didn't accuse you of being a child abuser.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's disgusting to accuse another member of being a child abuser.

Then maybe you should speak to Quill about that

Also one more disruption and you are reported

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Didge wrote:

Then maybe you should speak to Quill about that

Also one more disruption and you are reported

GO ON,  Dodderydidge !!!!

RUN away and report everybody who's even laughed at you on here today..
Should only take you 2 or 3 hours.
 
YOU  poor little muffin, you..

HANG ON there,  while I just go get some popcorn...

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill didn't accuse you of being a child abuser.

Merriam-Webster wrote:a·buse
verb
əˈbyo͞oz/
1.
use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse.
"the judge abused his power by imposing the fines"
synonyms: misuse, misapply, misemploy; More
2.
treat (a person or an animal) with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly.
"riders who abuse their horses should be prosecuted"
synonyms: mistreat, maltreat, ill-treat, treat badly; More
noun
əˈbyo͞os/
1.
the improper use of something.
"alcohol abuse"
synonyms: misuse, misapplication, misemployment; More
2.
cruel and violent treatment of a person or animal.
"a black eye and other signs of physical abuse"
synonyms: mistreatment, maltreatment, ill-treatment

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill didn't accuse you of being a child abuser.

Correct.  But that doesn't deter didge.  What I did accuse him of is being abusive:


And he is abusive on here: to Fuzzy, to Horatio Tarr, to Bee, to LF, to Sassy...to everyone.  Every single discussion becomes immediately abusive, and his anger comes out.

But didge has used a little definitional-creep, and changed the meaning to child abuse, or perhaps child sex abuse.  Is that disingenous sleight-of-hand?  It's classic didge.

Original Quill wrote:Yeah.  It's an instinct we all follow.  I'll bet you've done it with your kids.
Oh didge, you always think abusiveness is the answer.  Are you that afraid?  We won't hurt you.
How do physical properties, such as mass and causation, equate into attitude?  I wish you had a more analytical mind.  I'll bet most wars in history have begun by people misinterpreting physical properties into attitudinal purposes
I would be willing to bet substantial funds that you have.  Especially with your lack of impulse control...Take a look how easy it is to stir you to a violent frame-of-mind: I mean didge, you are incapable of having a two-line conversation without having a fight.  Do I believe you might have unconsciously herded your kids with a leg or ankle.  You could bet on it.  You are much to quickly abusive.

Didge wrote:At the end of the day Quill you just are pissed at every time I show up how poor your views are that now all you can do it talk about me and make accusations and I will say it again, i would not trust you within 50 miles of a child based on your views here

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:At the end of the day Quill you just are pissed at every time I show up how poor your views are that now all you can do it talk about me and make accusations and I will say it again, i would not trust you within 50 miles of a child based on your views here

Didge, you frighten about as much as a mouse frightens a cat.  You are a pest, not a fright.
Not trying to frighten anyone which shows your perception of people is shockingly poor as you have zero understanding of psychology

We have a thread about a teacher and a child.  You are wrongfully characterizing her as having malice toward the child.  I responded by saying she looks a bit frustrated, perhaps scurrying the child a long.
Well the Police and the media and just about everyone posting comments on all the media sources vastly disagree with you as she has been charged with secondary child neglect. Child neglect is a form of a child abuse showing you have no conception of the many forms of child abuse. Pushing your knee with force into the back of a 4 year old is not scurrying a child along but malicious abuse,. that pushed the child onto the floor who was lucky to come away unhurt. 

In fact show me the teacher practice where it states to physical push children and not ask them to move in to class?

You immediately become abusive.  I seize the opportunity to point out that what with the many times a day you get frustrated, you ought to understand that frustration is not malice (at least I hope you don't intend malice).
You have been abusive by accusing me of things to my own children, which is as low as it can get, and you then try and weasel and deflect out of this by trying to lay blame on me. That means the abuse started completely with you, and not me

Yes, didge, you are abusive.  You don't frighten anyone.  I've even felt sorry for you in some situations...you are your own worst enemy.  But the point here is only the connection between being harried and trying to multi-task a child into his seat to get a class started.  You have no justification--no evidence--for saying that the teacher acted with malice, particularly what with the love she displayed afterwards.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:At the end of the day Quill you just are pissed at every time I show up how poor your views are that now all you can do it talk about me and make accusations and I will say it again, i would not trust you within 50 miles of a child based on your views here

Didge, you frighten about as much as a mouse frightens a cat.  You are a pest, not a fright.

We have a thread about a teacher and a child.  You are wrongfully characterizing her as having malice toward the child.  I responded by saying she looks a bit frustrated, perhaps scurrying the child a long.

