Teacher Fired For Being An Abuse Victim

[Jarlaxle]

You think he'd want revenge on the school for kicking her out! Really! No. He doesn't care about his children like that. Not in that way. He's probably reveling in the power he just exercised in getting her fired in the first place.

No, I think he might figure a great way to hurt HER would be to kill a couple dozen of her co-workers and students!

Completely correct. That's why she isn't working there any more. No more co-workers or students.

Are you DELIBERATELY missing the point or are you actually THIS FUCKING STUPID?!!

 

[Noomi]

Two clarifications here:
The teacher wasn't "fired" according to the article; they declined to renew her for next year. That's how they work; you get a contract year to year.

And two, the guy was sentenced to a year in jail, so he's in no position to be a threat for that duration anyway.

They declined to renew her contract because of her ex husband. They could rehire her now that he is in prison - why won't they?

 

[JOSweetHeart]

^^^ It was said earlier in this chat that the man may be getting out soon.

Two clarifications here:
The teacher wasn't "fired" according to the article; they declined to renew her for next year. That's how they work; you get a contract year to year.

And two, the guy was sentenced to a year in jail, so he's in no position to be a threat for that duration anyway.

She was at the school for 14 years and so not being renewed for the next year and maybe even the years after that is getting fired pretty much. Saying that they declined to renew can be a way to white wash such an act, especially when it is for this kind of reason.

The guy needs to be prosecuted for showing up at the school.

Amen! Especially if he did his actual pounding on her there and just threatening her. I believe that if he did pound her at the school and got busted for it, he would then currently be serving a longer jail sentence than what he is in there for now which I believe may be for just ignoring the restraining order that the lady placed on him...unless he showed up at the school to do what he wanted to her after it was placed on him.

God bless you three and the lady and her kids and former students always!!!

Holly

 

[Katzndogz]

No, I think he might figure a great way to hurt HER would be to kill a couple dozen of her co-workers and students!

Completely correct. That's why she isn't working there any more. No more co-workers or students.

Are you DELIBERATELY missing the point or are you actually THIS FUCKING STUPID?!!

No you are that fucking stupid. The entire reason why she was let go was because the school knew that the ex huband's next move would be to attack coworkers and students. That's why he showed up in the parking lot.

The husband is not likely to go someplace his ex wife USED to work. He could go to any school that employed her in the past. He's after where his wife IS, not where she once was.

 

[Katzndogz]

Two clarifications here:
The teacher wasn't "fired" according to the article; they declined to renew her for next year. That's how they work; you get a contract year to year.

And two, the guy was sentenced to a year in jail, so he's in no position to be a threat for that duration anyway.

They declined to renew her contract because of her ex husband. They could rehire her now that he is in prison - why won't they?

You don't know what happened. Read up on it, figure it out. They let her go WHILE her ex husband is in prison. He is due to be let out in the fall. Letting her go now would give her an opportunity to find something else before he gets out.

What she needs is a decent lawyer that would strip the ex of his parental rights and allow her to move away, out of state, and go into hiding while he's in prison.

 

[Pogo]

Two clarifications here:
The teacher wasn't "fired" according to the article; they declined to renew her for next year. That's how they work; you get a contract year to year.

And two, the guy was sentenced to a year in jail, so he's in no position to be a threat for that duration anyway.

They declined to renew her contract because of her ex husband. They could rehire her now that he is in prison - why won't they?

You don't know what happened. Read up on it, figure it out. They let her go WHILE her ex husband is in prison. He is due to be let out in the fall. Letting her go now would give her an opportunity to find something else before he gets out.

What she needs is a decent lawyer that would strip the ex of his parental rights and allow her to move away, out of state, and go into hiding while he's in prison.

I did read it, and I have a close friend that has the same job, and that's the way they work -- one year contracts. Now normally if all is well you do get renewed for the next year, but it's not a guarantee, so "fired" is really not accurate from the standpoint of the employer.

I didn't get the jail timetable from the article; I only saw "sentenced to 365 days" and it wasn't clear. But yes, she should absolutely get the hell out of there and go to a new area where she can do what she knows.

