Posted on 02/15/2004 6:46:32 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
Other appropriate remedies beyond these must remain outside of the scope of this forum.....
Now, let's all join hands and sing a rousing chorus of "Kumbaya" to begin yet another nation-wide celebration of "diversity".... </sarcasm
What happened? It's tough, very tough when someone close to you opts out that sad way.
Did you know this man?
Well, I sincerely hope that the same thing happens to you someday.You asked for an example, I had given two that everyone in the US knows about, That wasn't good enough so I gave you one of a perwson I knew once. So you get smart alecky about it. I really do hope it happens to you someday.
Bye.
Now, all you have to do is dig up what the State law regarding an exaggerated perception of a physical altercation.
Kid -- "He punched me."
Teacher -- "No, I shoved him."
"For example, you challenged me when I said the kid was a chronic menace, despite the article that clearly substantiated he was."
What's funny is how you mistrust those parts of the articles that do not support your beliefs, and take others to be Gospel. How much of a "menace" is a wheelchair-bound thirteen year-old?
What he is in all likelihood is a disciplinary problem. It quite probably has something to do with anger at being wheelchair bound.
Illegal aliens should be deported, not all immigrants are illegal aliens. Certainly, I've never encountered an illegal alien from India.
Maybe, sometime in the future, Mayfield's family may be thinking about the system's deep pockets, but I doubt that it would be this close to his death.
"Because he has an apparently well-documented history of misbehavior for the 27 months he has been in the Roanoke school system - he would not be permitted to attend my daughters' schools."
If I recall your post, one teacher said that he had disrupted her class the previous year, and the rest of the testimonials came from Mayfield himself.
There you go again.
Believing the parts of the story you want to believe.
Maybe so - but, if I am -- you're doing the same thing.
None of the articles said the kid, or his parents, dropped the charge. The articles said the kid made a false accusation.
There is a difference.
Until I see it reported differently, I choose to believe the kid made a false accusation.
I do not agree with your characterization that the dispute revolves around the resolution of whether it was a shove or a punch.
The kid probably has issues related to his disability, some folks do I guess, but most learn to deal with it without anger or disruptive behavior.
I wouldn't tolerate it, other kids shouldn't be subjected to it, and it provides no excuse for making false accusations, if that is what happened.
You haven't seen any Indian illegal aliens ??
Do they look any differently than a legal Indian immigrant, wear a warning label or something ??
Like some of the terrorists who overstayed legitimate visas, I do know Indians who have done the same thing. But, the Indians I know personally have applications pending for legal status. Just as I suspect, but do not know, that Abdul's family has applied for political asylum.
While I note you agree illegal aliens should be expelled, I remind you I've already stipulated the family's alien status is not relevant to this issue.
As others on this thread have noted, many people make false accusations and the law deals with them accordingly -- I see no reason why this kid should be treated any differently, regardless of his creed, ethnicity or physical condition.
However, obviously you feel differently, and that's OK, I guess.
Without citing any specific cases, it does frustrate me generally that there are folks who rationalize guilt away by attributing an offense of the law, or societal mores, to a misfortune of societal neglect
We've both delved deeply into the aspects of this particular case far beyond the sketchy facts presented, based on our own assumptions and interpretation of what really happened using our individual life experiences as a guide.
Not having the time, nor frankly the interest, to explore every detail of this case to its ultimate resolution, I'll just say -- I don't believe you and I will ever reach an agreement about the greater moral arguments represented to us here by this one example.
The framework for my personal morality doesn't contain very many shades of gray. While I am compassionate, emotion alone does not rule my judgment.
In my eyes, being hungry doesn't give one the right to rob a bank. While the law contains latitude to temper judgment based on unique circumstances, I wouldn't excuse unlawful behavior on grounds of compassion. I'll leave to the Victor Hugos of the world license to emote endlessly about injustice.
Like the fable of seven blind men who each "see" an elephant differently -- apparently we have a different vision of humanity.
Here is another story where the teacher was falsely accused. The accuser, and another kid, actually set up a chat name using the teacher name and conducted a sexually graphic chat pretending that one of them was the teacher.
From the story: "What Mayfield didn't know as he mounted the bridge that morning was that police had cleared him of wrongdoing."
From your reply: "A reasonable person might reasonably conclude that Mr. Mayfield searched his conscience and concluded that he was guilty of the charges or that he was guilty of similar charges with other students and the investigation would inevitably result in the truth coming out and to his undoing."
From the story: "What Mayfield didn't know as he mounted the bridge that morning was that police had cleared him of wrongdoing."
From your reply: "Yes, but I am not going to jump off a bridge over this serious charge, because I know I am no guilty, unlike this Mayfield character. The seriousness of the charge matters not a whit, what matters is the evidence. The fact that Mayfield was not willing to face the evidence against him is itself evidence of his guilt, just as the it would be evidence if he got false identification and fled to Mexico."
From the story: "What Mayfield didn't know as he mounted the bridge that morning was that police had cleared him of wrongdoing."
From your reply: "I hope I have explained this in a simple enough manner for you to understand, but I am not optimistic, given your totally flawed conclusion drawn from my earlier observations."
Based on your keen "earlier observations" noted above, a "reasonable person might reasonably conclude" that you're a pompous ass who couldn't be bothered to read the whole story. But I would disagree; you don't seem pompous to me, and I would prefer to let that last quoted comment from you stand on it's own merits. Perhaps that will help you retain your optimism!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.