Seeker Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 Report: Ohio teacher burned cross on kids' arms A public school teacher preached his Christian beliefs despite complaints by other teachers and administrators and used a device to burn the image of a cross on students' arms, according to a report by independent investigators. Mount Vernon Middle School teacher John Freshwater also taught creationism in his science class and was insubordinate in failing to remove a Bible and other religious materials from his classroom, the report said. School board members were scheduled to meet Friday afternoon to discuss the findings by consulting firm H.R. On Call Inc., hired by the district to investigate. The report was released Thursday. ... The report comes one week after a family filed a federal lawsuit in Columbus against Freshwater and the school district, saying Freshwater burned a cross on their child's arm that remained for three or four weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 The kid has to take some of the responsibility. If he had been pure of heart, the Lord would he stopped the device from working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 The kid has to take some of the responsibility. Agreed. He should have defended himself against the nutbar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benpercent Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 Agreed. He should have defended himself against the nutbar. He shouldn't be held responsible at all. Even though he may have not defended himself, it certainly doesn't mean he's at all to blame for causing the incident to begin with. The only responsibility he neglected is to his right of life, and he may have been ignorant. Besides, the age these children are leaves for a slight possibility for them not knowing better. Also, this situation would still have been just as bad even if the teacher had unsuccessfully burned the student. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 If you don't defend yourself against people like this you are accepting the role of victim. In effect you are sanctioning his actions through your inaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anthem Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 How old were these kids? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 (edited) I read the story in the news earlier, and I think it said they were jr high kids. My questions are: 1.) Why did the kids let him do that?! There is no way in hell I would've allowed a teacher to do that, even when I was younger than jr high. I would have run out of class and to the office for help. 2.) Why did this go on for so long? There have been complaints about this guy for years and years. The high school even complained they were having to re-educate all of his students. 3.) Did none of the parents all these years notice the marks on their childrens' arms? I hate to be crude (okay, no I don't), but this article just makes me scream, WTF?!? Edited June 20, 2008 by K-Mac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 Agreed. He should have defended himself against the nutbar.I was kidding: the reference to being pure of heart and the suggestion that the Lord would miraculously stop the device from working would be the clues. It would be a punishable offense for the barely teenage child to physically defend himself against an adult teacher. (He was just fired for this, btw) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted June 21, 2008 Report Share Posted June 21, 2008 It would be a punishable offense for the barely teenage child to physically defend himself against an adult teacher. (He was just fired for this, btw) Better to be punished than to have a cross burned on one's arm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted June 21, 2008 Report Share Posted June 21, 2008 I was kidding: the reference to being pure of heart and the suggestion that the Lord would miraculously stop the device from working would be the clues. I know you were David. I on the other hand was not. It would be a punishable offense for the barely teenage child to physically defend himself against an adult teacher. (He was just fired for this, btw) To be honest and blunt I don't give a rats ass if it is punishable for the kid to have defended himself. The teacher initiated force onto the child no matter what the situation it is that act that is wrong and that action that is and should be punishable. If the child had no choice but to defend himself that is exactly what he should have done. The idea that any person who has undeserved force initiated against them by an authority figure should refrain from protecting him/herself because he/she might be then punished for that self defense is ridiculous. More than that it is dangerous and creates a psychologically cowed populace who will endure abuse at the hands of authority figures out of fear. I taught my girls from a very early age (my youngest was enrolled in Karate at the age of 6 and moved to Jiu-Jitsu by the age of 8) that they had a right to defend themselves and that there was no one who was permitted to violate their person. It took a long time and a lot of explanation as to when to properly use force but both of my girls got it, including the idea of escalation of force. By the 6th grade both my daughters had had to resort to force against class bullies that the Teachers could not or would not control. Neither of them was ever punished, nor were they ever bothered again. In one case, with my oldest daughter she brought to my attention the startling abdication of responsibility of one particular teacher to protect and ensure a proper learning environment. She did it during a parent teacher interview and the proof she provided allowed me to 'explain' in no uncertain terms to the teacher, that I would have her fired if her negligence continued. This guy shouldn't just have been fired he should have had criminal charges filed against him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kori Posted June 21, 