 

[bodecea]

Should the school be required to put every child in that school at risk of a known nutcase instead?

Its not her fault that her husband is an abusive fucker. Why should she be fired because of his actions?

I did take note that it was a Catholic school...no surprise there. They probably think she is sinful for not obeying her husband...

A Private School....now we see the need for teachers' unions right there.

 

[koshergrl]

Completely correct. That's why she isn't working there any more. No more co-workers or students.

Are you DELIBERATELY missing the point or are you actually THIS FUCKING STUPID?!!

No you are that fucking stupid. The entire reason why she was let go was because the school knew that the ex huband's next move would be to attack coworkers and students. That's why he showed up in the parking lot.

The husband is not likely to go someplace his ex wife USED to work. He could go to any school that employed her in the past. He's after where his wife IS, not where she once was.

The left believes there is no risk too big for our children to take.

And they prove it every day. They see putting the children at risk is "acceptable" in order to prove a point..the point being that women who belong to a union can't be fired, even if their presence puts children at risk.

Which is why our schools are full of pedophiles that the schools are aware of, but afraid to fire.

 

[Katzndogz]

After Newtown, I'm really surprised that liberals think that KNOWN nutcases should have access to children. The point being made is this woman's job is more important than the lives of every child, teacher and administrator in that school.

 

[Pogo]

After Newtown, I'm really surprised that liberals think that KNOWN nutcases should have access to children. The point being made is this woman's job is more important than the lives of every child, teacher and administrator in that school.

Nobody's making that point. Don't be ignorant. The issue was framed, unfairly, as a teacher losing her job because of being a victim. That's not an honest premise to start with, as it's just not that simple.

Getting carried away with emotion leads to hasty generalization rather than rational conclusion. The OP did that, and you just did it too.

 

[Katzndogz]

After Newtown, I'm really surprised that liberals think that KNOWN nutcases should have access to children. The point being made is this woman's job is more important than the lives of every child, teacher and administrator in that school.

Nobody's making that point. Don't be ignorant. The issue was framed, unfairly, as a teacher losing her job because of being a victim. That's not an honest premise to start with, as it's just not that simple.

Getting carried away with emotion leads to hasty generalization rather than rational conclusion. The OP did that, and you just did it too.

Reading this entire thread, that is exactly the point liberals are making. This teacher's need for this particular job is greater than the need to keep the school safe.

 

[koshergrl]

After Newtown, I'm really surprised that liberals think that KNOWN nutcases should have access to children. The point being made is this woman's job is more important than the lives of every child, teacher and administrator in that school.

Nobody's making that point. Don't be ignorant. The issue was framed, unfairly, as a teacher losing her job because of being a victim. That's not an honest premise to start with, as it's just not that simple.

Getting carried away with emotion leads to hasty generalization rather than rational conclusion. The OP did that, and you just did it too.

That is the point that is being made, moron.

And honestly, you should never, ever call anyone else ignorant. You are easily one of the top 10 ignorami on the board. Just behind noomi, TDM & rtard.

 

[Pogo]

After Newtown, I'm really surprised that liberals think that KNOWN nutcases should have access to children. The point being made is this woman's job is more important than the lives of every child, teacher and administrator in that school.

Nobody's making that point. Don't be ignorant. The issue was framed, unfairly, as a teacher losing her job because of being a victim. That's not an honest premise to start with, as it's just not that simple.

Getting carried away with emotion leads to hasty generalization rather than rational conclusion. The OP did that, and you just did it too.

That is the point that is being made, moron.

And honestly, you should never, ever call anyone else ignorant. You are easily one of the top 10 ignorami on the board. Just behind noomi, TDM & rtard.

- so you're saying it's the opposite; that getting carried away with emotion leads to rational conclusions and not hasty generalizations. Not to mention ad hominem.

Interesting rationalization. Explain.

 

[koshergrl]

It was already explained. Absorb.

