<p>From the article:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And what Bay said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bay, does it mean that if an attacker was not using hands, i.e. “touching”, fighting back by using limbs is not OK? So when a pervert cornered me, I should not have whacked him? Hmmm…</p>
<p>I am not defending the teacher or condemning her. But I would not recommend what she did as the course of action. She is lucky the guy did not instinctively punch her back.</p>
<p>BunsenBurner,
You are free to react in any way you deem appropriate. The point is, that there are consequences to reacting to others’ actions by punching them in the face, whether you think that was the right thing to do or not. Your assessment is only so good as a court of law will agree with you.</p>
<p>I don’t dispute that obviously this teacher felt punching this student was the proper response. That doesn’t excuse her from facing consequences for doing it. Law enforcement has absolved her from criminal prosecution, but she still faces the possibility of being fired or disciplined by the school district, and she could still be found liable in a civil action for damages to the kid’s face, because the standard for finding fault is lower in civil court.</p>
<p>Some people here seem to simply accept her action as the right one. I don’t think it was a good decision. I was merely trying to explain why.</p>
<p>I wonder if other students didn’t step in right away because they didn’t want to get involved. But then once she threw that punch, another male student stepped in and grabbed the apparent aggressor to prevent him from going ballistic…</p>
<p>Bay, I won’t judge the woman as the situation is done and judged. But I certainly would not recommend her course of action, and if she had been a kid in that same situation, she would have most likely been disciplined.</p>
<p>This teacher acted out of necessity and she did what most teachers probably wished they could do when a disgusting kid like this becomes abusive. She was protecting herself from a kid that probably has had a long history of being a problem with alot of teachers. I hope she wins a civil suit if the district does not place her in another school. She is the victim, not this piece of crap kid.</p>
<p>Cross posted with cptofthe house…I would not recommend this course of action either but judging that video with the information we have about this teacher she did what she did because she felt at that moment that she had no choice. I suspect this kid has severe personal issues that many teachers have had to put up with for a very long time. Too bad his parents did’nt address his violent behavior back when he was a younger less threatening character.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The action she was responding to was getting bumped and then the kid
coming around to do it again. Here’s a physics question for you: which
exerts more force: 250 pounds at 5 mph or a 9mm bullet?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It didn’t even get there. The prosecutor determined that it was
self-defense. If the police had done a more thorough job
investigating, they could have arrested the correct individual.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Wrong. For her it was instinct. Look at the punches. I don’t see that
she contemplated what she was doing or that she has had any martial
arts training.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>No. The prosecutor determined that it was self-defense.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yes, there are a lot of idiots running school districts.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>She could file criminal charges and civil charges herself. Do you think
that the parents would want to pay for lawyers?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>She did what she did and it worked.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It wasn’t a decision. It was an instinctive reaction.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, the problem with this statement is the perception that the teacher made a conscious decision to hit the kid. As if she mulled over the plethora of choices that were at her disposal and, after carefully weighing them, decided that hitting the boy was the way to go.</p>
<p>It is not a matter of right or wrong or good decision/bad decision. It just was. Again, a valuable lesson for kids to learn. For every action there is a reaction. </p>
<p>
.</p>
<p>No, nobody mulling over this situation, would recommend her “course of action”. And if a kid hits another kid in self defense with nobody there to help him, how is it that he would be punished? If that were your child, instead of the teacher, in that situation and she was being threatened by a much larger student, who had already made physical contact with her and was shouting obscenities at her and nobody was there who could or would help her, would you be okay with her throwing a few punches? Or would you be okay if the school, after finding out about the incident, thought that your daughter should be disciplined because of her “course of action” in the face of a repeat assault?</p>
<p>Am I the only one who can’t help wondering how this situation might have been resolved if
CCW were involved, legally or illegally? One or more than one?</p>
<p>^^^
What is CCW?</p>
<p>counterclockwise</p>
<p>@BCEagle and EPTR,
So what if the teacher’s actions were “instinctive” or “unconscious?” There is no criminal immunity for instinctively or unconsciously punching people in the face. This teacher was lucky that law enforcement deemed her reaction reasonable in light of the circumstances, but they might have just as easily found it to be excessive force and charged her with assault and battery. That is the point I am trying to make. It is never automatically okay to punch someone in the face, so it should never be the course of action of choice, when there are other less violent alternatives.</p>
<p>^ Bay could it be that the police know that this is a kid with issues and the teacher trully felt threatened?</p>
<p>Ha ha ha! I get it. Yes, I actually did think about that. All bets would be off, then, wouldn’t they? It would be interesting to see what started the whole thing and when this kid got out of control and beyond the point of reason. Was there a point at which he could have been “talked down”? Maybe, maybe not. Some kids are so volatile and can be set off by absolutely nothing. There is also the possibility that substance abuse was part of the picture (on the student’s part, although if I were that teacher I would definitely had a couple of glasses of wine when I got home.)</p>
<p>
No, there is no criminal immunity for instinctive actions unless the are IN SELF DEFENSE. It wasn’t luck that they found her actions to be reasonable. It was based on testimony and evidence. It IS automatically okay to punch somebody in the face under certain circumstances. Absolutely. Self defense is one of them.</p>
<p>As far as other options…again, what would those have been?</p>
<p>I’m sorry Bay but your argument is nonsensical and goes around in circles.</p>
<p>EPTR,
You can’t know if an action is SELF-DEFENSE until there is a finding of fact, based on the evidence. That is why the teacher was arrested in the first instance. The assumption is that punching someone in the face is criminal assault and battery. Only AFTER looking at all the evidence was it determined that her punches were justifiable self-defense. You are the one who has it backwards.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>My response of her reaction as instinctive was only there to correct
your expression that she analyzed all of her options and picked that
as her best option.</p>
<p>I did not state that there is criminal immunity for instinctively
or unconsciously punching people in the face. Please do not put words
in my mouth.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Again, you get it wrong. Law enforcement did not deem her reaction
reasonable. The prosecutor did.</p>
<p>Prosecutors do get it wrong. Prosecutors can be vindictive. Prosecutors
like to brag that they can indict a ham sandwich.</p>
<p>Big deal.</p>
<p>We saw what eventually happened to Mike Nifong. And Duke. And Durham.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>You know, so many people here have explained why you are wrong and
you just don’t get it.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Sure you can.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>There have been many cases where a home owner has shot and killed
people that have entered their homes where the home owner was not
arrested.</p>
<p>Your reasoning is flawed.</p>
<p>
Huh? I get all that. Yes, yes. They needed to investigate whether it was self defense or not. How does that change anything? Should I not defend myself against assault because my actions might be misinterpreted as assault? I think you lost me. I might be dead after I am assaulted but, darn it, at least nobody will think I assaulted anyone.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The police can do that investigation at the scene and make a determination as to whether or not they should arrest someone. If they don’t do that, then they can needlessly entangle someone in the criminal justice system generating costs for the state and the person arrested. In this case, they left it up to the prosecutor and he figured out that it was self-defense from information that the police could have gathered at the scene.</p>
<p>A friend is a teacher in a high school who had a face-down with a student that was threatening to become violent. The intercom in his classroom was broken. He couldn’t leave himself. He asked some other students to go to the classroom next door and call the office. They all refused because they were afraid of being beaten up later. </p>
<p>This incident ended without violence–friend is young, male, and teaches martial arts, and was able to eventually defuse the situation–but boy was he ****ed about the broken intercom.</p>