re: Kid who beat teacher for taking away his Nintendo has pled guilty. Punishment?

quote:

---

What a stupid thing to do.

---

FWIW, the teacher (teacher's aide) denies that. Based on both the prevalence of IEP noncompliance and details in the story though, those denials are questionable.

So basically, this worthless woman thinks that a simple "we're sorry" should be good enough and that there should be no consequences for his actions.

She is what is wrong with society.

quote:

---

frickING BLAME THE POOR WOMAN KNOCKED TEH frick OUT ON THE FLOOR

POOR Li'L BRENDAN

#midnight basketball on nintendos

---

This country had less of these problems when people with mental disorders and who were threat to society were kept away from society.

Now we have to call them "Special" and pretend that they are normal. Even modifying the daily structure of society to conform to their mental illness.

We're so smart and humane. I feel very superior to other less educated societies.

quote:

---

So basically, this worthless woman thinks that a simple "we're sorry" should be good enough and that there should be no consequences for his actions.

---

Where do you see her saying this ... or anything remotely like it? Because I have read her editorial, and I don't see it.

I see her saying that 30 years in prison is not the solution.

I WOULD like to have seen her tell us what her proposed resolution might be, but she did not share that with us.

I forgot, was the kid adopted as an infant or was he still a foster kid. Only reason I ask is that if it is like Missouri, the school nor the foster parent can make the call, it is up to child services if the child is in foster care. If he was adopted, I believe it is up to the parent unless the kid has had other instances of behaviors at school that have led to suspensions. I could be wrong, but I don't believe the school can make the call to not allow someone in unless there were previous behavioral problems.

I know that with our last teenager, not the one I talked about earlier, he came to us in September, first day of school was the only day he didn't get in trouble. On the second day he got a four hour after school suspension, the next week he got suspended for a week an outburst in school. Once off that suspension, his first day back, same thing and they suspended him two weeks. When I went to the office he was even yelling at the principle that he would keep getting in trouble until they kicked him out. I sent him to the car with my wife and talked to the principle. I know for certain he wanted him out but he said they have to go through the procedures and the next steps were a six month suspension followed by some remote learning type of thing. Then and only then could they expel him if he got in trouble again. Needless to say, that bad behavior came home with him. Last week he got caught shoplifting at Walmart when he got away from my wife and because he has a history of that he was removed from our care and put into Department of Youth Services, which is similar to juvie. All that said, depending on the state and the type of situation, the school can't just make that call unless there is a history

quote:

---

I’m not sure which part of my take was incorrect.

Would you like to take a swing at it?

Absent father. - Incorrect. Raised by a foster family since infancy, mother and father married for 25 years, father in home.

Mother on a few forms of government aid. - Probably incorrect. Mother is an occupational therapist, father's career not stated. Foster children often qualify for government aid/services though so HE may have received aid and was at the time of the assault under the care of the Agency for Persons with Disabilities.

Grew up with 6+ hours of screen time per day. - Not quite. It appears he was getting a still excessive 4 hours/day at the group home.

Oppositional defiant diagnosis or some analogous diagnosis before 15. - Correct. ODD, ADHD, Autism, PTSD, Anxiety and Mood Dysregulation Disorder.

Multiple referrals to social services. - Correct. Family had utilized police, Baker Acts, long term hospitalization, residential treatment center, behavioral group home. Their insurance fought them every step of the way because they did not want to pay for long term/residential care.

Serious behavioral issues starting by 2nd grade. - Correct. Family homeschooled him prior to puberty to mitigate behavior issues at school.

Limited friend group due to self-isolation. - Correct

---

The kid never should have been in public school. He was a danger probably to himself, but definitely to those around him. But unless you read the story, it is easy to think the parents were just pawning him off on the school system so they didn't have to deal with him. If you read it, you would have seen that the family didn't want him in public school. They knew he needed a higher level of supervision and control than a school, or they themselves, could manage. They tried to have him hospitalized - insurance stopped paying and had him removed, even though he was violent in the hospital. They eventually got him into a disabled group home that required him to attend public school despite the parents' objections.

The parents are not blameless - they apparently signed off on an IEP that included these completely ridiculous directives that purposely avoid even identifying problem behavior, let alone correcting it:

quote:

---

1. Use humor with Brendan and build a positive rapport. Avoid negative/corrective statements even after behaviors targeted for reduction have occurred.
2. Do not talk about his behaviors in front of him.
3. Avoid correcting, reprimanding, or redirecting Brendan in the presence of peers.

---

This was a stupid plan that both the school and the parents signed off on, one that set everyone up for failure by just pretending that his violent behavior wasn't happening.

Some people cannot be in mainstream society. The problem is that our society has no solution for those people UNTIL they do something horrific, even if their families, teachers and even they themselves have been screaming for years that the horrific thing was definitely going to happen. If you KNOW your kid is dangerous, and you try to get them treated, even institutionalized, your insurance will fight you tooth and nail to avoid paying. If you have the considerable funds, you can pay for private care until adulthood, then maybe if you're lucky, have them declared incompetent and continue paying for private residential care for the rest of their lives. This is not feasible for the vast majority of people.

quote:

---

f you KNOW your kid is dangerous, and you try to get them treated, even institutionalized, your insurance will fight you tooth and nail to avoid paying.

---

This part I don't get, if he was a foster child, or previously a foster child that had since been adopted, they don't need to be covered by your insurance. They remain covered by Medicaid, was Medicaid fighting it?

quote:

---

Where do you see her saying this ... or anything remotely like it? Because I have read her editorial, and I don't see it.

---

He doesn't see it. He's just one of "those" who is all "It's their fault they have a kid with problems and they should have raised him better", until it happens to him.

It's easy for guys like him to spout this crap on an internet board, but almost none of them have ever had to deal with a situation like this.

When the idiotic left paints the right as unfeeling and selfish, this is the material they get to use.

quote:

---

He doesn't see it. He's just one of "those" who is all "It's their fault they have a kid with problems and they should have raised him better", until it happens to him.

---

She does say incarceration isn't the solution (as if there is one) while not offering any "solution" of her own. She did sign an IEP essentially absolving (and requiring teachers to absolve) the kid of any of the consequences of his actions.

Nobody is saying "it is their fault and they should have raised him better." They are saying regardless of the kids situation, there are consequences in this society for anyone who nearly beats someone to death without reason. They are saying regardless of the kid's situation, society must be protected from people like that.

Based on him having the same last name as the parents, I'm assuming he was adopted.

Either way, foster or adopted, it is my understanding that he should be on Medicaid until age 18. They don't give any details but if the mother's statement is correct, Medicaid fought the continuing hospitalization.

The kid was arrested 3 times for battery in 2019 and did some sort of juvenile adjudication program. The school also has a history of violent behavior from special education students in the recent past, one of which they built a padded room to contain.

This situation was a ticking timebomb. I'm not giving the parents a pass, but I'm also not sure what other options they had to pursue that would have avoided this.