Woman jailed for sending her kids to a good school

jackiebaron

Degsy wrote: »

This is the sort of crap teachers in some schools have to put up with.

That article is just a load of anti-white claptrap from "Black Leaders"..whatever they are.

Degsy, forget about what the "black leaders" are saying and forget about what the "white supremacists" are saying. The facts are that this judge handed down probation to a white girl convicted of arson and 7 years in prison to a black girl for pushing someone.

The judge quite obviously trawled the depths and tried to equate "pushing a person" to "viciously assaulting a cop or politician".

Come on. Even the most unapologetic racists among you have to admit that that's dodgy.

Degsy

jackiebaron wrote: »

The facts are that this jusge handed down probation to a white girl convicted of arson
.

The "incident" of the white girl getting probation has no facts to back it up..there's no mention of the girls name or anything like that.

jackiebaron wrote: »

and 7 years in prison to a black girl for pushing someone.

.

If she was convicted of assault she must've done a whole hell of a lot more than "push somebody".

The chances are it was a racist attack on a teacher but the Black Leaders wont be owning up to that.

Nodin

Degsy wrote: »

.........
That article is just a load of anti-white claptrap from "Black Leaders"..whatever they are.

Poor oul Degsys feeling persecuted again.

Girl is jailed for 7 years for 'pushing' somebody, despite the only evidence of injury presented at trial being her own.

Girl burns down house and walks.

Why do you think there was such a disparity in sentencing by the Court?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/file_on_4/7064473.stm

jackiebaron

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Thanks for one of the biggest belly laughs I've had all year. Let's look at these schools that make Oz Penitentiary look like Eton, shall we?

http://www.akronschools.com/schools/

The schools in Akron are ranked as 'continually improving' and are ranked as one of the top performing urban areas in the entire state of Ohio. Over 60% of high school leavers plan to go on to further studies, and 20% more wished to but couldn't finance it.
They have an award-winning afterschool programme across all 50 odd schools in Akron. They have a link-up with Akron University. There are specialist high schools for performing arts, science and technology, and IT, and a school which allows high achievers to pursue college credits while they're still at school.

That's what Miss Nibs didn't think was good enough for her children.

Nice try, CR. Pull some glossy link out of a hat and say that this is what is available to the woman. Well it isn't. The APS (Akron Public Schools) district is NOT available to this woman. She doesn't live in that district. The district that she lives in has no accredited high school only 38 city district elementary schools and 10 high schools of crap standards most of them scoring an overall 4/10 in quality and performance.

Don't try to bluff me out with claims like this. Now you're just bulsh1tting.

Cavehill Red

I see that once the OP's original story didn't stand up as racist, she had to go and unearth some old case to try to prove her point.
How amusing.

Nodin

Degsy wrote: »

The "incident" of the white girl getting probation has no facts to back it up..there's no mention of the girls name or anything like that."..

The sentencing Judge is mentioned here, along with other examples.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0703120170mar12,0,1435953.story

Degsy wrote: »

If she was convicted of assault she must've done a whole hell of a lot more than "push somebody"..

As already pointed out, there was no evidence of anything more.

Degsy

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I see that once the OP's original story didn't stand up as racist, she had to go and unearth some old case to try to prove her point.
How amusing.

It always is..and not the usual suspects crawlling out of the woodwork to try to "prove" that it was racist hehe.

vinchick

jackie1974 wrote: »

As Marie Antoinette would say 'Let them eat cake'

Sorry to be nitpicking but she didn't say it.

Cavehill Red

jackiebaron wrote: »

Nice try, CR. Pull some glossy link out of a hat and say that this is what is available to the woman. Well it isn't. The APS (Akron Public Schools) district is NOT available to this woman.

From your link:

The family lived in the housing projects in Akron, Ohio

From ABC:

Williams-Bolar decided four years ago to send her daughters to a highly ranked school in neighboring Copley-Fairlawn School District.
But it wasn't her Akron district of residence, so her children were ineligible to attend school there

Wanna try again?

jackiebaron

Degsy wrote: »

The "incident" of the white girl getting probation has no facts to back it up..there's no mention of the girls name or anything like that.



If she was convicted of assault she must've done a whole hell of a lot more than "push somebody".

The chances are it was a racist attack on a teacher but the Black Leaders wont be owning up to that.