You immediately become abusive.  I seize the opportunity to point out that what with the many times a day you get frustrated, you ought to understand that frustration is not malice (at least I hope you don't intend malice).

Yes, didge, you are abusive.  You don't frighten anyone.  I've even felt sorry for you in some situations...you are your own worst enemy.  But the point here is only the connection between being harried and trying to multi-task a child into his seat to get a class started.  You have no justification--no evidence--for saying that the teacher acted with malice, particularly what with the love she displayed afterwards.

Didge wrote:Not trying to frighten anyone which shows your perception of people is shockingly poor as you have zero understanding of psychology

Didge wrote:Well the Police and the media and just about everyone posting comments on all the media sources vastly disagree with you as she has been charged with secondary child neglect. Child neglect is a form of a child abuse showing you have no conception of the many forms of child abuse. Pushing your need with force into the back of a 4 year old is not scurrying a child along but malicious abuse,. that pushed the child onto the floor who was lucky to come away unhurt.

Didge wrote:In fact show me the teacher practice where it states to physical push children and not ask them to move in to class?

Didge wrote:You have been abusive by accusing me of things to my own children, which is as low as it can get, and you then try and weasel and deflect out of this by trying to lay blame on me. That means the abuse started completely with you, and not me

Original Quill wrote:
Haha…perhaps ‘frighten’ is the wrong term.  Perhaps I mean, you don’t motivate me one bit.  The point is, you seem to attribute much more importance to yourself than do others.
My aim is not to motivate but correct your daily poor views, so again your ability at perception is shockingly poor to say the least again showing you have very little ability to understand people


Truth is not a democracy.  Lol.  I’ve been a law enforcement official and I know how these situations arise when the clip goes viral.  The police have a role to play, and they are playing it until the curtain falls.  Then, they’ll either drop charges or strike a deal.  They probably already have, what with her resignation and all.
You have been nothing more than an a person seeking attention because you need for people to look up to you which is a massive hallmark of insecurities. Nobody cares that you seem to think you were a judge ect, as its utterly irrelevant. What is relevant is how you often get things wrong just as you have here failing to see that child neglect is child abuse.
Again you cannot show me any teaching methods backed by the US State that allows for children to be pushed with force ion the back with a knee?

It’s basic human habit, especially when dealing with kids.
Show me the scientific evidence its a basic human habit to knee someone in the back?
Maybe in prison its a basic habit, but I have never come across any parent that would knee their child in the back with such force to knock them over

I even think there is even a rule of law that says when a person demonstrates a habit pattern with regularity in certain situations, that fact may be used as proof of that same habit pattern in other situations.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Didge, you frighten about as much as a mouse frightens a cat.  You are a pest, not a fright.

We have a thread about a teacher and a child.  You are wrongfully characterizing her as having malice toward the child.  I responded by saying she looks a bit frustrated, perhaps scurrying the child a long.

You immediately become abusive.  I seize the opportunity to point out that what with the many times a day you get frustrated, you ought to understand that frustration is not malice (at least I hope you don't intend malice).

Yes, didge, you are abusive.  You don't frighten anyone.  I've even felt sorry for you in some situations...you are your own worst enemy.  But the point here is only the connection between being harried and trying to multi-task a child into his seat to get a class started.  You have no justification--no evidence--for saying that the teacher acted with malice, particularly what with the love she displayed afterwards.

I think she most probably acted with malice. She more than most would know how vulnerable that little boy was, he narrowly missed banging his face when he was pushed forwards. I don't think she displayed any love towards him either...more fear that she had been clocked being so nasty and would be in trouble....which she now is.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think she most probably acted with malice. She more than most would know how vulnerable that little boy was, he narrowly missed banging his face when he was pushed forwards. I don't think she displayed any love towards him either...more fear that she had been clocked being so nasty and would be in trouble....which she now is.

This is why the criminal standard is 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'  Not what you think.  Not what you guess.  Not what you speculate.  But, what you can prove.  What you can point to as evidence that establishes the fact.

There's no doubt that there was a push.  No doubt, as well, that he narrowly missed the impact.   But there is no evidence establishing any fear on her part (of "being clocked"--speculation), though there was evidence of loving compassion as she give him a rub, etc.  (You've got to be careful as an attorney of what you put into evidence.)  And finally, the "being so nasty", again, is speculation that it was nastiness, and not a simple accident.

The law makes one to justify every finding of fact, and and every conclusion of law.  You see how many unjustified elements I can point to in your depiction.  Each and all of those are points of appeal, had you been on the jury.  Lol.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think she most probably acted with malice. She more than most would know how vulnerable that little boy was, he narrowly missed banging his face when he was pushed forwards. I don't think she displayed any love towards him either...more fear that she had been clocked being so nasty and would be in trouble....which she now is.