2008 Report Share Posted June 21, 2008 Where in the article does it say whether the kid even tried to defend himself? It seems that most of you are assuming he tried, when it's possible that he tried and failed. Adults are often a bit bigger and stronger than Jr. High kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted June 21, 2008 Report Share Posted June 21, 2008 Where in the article does it say whether the kid even tried to defend himself?I am skeptical that this was any kind of "attack" or "assault", I think it was a religious-nut teacher horsing around with his class showing something about ionizing gases, and that he got the kid's compliance by intimidation rather than looking for an eager volunteer. By law, I suspect the crucial details will be withheld from the public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted June 21, 2008 Report Share Posted June 21, 2008 Lets try to remember that the child is a victim. Whether or not the kid had the courage to stand up to the teacher shouldn't be the focus of this discussion. It's staggering how much red tape must be cut to fire a public school teacher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletch Posted June 21, 2008 Report Share Posted June 21, 2008 Middle School in my city starts in 6th grade. That means the child in the story could be as young as 11 yrs old. I dont think we should expect a lot of resistance from such a young child, particulary against the very person they are supposed to be obedient toward--the teacher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve D'Ippolito Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 It would have been appropriate for one of his victims to shove a pencil 6 inches deep into the bastard's eye socket, then stir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 I the kid was in 8th Grade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 As David indicated, I the kid was probably happy to go along with the idea. The teacher probably had some device like this one, and was telling the class how he could use the effect of high-frequency to make a mark on skin...any takers for the experiment? Likely he got volunteers rather than resistance. I wonder if the "burn" is an issue at all. For instance, is this some type of permanent mark? If the teacher had simply "burnt" some other mark, in the name of an experiment, would it have made news? Was this the equivalent of the teacher marking a cross on the student's arm with (say) a marker? In other words, is the burn news or is it the cross? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 As David indicated, I the kid was probably happy to go along with the idea. The teacher probably had some device like this one, and was telling the class how he could use the effect of high-frequency to make a mark on skin...any takers for the experiment? Likely he got volunteers rather than resistance. I wonder if the "burn" is an issue at all. For instance, is this some type of permanent mark? If the teacher had simply "burnt" some other mark, in the name of an experiment, would it have made news? Was this the equivalent of the teacher marking a cross on the student's arm with (say) a marker? In other words, is the burn news or is it the cross? Rereading the article it is very short on details. I get the impression from the article itself that it is the image that is of concern. To me the concern is one of force. I couldn't care less what the symbol was. I admit, due to the fact that at least one child's family filed a lawsuit I assumed that there was force involved. Just goes to prove the old adage. Never assume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruveyn ben yosef Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 Why wasn't this fiend charged and indicted with aggravated assault and battery and abuse of children? Burning the flesh of defenseless children is not to be tolerated. ruveyn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 Why wasn't this fiend charged and indicted with aggravated assault and battery and abuse of children?Probably because his act doesn't satisfy the legal definition of aggravated assault and battery. I'm not aware of a crime "abuse of children" in this state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruveyn ben yosef Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 Probably because his act doesn't satisfy the legal definition of aggravated assault and battery. I'm not aware of a crime "abuse of children" in this state. Burning flesh isn't battery? ruveyn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 Burning flesh isn't battery?I'd suggest consulting the relevant statutes. For aggravated assault (we don't make a distinction between "assault" and "battery" in the criminal code) you have to have "sudden passion or a sudden fit of rage" which was missing, there is the intent requirement which is missing (intent to cause harm), also the "serious physical harm" part that was missing. Misdemeanor assault might be possible except for the intent part. The closest that you could get for criminal action, I suspect, would be the minor-misdemeanor negligent assault, except that the high-frequency generator is not a "dangerous ordnance". Thus a civil action is probably the only viable recourse, and even then assuming this was with consent and the harm was not forseeable, it just makes nice headlines that distracts from the more problematic and systematic abuse of discretion by the teacher and lack of proper control by the school when alerted to the fact that he was using the classroom to advocate religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 It sounds like the larger issue is more the cross than the burning. On television, the teacher claimed it was an "x". It looked more like a cross to me. The parents could be angry that their consent wasn't requested - it seems to me that when involving a child in something like this, a waiver might be in order. Does anyone know if such a device is painful? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.