I see. There's absolutely no possibility that this girl was treated harshly! Hm? None whatsoever? The teachers CLAIMED that all that happened was a push but you seem to think that she did so much more to warrant a 7 year sentence. What she glassed the teacher, then stabbed the teacher then beat the teacher with a bat then kicked the teacher unconscious but none of that was mentioned in court?
You just say "Eh..well, she must have done something really vicious!"

Gimme a break.

I give a clear cut case of blatant discrimination, preposterous charges, over the top sentencing and favouritism and STILL the racists on this thread refuse to even face it. The fear of cognitive dissonance and the horror of having to admit to something uncomfortable is just too much for some people.

dr.bollocko

OK folks. Cut out the personal stuff and I would think it best to get any closing arguments in soon as we will be locking up this thread. Any questions PM me. Zero tolerance to any personal comments from here on out.

iguana

Cavehill Red wrote: »

My loan was perfectly secured because the same bank sees my wages every month and is my mortgage lender. There's no victim here, except perhaps me given interest rates these days. You're simply making yourself sound ever more shrill and ridiculous by suggesting that somehow my taking out a loan and paying it off victimises you.

If the wages that the bank sees every month weren't enough to cover the loan that is high risk, there is no other way of looking at it.

And I'm not sure how it continually escapes your attention that I am not complaining that I am being victimised, just pointing out that your actions have "victims" in the same way that the American woman's actions do. You are the one who complained she "stole" from the taxpayers in the same district. Well by that logic, your logic, high risk borrowers steal from savers. It's the same thing. And morally, neither of you did nothing wrong, it's just that legally the American system is deliberately inequitable so the woman was forced to go outside the law.

Degsy

jackiebaron wrote: »

I see. There's absolutely no possibility that this girl was treated harshly! Hm? None whatsoever? The teachers CLAIMED that all that happened was a push but you seem to think that she did so much more to warrant a 7 year sentence. What she glassed the teacher, then stabbed the teacher then beat the teacher with a bat then kicked the teacher unconscious but none of that was mentioned in court?
You just say "Eh..well, she must have done something really vicious!"

Gimme a break.

I give a clear cut case of blatant discrimination, preposterous charges, over the top sentencing and favouritism and STILL the racists on this thread refuse to even face it. The fear of cognitive dissonance and the horror of having to admit to something uncomfortable is just too much for some people.

tought titty if she was "treated harshly"..assault a teacher and you pay for it..there should be zero tolerance on this sort of thuggery in schools whether they be black,white or elephant-pink.

Degsy

Cavehill Red wrote: »

From your link:

From ABC:

Wanna try again?

Hehe..good find!

Nodin

Degsy wrote: »

tought titty if she was "treated harshly"..assault a teacher and you pay for it...

There was no evidence of injury presented. Therefore its hardly "assault".

Degsy wrote: »

there should be zero tolerance on this sort of thuggery in schools whether they be black,white or elephant-pink.

Yet there seems to be tolerance of vehicular of manslaughter and arson when it comes from one section of the community.....

Cavehill Red

iguana wrote: »

But you took a second job because the wages that you bank sees every month weren't enough to cover the loan. That is high risk, there is no other way of looking at it.

Yes there is: I took out a loan and took an extra income to pay for it. Therefore the loan is covered and paid off and is by no definition 'high risk'. It wasn't leveraged. It was secured on income, it was paid off early. The bank at all times had collateral of wages and my mortgage property.

iguana wrote: »

Your principle, and currently only, income could not cover the repayments.

Oddly enough, I know my finances better than you. My income could just about cover the repayments, or indeed the fees for that matter, but I didn't like living with so little expendable income.

iguana wrote: »

And I'm not sure how it continually escapes your attention that I am not complaining that I am being victimised, just pointing out that your actions have "victims" in the same way that the American woman's actions do.

Except they don't.

iguana wrote: »

You are the one who complained she "stole" from the taxpayers in the same district.

Actually, that wasn't me. That was the state prosecutor's office in Ohio.

iguana wrote: »

Well by that logic, your logic, high risk borrowers steal from savers. It's the same thing.

In the way that a swimming pool and an elephant are the same thing, perhaps.

iguana wrote: »

And morally, neither of you did nothing wrong, it's just that legally the American system is deliberately inequitable so the woman was forced to go outside the law.

