CO - Teacher Accused of Forcing Boy to Stand for Pledge of Allegiance Takes Plea Deal, Sept. 1, 2018

[EuTuCroquet?]

* salutes @ZoriahNZ *

Perfectly said, and thank you for saying it!

Thank you for clearing this up, by offering some historical perspective.

This woman broke the law, she assaulted a child and tried to violate his constitutional rights. She was absolutely in the wrong, both ethically and legally. There is nothing patriotic in forcing people to do something which they are constitutionally protected from being compelled to do. In fact, I think it's pretty unpatriotic and goes against the spirit of the Founding Fathers, in my humble opinion. There are many reasons why a person might choose not to stand for or recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The same goes for not standing during the national anthem. JMO, but religious freedom, freedom of speech against an oppressive government, freedom of the press and so on are part of the very fabric of what makes America America. Civil protest is a valid way of showing how much one truly cares about one's country. In fact, in my opinion, it's far more valid than insisting on blind obedience to practices which may be harmful to society (like slavery or denying women the vote) or discriminatory (Christian prayer in public schools despite separation of church and state, only allowed to speak English despite it not being the official language etc.).

There are 'patriotic' people who get all up in arms about the National Anthem or Pledge of Allegiance protests while wearing American flag clothing or hats. Isn't that ironic?

4 U.S. Code § 8 - Respect for flag



I think it's perfectly fine to have one's own personal opinion about what respects or disrespects a particular country, flag or religion. Where we will run into issues, however, is when those opinions turn into criminal actions which go against the law of the land. Those people need to be educated as to what is actually acceptable and appropriate, and sometimes that means legal repercussions for said actions.

 

[Jim G]

Jehovah's Witnesses I know always stand for the Pledge, but they do not recite it. Which is OK by me. This shows respect for their fellow man. A teacher has absolute authority to determine who enters and leaves their classroom. If they want to remain seated, which is inherently disrespectful to others, then they should be lined up in the hallway, or sent to the library. There is no discrimination or retaliation here - it is a simple matter of respecting others. It is grossly disrespectful to remain seated, not take off your hat, or talk during the Pledge/anthem.

 

[frisson]

I'm thrilled to say the pledge of Allegiance. Why does this student not want to say it? He and his parents do not like this country? Greatest country on earth which I am Grateful for, then they should move.

That is great that you are thrilled. That child does not have to explain himself/herself to you or anyone. I love this country, but I do not want people telling me what to say, think , and believe.
So should I move too? NOPE

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Humor break, y’all.

(Mind the volume before ya click play)

 

[MaryG12]

In grade school (1970's) it was saying the Pledge every morning.

In junior high, it was the Pledge and a prayer (parochial school)

High school, a prayer, then the Pledge.

Well I got a good education, anyways.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

In grade school (1970's) it was saying the Pledge every morning.

In junior high, it was the Pledge and a prayer (parochial school)

High school, a prayer, then the Pledge.

Well I got a good education, anyways.

Congratulations; everybody deserves a good education.

Reciting the pledge and standing for it has been optional since 1943. It’s wonderful for you that you were able to choose to do so. <3

Parochial schools aren’t bound by the jurisprudential concept of separation of church and state. Private schools are a choice.

Seventy-five years ago, the US Supreme Court decided that forcing public school students to stand and/or recite the Pledge of Allegiance violates their First and 14th Amendment rights.

They have the right to decide whether they’re able to do it or not, too.

Teachers don’t have a right to assault their students, well, for pretty much any reason, which is why this particular teacher was arrested, charged with child abuse and assault, and then pleaded guilty to a crime.

 

[kaen]

This teacher assaulted a child. Regardless of her reasoning and position, she had no right. Anyone who begins to question her right to do so is on the wrong side of the law. She plead guilty and admitted her wrongdoing by the plea to child abuse resulting in injury. She grabbed him by the jacket, pulled him to his feet and, then, pulled him out of the classroom. Another charge of 3rd degree assault was dismissed. She didn't have to plead. She could have gone to trial but did not.

The teacher was also a mandated reporter. This means she has had extensive training on child abuse and child sexual abuse. Part of that training involves what her role would be if she witnessed a peer or other school personnel put their hands on a child. She would have been mandated to report.

It is important to note that by her own account, the child is a victim. And, this is a victim friendly site. This is not about opinion on the validity of the law but about the law. Below is a definition of assault. I will look to the CO statutes on child abuse with injury and post it when I can.

From Cornell law: Although colloquially used interchangeably, in many jurisdictions, assault and battery are distinct crimes. In such jurisdictions, assault (also called attempted battery) is a threat or physical act that creates a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact, whereas battery is a physical act that results in that harmful or offensive contact. Assault is a lesser included offense of battery, meaning that assault merges into battery and that a defendant may be punished for one but not both crimes.

 

[kaen]

The CO statute:

18-6-401. Child abuse.

(1) (a) A person commits child abuse if such person causes an injury to a child's life or health, or permits a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation that poses a threat of injury to the child's life or health, or engages in a continued pattern of conduct that results in malnourishment, lack of proper medical care, cruel punishment, mistreatment, or an accumulation of injuries that ultimately results in the death of a child or serious bodily injury to a child.

 

[Lilibet]

It’s ironic that those who feel someone should be forced to stand and/or say the pledge of allegiance forget these last words of the pledge...”with liberty and justice for all.” The Supreme Court made it clear that even those who refuse to say the pledge are entitled to liberty and justice...even if one strongly disagrees with them. Why, some 75 years after this ruling, does anyone think it’s OK to deny someone a right established by the Supreme Court? That is dangerous territory on which to tread. Think long and hard before going there. Everyone’s rights are at stake when that line is crossed, whether by an individual teacher or anyone else.
JMO

 

[human]

The law has been explained over and over again.

If one does not like law of the US, then perhaps one should move to countries where their views are more in tune with the country. Countries such as China, Russia, or Iran may fit more with how someone feels people should live and obey.

 

[Jennifer17]

The law has been explained over and over again.

If one does not like law of the US, then perhaps one should move to countries where their views are more in tune with the country. Countries such as China, Russia, or Iran may fit more with how someone feels people should live and obey.

Great point!

 

[Gardenista]

It’s ironic that those who feel someone should be forced to stand and/or say the pledge of allegiance forget these last words of the pledge...”with liberty and justice for all.” The Supreme Court made it clear that even those who refuse to say the pledge are entitled to liberty and justice...even if one strongly disagrees with them. Why, some 75 years after this ruling, does anyone think it’s OK to deny someone a right established by the Supreme Court? That is dangerous territory on which to tread. Think long and hard before going there. Everyone’s rights are at stake when that line is crossed, whether by an individual teacher or anyone else.
JMO

100% agree. And that goes for ALL laws.

 

[Lilibet]

Trump has the sayso. Follow Your Leader. Stand for the Anthem.
Stand for The Pledge. If you don't love it, leave it.

I assume this is sarcasm, but just in case it’s not, I believe the Supreme Court trumps Trump, or did I miss a memo?

 

[Sillybilly]

The teacher has plead guilty and this thread has devolved into bickering and politicizing.

It is closed for now and I'll ask @Tricia to review whether or not it should be reopened.