This is why the criminal standard is 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'  Not what you think.  Not what you guess.  Not what you speculate.  But, what you can prove.  What you can point to as evidence that establishes the fact.

There's no doubt that there was a push.  No doubt, as well, that he narrowly missed the impact.   But there is no evidence establishing any fear on her part (of "being clocked"--speculation), though there was evidence of loving compassion as she give him a rub, etc.  (You've got to be careful as an attorney of what you put into evidence.)  And finally, the "being so nasty", again, is speculation that it was nastiness, and not a simple accident.

The law makes one to justify every finding of fact, and and every conclusion of law.  You see how many unjustified elements I can point to in your depiction.  Each and all of those are points of appeal, had you been on the jury.  Lol.

Miffs2 wrote:Watched it and watched it. Can't decide if the initial contact was deliberate. That said her conduct after the initial contact is inexcusable. Look at the size of him!
If that was my child I would break her. 71? Why the hell is she working with vulnerable children at that age?

Original Quill wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:Watched it and watched it. Can't decide if the initial contact was deliberate. That said her conduct after the initial contact is inexcusable. Look at the size of him!
If that was my child I would break her. 71? Why the hell is she working with vulnerable children at that age?

That's why I say it doesn't appear to be malicious.  There is no evidence showing malice.  I remember my father teaching me how to shake hands: A firm grip, son, aggressively put forward!  Lol...well, that's kinda what she did.  She tried to swoop up the kid and into the classroom,  Just too strong.

Accusing someone in a criminal law context is meaningless.  Just like in a civil trial, the prosecution is just another side.  Anyone can accuse; it's what you can prove that counts.

As far as the Division of Family Services is concerned, they could take the kid away from his parents.  But what does that accomplish?  The teacher has quit.  The prosecutor has pressed charges.  It'll never go to trial.  If it does, the defense attorney will argue to the jury it was an accident; the jury will find reasonable doubt; she would be acquitted.  But, bet you will never see the trial.  Trials cost too much money for such nonsense.

The woman's career is ruined, but that's just chance.  I mean, who can survive that?  Like an auto accident.  Chance...bad luck, that.  But I don't think the criminal accusations will go anywhere.

Miffs2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's why I say it doesn't appear to be malicious.  There is no evidence showing malice.  I remember my father teaching me how to shake hands: A firm grip, son, aggressively put forward!  Lol...well, that's kinda what she did.  She tried to swoop up the kid and into the classroom,  Just too strong.

Accusing someone in a criminal law context is meaningless.  Just like in a civil trial, the prosecution is just another side.  Anyone can accuse; it's what you can prove that counts.

As far as the Division of Family Services is concerned, they could take the kid away from his parents.  But what does that accomplish?  The teacher has quit.  The prosecutor has pressed charges.  It'll never go to trial.  If it does, the defense attorney will argue to the jury it was an accident; the jury will find reasonable doubt; she would be acquitted.  But, bet you will never see the trial.  Trials cost too much money for such nonsense.

The woman's career is ruined, but that's just chance.  I mean, who can survive that?  Like an auto accident.  Chance...bad luck, that.  But I don't think the criminal accusations will go anywhere.

Why on earth would family services take the child from his parents?

Didge wrote:The incident has now been reported to the Division of Family and Children Services.

Didge wrote:Standards for reporting
Generally speaking, a report must be made when an individual knows or has reasonable cause to believe or suspect that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect. These standards guide mandatory reporters in deciding whether to make a report to child protective services.

Persons responsible for the child
In addition to defining acts or omissions that constitute child abuse or neglect, several states' statutes provide specific definitions of persons who can get reported to child protective services as perpetrators of abuse or neglect. These are persons who have some relationship or regular responsibility for the child. This generally includes parents, grandparents, guardians, foster parents, relatives, legal guardians or bystanders.[no teachers] Once taken away from home, the stated goal of CPS is to reunite the child with their family. In some cases, due to the nature of abuse children are not able to see or converse with the abusers. If parents fail to complete Court Ordered terms and conditions, the children in care may never return home [so, removal is their chief remedy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Protective_Services

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/7029651/Award-winning-teacher-quits-after-being-secretly-filmed-pushing-special-needs-child-over.html

And Quill claims to know US law lol

Lord Foul wrote:and ragga.....looking through this thread....

Lord Foul wrote:nope i mean xos you is stirring


like didge and fuzzy......didge and quill "deserve" one another

and they dontneed your help

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:nope i mean xos you is stirring


like didge and fuzzy......didge and quill "deserve" one another

and they dontneed your help

I really didn't think you were that stupid Victor. I'll have a look through the thread and report all the times Didge was abusive.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I really didn't think you were that stupid Victor. I'll have a look through the thread and report all the times Didge was abusive.