Yes. I'm sorry, I had intended to post it before.
You have to scroll a long way down, to a May 19 posting of an article, and then click on the "recent" replies instead of "most popular".
https://www.facebook.com/wtol11
I don't think I'm allowed to copy and paste the actual posting by a reader - but her first name is Brooklyn and she generated some discussion.
I read the comments. That poster "Brooklyn" is not a parent and seems to believe this is simply normal and appropriate discipline. Nothing she says is relevant.
There are actual parents on there though who have more knowledge of the child and the teacher.
It seems there are two cases when assault can be charged: one, if the behavior is reckless and causes SERIOUS injury but was unintentional; and 2, when the behavior was intended to injure and did in fact, injure, even in a minor way. So coming up to someone and punching them in the face and leaving a bruise would certainly fall under #2, and throwing rocks in a park full of children that resulted in a child needing stitches would fall under #1.
I just don't see this incident meeting either of those criteria. If there were a charge for reckless behavior that resulted in minor, transitory bruising, then it would fit. I don't think it can be proven that her intent was to injure the child, and if you go with the reckless certainly a bruise couldn't be considered "serious" injury. Also, there is no provision under the assault charge for intimidation or psychological harm.
I think maybe Screecher had a point when she thought of harassment, but we REALLY don't want to go down that path of charging teachers with harassing students when they are in an ongoing behavior problem pattern. I can't imagine criminal charges flying around in elementary classrooms with boisterous students and frustrated teachers. Not everything need involve the court system.
No. That is not the law. In Ohio and elsewhere, intent has nothing to do with the crime of assault, in the manner you suggest:
"Under Ohio law, you don’t have to try to assault someone to face criminal charges. Yes, there is a criminal assault charge that doesn’t require any intent. You can also face fairly serious assault charges even when you don’t harm anyone.
While people commonly think of an “assault” as a fight or even a one-sided violent interaction—under the law, it’s not so simple.
Simple Assault
Simple assault is also referred to as “assault” or misdemeanor assault in Ohio courts. It can carry up to 6 months in jail and $1,000 in fines as a first degree misdemeanor. You may be charged with this offense if you:
Recklessly cause serious physical harm to another, or
Knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another.
This means that you can be charged with this assault offense even if you don’t intend to hurt anyone at all.
Ref: ORC 2903.13"
http://www.assaultandbattery.org/ohio/
Intentionally and knowingly are two completely different legal concepts. Intentionally means she wanted to cause the child harm. Knowingly means she knew what she was doing and/or that it might be harmful or was wrong or inappropriate:
"When the word "knowingly" is used , it means that the defendant realized what he was doing and was aware of the nature of his conduct and did not act through ignorance, mistake, or accident. Knowledge may be proved by the defendant's conduct and by all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case.[United States v. Kisting, 159 Fed. Appx. 725, 728 (7th Cir. Ill. 2005)]"
http://definitions.uslegal.com/k/knowingly/
This woman knew what she was doing. She knew it could hurt the kid. Her conduct clearly fits assault.
That was a very interesting read.
More than one Riverdale parent weighed in with comments and examples.
All I'll say is that I'm more persuaded that this was a situation where a previously good employee "snapped", as opposed to a long term concealed pattern of abuse and bullying.
Snapped or not, BW was clearly in the wrong for what she did, and will continue to face consequences. She should be, and will be (IMO) fired, but I think there is a possibility she will be allowed to resign. The whole picture of the situation is becoming clearer to me.
I guess I'm beginning to change my mind about the implications for a civil suit against the school district, regardless of what happens to BW. I think a civil suit is inevitable, at this point. I thought it might be avoidable, but I'm beginning to doubt that. JMO.
I read the comments. Nothing has changed my mind. Any woman with her years of experience, as I stated days ago, has encountered multiple children with all sorts of behavioral issues. Educators are trained to deal with out of control kids, kids with behavioral problems, etc,. Without resorting to violence. It's possible this woman never harmed a child before but neither his conduct, his parents' conduct nor this woman's history mitigates what she did.
There were too many other options that I can list, besides assaulting a tiny child. And btw, I didn't see an out of control monster. I saw a kid going to the bathroom, without permission, who just stood there quietly and seemed scared as an adult three times his size, assaulted him.
He is the child. She is the adult and a trained one at that. No excuse and no mitigation.
In life, we are presented repeatedly with situations that test our limits. Our reactions to these moments define our character.
If we have a baby who has extreme colic or sensory integration disorder or some malady that causes her to scream incessantly, are we excused if we shake her in frustration and exhaustion?
If we have a parent with dementia, whose personality changes such that he spews vile hatred toward us and curses nonstop and is never satisfied, are we excused if we lash out and hit him?
No. Of course not. There are always options other then violence. This teacher had many other options. Instead, she chose to walk down the hall, seek this child out, and assault him.
There have to be consequences for such behavior in a civilized society, especially when such behavior occurs toward our most vulnerable populations- the disabled, the elderly and children.
The little boy in this case is innocent. No matter what. He is small and vulnerable and this woman was entrusted with his care. She made her choice and I hope she faces consequences more serious than a suspension, as a result.