Principal throws student

**waxeater** · Posted On: 6/02/2010 3:47pm

Kid deserved it.

**Hiro Protagonist** · Posted On: 6/02/2010 3:54pm

Originally Posted by Snake Plissken

Dude.
It is JUNIOR high.
The girls are all like 12-14 y/o.

The principal would be liable for no matter what happens, be it this douchey fag taking pix of the girls or his restraining him from deleting the evidence. Better the principal err on the side of caution and the side of popular public opinion.

O_O That's US law?! Holy ****! Okay, here goes my dream of moving to Lake Geneva and becoming part time teacher and full-time Dungeon Master...

Hell, then I'd behave like Judge fucking Dreadd with my students. Hell, maybe I'd simply shot the guy.

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 6/02/2010 3:55pm

I think that PRINCIPAL needs to throw some of you posters on your heads.

/spelling Nazi.

**3moose1** · Posted On: 6/02/2010 3:57pm

If I got beat up for every innappropriate picture I've had on my phone, of some very lovely (to look at) young ladies, I'd certainly be hurting!

****, its 2010. Everyone gets naked pictures on their phones. Everyone. If you don't, PM me your number and I'll send you pics of the world's fattest porn star.

But yeah, Seriously, its a shitty thing to say its child porn, if a 14 year old is looking at naked pics of his 14 year old girlfriend. Lets be fucking real here, he's not out in a van picking up kids, its someone his own fucking age.

Child porn is bad, mmkay? But seriously, don't **** a kid over for his life for jerkin' it to some naughty pictures of his prude/tease girlfriend.

**SFGOON** · Posted On: 6/02/2010 4:05pm

I don't think anyone's advocating locking him up for life. At the same time, once that budding 14 year old romance goes down the shitter and those pictures wind up on Frostwire, the young'un is fucked for life.

Just because there's consent involved doesn't make it okay if the pictures are of a minor. He should find a way to jerk it that's not digitally distributable.

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 6/02/2010 4:05pm

Originally Posted by 3moose1

If I got beat up for every innappropriate picture I've had on my phone, of some very lovely (to look at) young ladies, I'd certainly be hurting!

****, its 2010. Everyone gets naked pictures on their phones. Everyone. If you don't, PM me your number and I'll send you pics of the world's fattest porn star.

But yeah, Seriously, its a shitty thing to say its child porn, if a 14 year old is looking at naked pics of his 14 year old girlfriend. Lets be fucking real here, he's not out in a van picking up kids, its someone his own fucking age.

Child porn is bad, mmkay? But seriously, don't **** a kid over for his life for jerkin' it to some naughty pictures of his prude/tease girlfriend.

Just when I think you might have a point I continue reading.

This

But seriously, don't **** a kid over for his life for jerkin' it to some naughty pictures of his prude/tease girlfriend.

And this:

But yeah, Seriously, its a shitty thing to say its child porn, if a 14 year old is looking at naked pics of his 14 year old girlfriend. Lets be fucking real here, he's not out in a van picking up kids, its someone his own fucking age.

Is not IMO child porn and I agree.

These two are not the same situation:

The young male student allegedly took "inappropriate" photos of a female student on his cellphone, then refused to turn it over to teachers.

Child porn is bad, mmkay? But seriously, don't **** a kid over for his life for jerkin' it to some naughty pictures of his prude/tease girlfriend.

Go look at the laws in your particular state. Taking voyeuristic pictures can be illegal. Yes, many people do not know that until, they get slapped with probation or they are registering as a sex offender.

**Don Gwinn** · Posted On: 6/02/2010 4:06pm

Pilgrim, I don't know where you learned the #1 rule of teaching, but that's not the one I was taught. As a matter of fact, I don't think the rule that kids can do whatever they want as long as they don't violate the law with videobeamers has ever come up in my training.

It's impossible to tell from this video whether the principal was justified. We can't know whether the kid threatened violence verbally, for instance, or why he was trying to push his way past the principal toward the crowd of kids. Did he think he would run away and no one would follow? Did he think he would run into the crowded area and incite others to do wrong, maybe violence? Or did the principal just jump the gun and escalate a verbal situation into a physical one out of anger or frustration? We don't know and can't know from this information.

However, if you're saying that a kid who takes "inappropriate" (and boy, can that mean a thousand and one things!) pictures of a girl deserves a beating, then in a legal sense at least, you're wrong.

And if you think this kid took a "beating," I submit you're wrong about that, too. He was apparently told to stop and didn't. He was blocked and tried to push past. He was put on the ground and then hustled out of the area (and, significantly, away from a large "audience" of other kids, which is a classic way to de-escalate things with a kid who's posturing for others) and apparently into a school office. But he was not struck, and if the takedown wasn't the most careful in the world, it doesn't look like it was meant to hurt.

The truth about this incident will come out about six months after everyone on Bullshido has forgotten it ever happened. That's my prediction.

**Snake Plissken** · Posted On: 6/02/2010 4:08pm

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

O_O That's US law?! Holy ****! Okay, here goes my dream of moving to Lake Geneva and becoming part time teacher and full-time Dungeon Master...

Hell, then I'd behave like Judge fucking Dreadd with my students. Hell, maybe I'd simply shot the guy.

If a parent believes the school is negligent in providing a safe environment for their child, they can sue the school district as a whole and the individual employees they deem complacent.

If the principal knew the kid had the incriminating pictures and he let the kid take off, he is complacent and de facto condoned the behaviour. A halfway decent attorney would have an easier time making the case for detaining a fleeing child then not.

**Don Gwinn** · Posted On: 6/02/2010 4:09pm

Edited to add that the kid is apparently Canadian and we all know how they get, am I right? You know I am.

**SFGOON** · Posted On: 6/02/2010 4:09pm

Okay wow. So now it's possession of child pornography, AND voyeurism.

For a grows-up, we're talking ten years and lifetime registration as a sex offender.