 

[freedombecki]

After Newtown, I'm really surprised that liberals think that KNOWN nutcases should have access to children. The point being made is this woman's job is more important than the lives of every child, teacher and administrator in that school.

Nobody's making that point. Don't be ignorant. The issue was framed, unfairly, as a teacher losing her job because of being a victim. That's not an honest premise to start with, as it's just not that simple.

Getting carried away with emotion leads to hasty generalization rather than rational conclusion. The OP did that, and you just did it too.

Reading this entire thread, that is exactly the point liberals are making. This teacher's need for this particular job is greater than the need to keep the school safe.

After I read the entire thread, I got an impression also, and it has nothing to do with left or right but the appropriate thing that would bring safety and resolution: Try the man for a hate crime, determine him incorrigible since he took his hate to a school property, and lock him up away from other people for the duration of his sick life. If meds could control his behavior, he might not take them if he were in a bad mood.

Society, children, his ex-wife, and anyone she associates with in public is at risk of being harmed by him.

Take him completely off the streets, and never let him back. He proved he is not capable of normal human relations and is a perpetual threat to other people and possibly himself.

Nobody filled with that much hatred and rage should be allowed to run in society where he will find nothing but victims to his bullying, and as long as she is alive, he will be crazy. She shouldn't have to be punished because he is a madman.

 

[koshergrl]

According to the left, he is just mentally ill, and needs to be integrated into society. He must be allowed to freely mingle, and his wife must be allowed to work with children, even though her presence represents a very real threat to the children.

Because everybody else's rights trump a child's right to existence.

 

[freedombecki]

If he is that mentally ill, he should be placed in a maximum security institute that deals with such behaviors as threatening society, and on a permanent basis. He is incorrigible.

 

[Pogo]

After Newtown, I'm really surprised that liberals think that KNOWN nutcases should have access to children. The point being made is this woman's job is more important than the lives of every child, teacher and administrator in that school.

Nobody's making that point. Don't be ignorant. The issue was framed, unfairly, as a teacher losing her job because of being a victim. That's not an honest premise to start with, as it's just not that simple.

Getting carried away with emotion leads to hasty generalization rather than rational conclusion. The OP did that, and you just did it too.

That is the point that is being made, moron.

And honestly, you should never, ever call anyone else ignorant. You are easily one of the top 10 ignorami on the board. Just behind noomi, TDM & rtard.

- so you're saying it's the opposite; that getting carried away with emotion leads to rational conclusions and not hasty generalizations. Not to mention ad hominem.

Interesting rationalization. Explain.

It was already explained. Absorb.

Eh - that's OK, you just amply demonstrated what I was talking about. Absorb that.

 

[Pogo]

According to the left, he is just mentally ill, and needs to be integrated into society. He must be allowed to freely mingle, and his wife must be allowed to work with children, even though her presence represents a very real threat to the children.

Because everybody else's rights trump a child's right to existence.

I just re-read the entire thread, and nobody said anything remotely resembling the above. Anywhere. Zero.

Know what else nobody said?

After Newtown, I'm really surprised that liberals think that KNOWN nutcases should have access to children. The point being made is this woman's job is more important than the lives of every child, teacher and administrator in that school.

Looks like you're both wronger than socks with sandals.

But hey-- feel free to link these mystery posts.

 

[Noomi]

Are you DELIBERATELY missing the point or are you actually THIS FUCKING STUPID?!!

No you are that fucking stupid. The entire reason why she was let go was because the school knew that the ex huband's next move would be to attack coworkers and students. That's why he showed up in the parking lot.

The husband is not likely to go someplace his ex wife USED to work. He could go to any school that employed her in the past. He's after where his wife IS, not where she once was.

The left believes there is no risk too big for our children to take.

And they prove it every day. They see putting the children at risk is "acceptable" in order to prove a point..the point being that women who belong to a union can't be fired, even if their presence puts children at risk.

Which is why our schools are full of pedophiles that the schools are aware of, but afraid to fire.

Republicans don't give a shit about whether kids are in danger - they defend the right of Adam Lanza to walk around with a gun, don't they?