Er, fail again. Morally, she committed fraud to ensure that her kids got places in a school that deprived other kids who were entitled to them. She stole 30,000 dollars worth of tuition and then refused to pay it.
Let's remember, she taught in an Akron school herself. Why wasn't the school that paid her wages good enough for her kids?

Cavehill Red

Degsy wrote: »

Hehe..good find!

Oh, it gets better than that. She was actually teaching in one of the Akron schools. It was good enough to pay her wages, but not good enough for her little darlings, apparently.

jackiebaron

Cavehill Red wrote: »

From your link:

From ABC:

Wanna try again?

What do you mean "wanna try again"?

You stated that the 10 schools in the APS district were available to her.

They weren't.

Cavehill Red

jackiebaron wrote: »

What do you mean "wanna try again"?

You stated that the 10 schools in the APS district were available to her.

They weren't.

Er, not only were they available to her, she was actually working in one of them! :rolleyes:

jackiebaron

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I see that once the OP's original story didn't stand up as racist, she had to go and unearth some old case to try to prove her point.
How amusing.

Cavehill, I didn't unearth this case to prove my original point. I referred to this case because Degsy claimed that if someone is losing an argument or treated harshly then they automatically play "the race card"

I used this case to illustrate that it's understandable for people to claim they are not being treated equally when you have a case where the same judge gives probation to a white arsonist and 7 years to a black "assaulter" .. the assault being agreed upon as having pushed a teacher.

That I brought this case up had nothing to do with my original post so stop trying to twist it as such.

Cavehill Red

jackiebaron wrote: »

That I brought this case up had nothing to do with my original post so stop trying to twist it as such.

If it has nothing to do with your original post, what's it doing in this thread?
Oh, and have a lookee here: http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Hartford+Avenue+akron&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Hartford+Ave,+Akron,+OH,+USA&gl=ie&ei=jn5BTZapG4SBhQeK9YSGAg&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ8gEwAA

Those are all the schools you reckon don't exist in her neighbourhood. The one marked B is where she worked, incidentally. Why didn't she send her kids there?

jackiebaron

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Er, not only were they available to her, she was actually working in one of them! :rolleyes:

What school was she working in?

By the way, you do realise that APS (Akron Public Schools) is a school district in Akron, right? It does not cover the entire city. It only composes 10 high schools in the northwestern part of the city.

It is only a miniscule subset of all the schools in Akron. Just because in is named Akron Public Schools doesn't mean that it incorporates every school in Akron. Much the same way as the NUI doesn't incorporate every college or university in Ireland...only UCD UCC NUIG and Maynooth.

It is not available to Williams-Bolar.

jackiebaron

Cavehill Red wrote: »

If it has nothing to do with your original post, what's it doing in this thread?
Oh, and have a lookee here: http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Hartford+Avenue+akron&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Hartford+Ave,+Akron,+OH,+USA&gl=ie&ei=jn5BTZapG4SBhQeK9YSGAg&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ8gEwAA

Those are all the schools you reckon don't exist in her neighbourhood. The one marked B is where she worked, incidentally. Why didn't she send her kids there?

What kind of statement is that? I already explained to you why I brought up that case. What's wrong with you?

jackiebaron

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Oh, it gets better than that. She was actually teaching in one of the Akron schools. It was good enough to pay her wages, but not good enough for her little darlings, apparently.

So she was teaching in one of the schools yet was studying for her teaching degree? How do you teach before you are qualified? And the average teaching salary in Akron Ohio is $58,000. If you are earning that why would you be living in the projects? Why would you be living in social housing? You wouldn't be allowed.

Are you going to now say, "ah sure she was probably forging the fact that she was working as well...just to get cheap rent"?

Degsy

Nodin wrote: »

There was no evidence of injury presented. Therefore its hardly "assault".


..

There doesnt need to evidence of injury for an assault to be commited:

Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.
The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.

Note the lack of race being a mitigating factor.

Nodin

Degsy wrote: »

There doesnt need to evidence of injury for an assault to be commited:
.

True. However there would seem to be something rather strange about an assault that causes no injury resulting in a seven year jail sentence.

Degsy wrote: »

Note the lack of race being a mitigating factor.

Here it would seem that race acted as a sentencing factor.

