Well, were only talking about schoolchildren here, not O.J. Simpson.. For the most part if you strip the events down to the bare facts: A male student was harassing and physically attacking a female student[Yes I consider pushing a physical attack], the female student defended herself by punching the male student in the face thus self defense being the defense given. The teacher who only claims to have seen the self defense failed to ask any other student who may of seen the events occurred, never spoken to the male student from what we know to get his side of the events or taken into fact that she was all muddy and roughed up. And instead simply punishes the female student in question, a student who by all accounts was being harassed and had no other means to deal with the situation for the most part that the male student was continuously pushing her down making her unable to get up and run away. And then, on top of that; when confronted by the the mother of the female student the faculty, including the teacher who witnessed the punch fail to further look into this matter and just go along with what the teacher did. Now I ask anyone here to tell me would you consider that to be fair?
[apologies for the lengthy post.]
My client did not push any student. He was merely observing a student who fell in the mud on her own while demonstrating to a third party ways to harm others. The only witness to the pushing is the plantiff's best friend and is hardly impartial. The witnesse's father has in the past damaged the defendant's father's car and I propose that the son himself growing up in such a hostil enviroment would likely take similer actions against those he dislikes. Actions such as purgery.
On the other hand who have a reliable witness to the battery. A teacher who has nothing to gain by misrepresenting herself and everything to lose. She witnessed an attack and took action that is in accordance to the school policies on the issue. Mrs. Mudd chose to ignore all evidence against her daughter, but her only defense is that her daughter could under no cercomstances strike a larger boy, despite the fact that the defense claim has her striking a larger boy. This my friends does not make sense.
I didn't know what you guys where talking about. I thought back to dantheman's old avatar and edited this.
