Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
That reporter was a taaaaaad over-dramatic. But yeah, talk about mountain out of a molehill. The kid that did it should have gotten an ISS or whatever and it should have been done with. Nobody is THAT psychologically scarred from getting pantsed that their mothers have to run in screaming about sexual harassment workshops.
Unrealated, but the Super looks like Mel Brooks.
The point was the boy did this and it`s sexual harassment. A lawsuit SHOULD have followed and then sued the school for inappropriate conduct. The thong question was completely irrelevant to "what part of her was exposed".
So somebody kills your mother. At a later date (before the trial). You follow this by beating up a policeman for not doing a good enough job.
Are you punishable for assault and battery, or does the fact that your mother was just killed make it okay?
Do you not remember preschool when you got into trouble, and used the excuse "but he did it first!"?
and like the principal could have done anything anywayÃ‰ its between students.
The real issue here is that the mother was wrong, but she thinks that her "wrongness" was justified.
The initial infraction is caught 85% of the time.The retaliation is caught 95% of the time.
Basically, it`s stupid to do something illegal in order to call attention to something else that is illegal. In most cases, you fail to prove that the other thing is illegal, and end up getting caught yourself.
I fail to see how this would dictate how badly the kid was punished. The kid likely didn`t know what kind of underwear she was wearing, and it doesn`t change what his intention was. Nothing suggested that any legal documentation was made, and beyond the fact that her pants were pulled down, it really shouldn`t matter what the type of underwear she was wearing. Point being, it has nothing to do with the action.
Thats how this ONE SIDED report wants you to believe, but again, a governmental entitry, acting in loco parentis, has to document an incident like this. If she WAS wearing a thong, even more of her body was exposed.
THE QUESTION ABOUT THE THONG WAS ASKED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING HOW BADLY TO PUNISH THE KID WHO WAS SUSPENDED. Jeeze, don`t believe everything the media feeds you folks.
Entirely appropriate - I would have had to ask if I was the school`s lawyer. He wasn`t asking out of perversion.
THE KID WHO PULLED DOWN THE KIDS PANTS WAS SUSPENDED - as he should.
And let me tell you right now THIS LADY IS FACING DISORDERLY CONDUCT CHARGES NOT BECAUSE OF A SWEAR WORD, BUT FOR GETTING DISORDERLY. Period. They don`t say she was charged for swearing - she probably flipped out and had the cops called on her.
Principals and teachers don`t care if your child is bullied, attacked, or sexually harassed at school. They prefer to pretend they saw/heard nothing and avoid the matter all together.
That`s a new one to me.
Oh yeah. We live in a police state that`s why. Totally forgot.
oh wow... great comment. made me laugh a whole lot.
Anyway, fox sucks, and it shows even in a mundane, almost boring story like this...
its not like a teacher or adult pantsed her, it was a student so punish him and let it be, because its just a joke and its still as funny as it was 12 years ago.
Ohh snap, didn`t even read that it was a chick. I still believe in "good fun is good fun" but maybe the pantsing thing does work a bit differently for chicks.
"oh really what kind of panties was she wearing"
Whiney emo bitches: *get pantsed* YOOOOU GUIIIIIIES! KNOCK IT OOOOOOF! IM TELLING THE COOOOOOPS!
Non-retard pussy: *get pantsed* lol! drater! *attempt to get revenge with the whip end of a wet towel, also, next day, hide behind the wall and try to get revenge with a de-pantsing of your own*
Yeah, i`ve seen/heard of it people getting completely pantsed (pants and unders) multiple times in gym, nothing ever gets done about it though oddly enough. My school even has security cameras... nice job administration.
I hate to take the Mom`s side because she is obviously a lunatic who didn`t handle it well, but for a male student to pull down a girl`s sweatpants during gym (when sweatpants are required and students are not allowed to wear any other type of pants) is blatant sexual harassment, and I don`t see why the superintendent needs to ascertain what kind of underwear the girl was wearing. He claims he needs to know what body parts were revealed. Why? What difference does it make?