|
Post by gatordog on Mar 26, 2009 9:40:26 GMT -5
Maybe that's why it is getting such a tepid response from lawmakers. Many ideas that sound good on the surface (who wouldn't want to get rid of a sexual predator?) don't pass legal muster. AIG bonuses? Outrageous...but even Obama concedes they are contracts that are hard to legally break. asmo, you make a good point here.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Mar 26, 2009 9:42:17 GMT -5
There are x number of kids/parents at Gregory. There are also x number of kids/parents at the "new" middle school where the kid could be sent. There is no difference between the rights or concerns of one group vs. the other. None. Moving the boy is a wash in this respect. Now, the advantages: 1. Victim and attacker are separated. 2. Attacker gets a fresh start, assuming his new classmates are unaware of his alleged crime. I assume this boy is an outcast at Gregory (understandably so).The only minor issue I see to be worked out is transportation, i.e., bus routes. A fresh start or fresh victims? If this child is guilty and because the child was moved with NO PARENT OR CHILD aware of his history in the new school, who would know to worry about a sleepover at a new friend's house? I have nothing but sympathy for the victim and his family but I wonder what would happen if this child attacked again and the district was aware of his history. I still believe there is no easy answer here.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Mar 26, 2009 9:50:54 GMT -5
There are x number of kids/parents at Gregory. There are also x number of kids/parents at the "new" middle school where the kid could be sent. There is no difference between the rights or concerns of one group vs. the other. None. Moving the boy is a wash in this respect. Now, the advantages: 1. Victim and attacker are separated. 2. Attacker gets a fresh start, assuming his new classmates are unaware of his alleged crime. I assume this boy is an outcast at Gregory (understandably so). The only minor issue I see to be worked out is transportation, i.e., bus routes. #1 agreed. Not sure about #2. If he IS an outcast, why wouldn't his parents move him? This has always been an option.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Mar 26, 2009 9:52:04 GMT -5
I sympathize with parents who would be concerned at any new school, but again, there are potential "fresh victims" at Gregory as we speak. The only way to solve the problem with no threat to anyone is to incarcerate him, and that is clearly not happening. Otherwise, even if he were to be home-schooled or tutored, he can still interact with other kids out in the general public.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Mar 26, 2009 9:54:52 GMT -5
A private club can make its own rules as long as they don't discriminate based on race, etc. As far as I'm concerned, the club can do nothing or they can ban the accused. Either way, it's their choice. Public school is another matter. What if the club owners/managers find out about the alleged crime & let? What if other members find out - couldn't there be another outrage. And you might argue this is private. What about public places, like the library, or the park, or park district facilities or athletics? Are all of these public places and groups expected to move people around?
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Mar 26, 2009 9:54:56 GMT -5
My belief is that the parents are in denial regarding their child's guilt. And I suppose it is possible he still has a small circle of friends at Gregory, though I have no knowledge of the relationship he now has with his classmates.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Mar 26, 2009 10:03:36 GMT -5
A private club can make its own rules as long as they don't discriminate based on race, etc. As far as I'm concerned, the club can do nothing or they can ban the accused. Either way, it's their choice. Public school is another matter. What if the club owners/managers find out about the alleged crime & let? What if other members find out - couldn't there be another outrage. And you might argue this is private. What about public places, like the library, or the park, or park district facilities or athletics? Are all of these public places and groups expected to move people around? That would certainly factor into the club's decision. If I were in charge and afraid of losing customers, I would lean toward banning the accused. As for public spaces, you are making my point for me. We can't logically ban the kid from libraries, supermarkets, etc. What you seem to be arguing is that we should be able to keep him from Dominick's or Whole Foods, but not from Jewel.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Mar 26, 2009 10:17:28 GMT -5
What if the club owners/managers find out about the alleged crime & let? What if other members find out - couldn't there be another outrage. And you might argue this is private. What about public places, like the library, or the park, or park district facilities or athletics? Are all of these public places and groups expected to move people around? That would certainly factor into the club's decision. If I were in charge and afraid of losing customers, I would lean toward banning the accused. As for public spaces, you are making my point for me. We can't logically ban the kid from libraries, supermarkets, etc. What you seem to be arguing is that we should be able to keep him from Dominick's or Whole Foods, but not from Jewel. All I'm arguing is that I don't think there's a clear, best-for-everyone, simple answer to this situation.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Mar 26, 2009 10:17:54 GMT -5
There are x number of kids/parents at Gregory. There are also x number of kids/parents at the "new" middle school where the kid could be sent. There is no difference between the rights or concerns of one group vs. the other. None. Moving the boy is a wash in this respect. Now, the advantages: 1. Victim and attacker are separated. 2. Attacker gets a fresh start, assuming his new classmates are unaware of his alleged crime. I assume this boy is an outcast at Gregory (understandably so).The only minor issue I see to be worked out is transportation, i.e., bus routes. A fresh start or fresh victims? If this child is guilty and because the child was moved with NO PARENT OR CHILD aware of his history in the new school, who would know to worry about a sleepover at a new friend's house? I have nothing but sympathy for the victim and his family but I wonder what would happen if this child attacked again and the district was aware of his history. I still believe there is no easy answer here. Again - so as not to confuse--- "Guilty" is different than "Accused/Charged". At this point in time they have been accused, but not found guilty. If and when they are found guilty....whole different ballgame.....
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Mar 26, 2009 10:34:59 GMT -5
And I'm arguing there is (or was) a clearly superior choice, which our SB chose not to pursue. Was it perfect? No. But this is a textbook example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
|
|
|
Post by drdavelasik on Mar 26, 2009 12:31:10 GMT -5
There are x number of kids/parents at Gregory. There are also x number of kids/parents at the "new" middle school where the kid could be sent. There is no difference between the rights or concerns of one group vs. the other. None. Moving the boy is a wash in this respect. Now, the advantages: 1. Victim and attacker are separated. 2. Attacker gets a fresh start, assuming his new classmates are unaware of his alleged crime. I assume this boy is an outcast at Gregory (understandably so). The only minor issue I see to be worked out is transportation, i.e., bus routes. #1 agreed. Not sure about #2. If he IS an outcast, why wouldn't his parents move him? This has always been an option. Parents must be in total denial or trivializing it in their mind. Why else would they take thier child to Mexico on vacation while felony charges are pending court? Why would the mother go on a "girls trip"? Just doesn't seem like parents that are dealing with this awful crime their son committed (allegedly that is).
|
|