I'd like to weigh in on something that has been bothering me. I know a lot of posters here won't agree with me, and that's ok.
We all process things differently. It bothers me when someone tries to explain their thinking and opinions, and they are flamed or smacked down because they dare to examine or discuss anything beyond the victim's experience, and how to best draw and quarter the perpetrator. There is more to EVERY situation than sound bites and snippets of video.
I think it's important to look at EVERY situation we encounter, every case, and behaviors, in the context of what actually happened. That is what our legal system is based on. We strive to understand the context within which a situation, or a charged crime, happened. Sometimes we discover that there is the influence, for example, of drugs or alcohol, or a situation of abuse of power, or or a propensity to violence, or a propensity for predatory behavior, or psychiatric illness, or deep-seated "evil" psychopathic/ antisocial behavior, or frustration that leads to someone lashing out, or "snapping".
Not for a minute am I suggesting that any of these things mean that a situation or crime should be overlooked, or "forgiven" just because there is a certain context beyond random evil or random violence. We have plenty of cases where the context of a crime makes us very sympathetic to the perpetrator-- Marissa Alexander, for example. And many people would agree that for her crime (discharging a firearm at her abuser, which did not injure or hurt anyone) that the punishment did not fit the crime. (I'm not suggesting Marissa Alexander and BW's situations are comparable, btw.) We strive to understand the behavior of people like Jodi Arias and Casey Anthony, to try to understand how such terrible murders could happen. We carefully examine the details of medical child abuse cases to determine if there really was abuse, or if the parents were tragically misunderstood, seeking only to find the best care for their ill children.
What I find very frustrating is the "absolutism" of many literal thinkers to attack and pigeonhole posters who try to understand what has happened. If there are attempts for people to look at the entire context of a situation, many "literal" thinkers immediately jump to the conclusion that the "other" individuals involved are "off limits" to ANY discussion, criticism, any examination of the circumstances, or context. That's just not how our society, our legal system, and most reasonable people function. We strive to examine the situation and circumstances of an entire situation in order to understand "how" it happened, the motivation behind the perpetrator's behavior, whether there was abuse of position or power, and the severity of the outcome. That is exactly what happens in a trial, and within the dynamics of a jury.
Literal thinkers would imprison Jean Valjean (fictional character from Les Mis) with an excessively harsh sentence for stealing bread to feed his starving nieces and nephews. Was he wrong for stealing-- yes. Should the circumstances mitigate what he did? IMO, yes.
Everything has context. I agree with JeannaT that it is very odd that the people in this town who know both the family and the teacher, and the school administrators, and school culture-- are NOT marching with torches and pitchforks and loudly calling for BW's head on a platter. If anything, there is a puzzling silence and awkwardness, with just a few posters willing to venture the opinions that there is a very significant "back story" to what was going on. The ones with the most passion for vengeance and blood don't know the family, the teacher, the town, the school, etc. and want to imprison this woman for life for something that will probably not settle out higher than a misdemeanor. (As it would not for other, similar circumstances, IMO.)
Was BW clearly wrong for jacking up this child? YES! Absolutely. Was it a random act? No. Were there a lot of serious circumstances with behavior and classroom management that had been inadequately dealt with leading up to this? Almost certainly YES. Did BW have the responsibility to moderate her own emotional response and exercise self control? Absolutely, YES. Should she be fired? IMO, absolutely yes. None of this is mutually exclusive in my opinion. I don't have to scapegoat BW in order to make the parent's actions, and the school's action "right". They ALL share responsibility in creating the circumstances and the CONTEXT that lead up to BW committing assault, IMO.
There is, IMO, a whole heckuva lot of difference between a completely random act of assault, and someone who has been mired in frustration and snaps. Yes, BW will, and is, answering for what she did. She may face criminal charges. That is the correct outcome. But it doesn't mean that people who strive to understand what happened are "wrong" for not being literal thinkers, or "wrong" for dismissing context, or "namby pamby" people who want to let everyone off the hook.
There was likely very, very little the school could do "if" there was severe classroom management and behavior issues back in November. They can't remove a child to a special classroom or 1:1 teacher without a lot of evaluation and justification, which won't happen 90 days into a kindergarten year. They won't hire a classroom "minder" to supervise a child without a lot of documentation and justification. They can't suspend or expel a kindergarten child for behavior problems 90 days into a school year. Maybe they could have changed classrooms, but for whatever reason, the principal decided not to do that. I'm sure the reasons and parent encounters are well documented.
We only hear one side of the story-- what the parents have chosen to publicize. I personally believe the parents have handled this situation completely wrongly, and that they have greatly contributed to whatever ongoing difficulties the child will have processing what has happened. I also believe BW has traumatized him, and assaulted him. The two are not mutually exclusive in my opinion. I also definitely think the parents will sue the district no matter what the outcome is with BW. I actually don't think they will bother suing BW personally, but maybe they will. (I doubt she has many assets, and I read her husband is a minister.)
I don't think the school administrators, BW, OR the parents handled this situation very well. And that does contribute to how I perceive the entire situation. IMO, this is much, much more than just 15-20 seconds of video, and making sure BW's head ends up on a stick. I cannot be enough of a black and white, literal thinker, to dismiss everything else that played into this situation that resulted in a teacher snapping (IMO), and assaulting a kindergartner. All of it matters, IMO. And if the case is ever charged and makes it to a trial, the jury will hear all of it. That's what defense attorneys do, right? Provide context? Reasons for mitigation?
