• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

This is assault.

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA

The bus aide removed the student’s hat against his will. Charging her with assault (or whatever they call that crime in her State) is not unprecedented. She abused her power as a government agent to unlawfully force her political will on another. That the other was a minor makes her actions even worse.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,265
Location
Kentucky

The bus aide removed the student’s hat against his will. Charging her with assault (or whatever they call that crime in her State) is not unprecedented. She abused her power as a government agent to unlawfully force her political will on another. That the other was a minor makes her actions even worse.

For once I agree with you but I have a question.

Before you have stated that school teachers ,staff etc, are acting as parents when the kid is at school. A parent would have every right to take the kids hat.

But now the school staff , is a gov agent with no right to do do.

Which is it?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Please reread what I wrote on the subject in the Massive Misunderstanding thread.

I specifically made the point that, operating in loco parentis, BUT as government agents, school personnel may bar all political clothing, but not particular political messages on clothing—which is what happened in this case.

Thank you for driving home the exact point I made in the other thread.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,265
Location
Kentucky
Please reread what I wrote on the subject in the Massive Misunderstanding thread.

I specifically made the point that, operating in loco parentis, BUT as government agents, school personnel may bar all political clothing, but not particular political messages on clothing—which is what happened in this case.

Thank you for driving home the exact point I made in the other thread.

So. Let me get this under my hat .

The school can ban all political messages on clothing, but, the school staff is quilty of assault for taking a article of clothing with a political message on it?

Trust I didn't drive home any point because so far that position seems to me to be pointless , and playing both sides of the argument.

Unless of course I'm missing something.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Yes you are.

And I will waste no further time.

Again, I am rarely trying to change the mind of the person with whom I am corresponding. So, sometimes, once I have labored to make a point, it becomes pointless to continue.

So long for now.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,951
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Yes you are.

And I will waste no further time.

Again, I am rarely trying to change the mind of the person with whom I am corresponding. So, sometimes, once I have labored to make a point, it becomes pointless to continue.

So long for now.
In other words, you convinced no one, but you have convinced yourself in your own little world.
You are right, in that, it is pointless to continue.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
A few more tidbits.
The woman later told deputies "I was personally offended" and that "I totally regret doing this."

For the next two days, Putt tried to get information from the school district, but said she didn’t get any information only that the incident was under investigation. That’s when she decided to go to the Martin County Sheriff’s Office and they began their own investigation.

This is a direct result of SCOTUS giving schools far more leeway than they deserve. When a school (and the district) are immune from the consequences of their actions under the false notion of "preserving good order and discipline in the school" parental rights are harmed.

A law suit is in order to gig the school and the district for their lack of candor with the parent. School policy must not be viewed in the same light as state statute.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The situation became a real problem (and, IMO, a crime), when the aide put her hands on the person of the student.

The fact that she did so to use her governmental power to impose her views on a person in her charge just adds the question of a violation of civil rights.
 

JTHunter2

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
431
Location
Planet Earth
How carefully did you listen to the sound of the aide's voice? Did you hear that "twang" in her voice? I'd lay 2-1 odds that the "aide" was A-A.
 
Top