Degsy

Nodin wrote: »

True. However there would seem to be something rather strange about an assault that causes no injury resulting in a seven year jail sentence.
.

Thats for the judge to decide..you werent at the trial were you?

If one of my parents was a teacher and assaulted by a thug i would be quite happy to see them go to prison.

Cavehill Red

jackiebaron wrote: »

So she was teaching in one of the schools yet was studying for her teaching degree? How do you teach before you are qualified? And the average teaching salary in Akron Ohio is $58,000. If you are earning that why would you be living in the projects? Why would you be living in social housing? You wouldn't be allowed.

Are you going to now say, "ah sure she was probably forging the fact that she was working as well...just to get cheap rent"?

This is getting embarrassing for you. It seems you don't know the first thing about this woman or this case and have gone off completely half-cocked.
She was a teaching assistant for special needs kids at Buchtel High School, the one marked B on that map, the one less than a mile from where she lived. She was studying to be a teacher at Akron Uni, about two miles from her house.
The really interesting thing was her defence. She claimed she moved her kids to the other school, not for academic reasons, but because she was 'scared for their safety.'
So according to her, ALL schools in Akron district are highly dangerous, yet she worked in one happily. And the schools are dangerous for her kids, but not actually living in the projects.
So, all in, she's a real chancer. One lie after another.
Now, she taught in a school she wouldn't send them to.

c0rk3r

Well considering most parents are willing to kill and die for their children this is relatively tame. A selfless act to give her children better opportunities and future prospects. Its the equivalent to parking fines in my book but of course you can get sent to jail if you don't pay them

I wouldn't worry about Ms Kelly Williams-Bolar. She'll be on Oprah, Ellen and whatever other chat shows + selling the story to print media. She'll be alright. Puts a smile to my face

Degsy

c0rk3r wrote: »

Well considering most parents are willing to kill and die for their children this is relatively tame. A selfless act to give her children better opportunities and future prospects. Its the equivalent to parking fines in my book but of course you can get sent to jail if you don't pay them

I wouldn't worry about Ms Kelly Williams-Bolar. She'll be on Oprah, Ellen and whatever other chat shows + selling the story to print media. She'll be alright. Puts a smile to my face

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/26/ohio-mom-kelley-williams-bolar-jailed-for-lying-about-kids-scho/

But the district accused the aspiring teacher of lying about her address, falsifying records and having her father file false court papers to circumvent the rules, ABC said. The school asked her to repay $30,000 in tuition, saying her daughters were getting a quality education without paying taxes to contribute to the cost. She refused and was indicted.

Falsifying legal documents,perjury and fraud costing 30,000 bucks.

In a jailhouse interview with the paper last week, Williams-Bolar said she'd do it again if she had to.

"If I had the opportunity, if I had to do it all over again, would I have done it?" she said. After pausing, she answered: "I would have done it again. But I would have been more detailed. ...

.

And she'd do it again given the chance.

The school district spent about $6,000 to bring Williams-Bolar to trial, a sum that included hiring a private investigator to follow her and her children, Newschannel5 reported.

Copley-Fairlawn Superintendent Brian Poe said the district has lost hundreds of thousands of dollars because of children illegally enrolled in its schools. The cases are usually resolved by parents proving they live in the district, taking their kids out of the schools or paying tuition of about $800 a month, the station reported.

Williams-Bolar's case was the first residency challenge to reach a criminal courtroom, but Poe said it was to send a message. "If you're paying taxes on a home here ... those dollars need to stay home with our students,"

It was about fraud and money..NOT about race.

Degsy

As for the poor lil shove girl:

: Texas statute under the Family Code (governing juveniles) left 2 options for the judge: 1) release the juvenile on probation back to a family member who verbally assures the judge that cooperative efforts to meet probation conditions will be met, and 2) sentence to the Texas Youth Commission. Often, parents are part of the problem and other family members step forward to offer to take the juvenile in their care and see to it probation conditions are met. NO other family members came forward and this juvenile’s mother (Creola Cotton) told the judge she would not comply with conditions of probation. The judge’s hands were tied by the law and he had no other choice but TYC.


School officials testified during the punishment phase that this juvenile had been a continuous discipline problem and that her mother continually defended her actions, telling her she did nothing wrong, and fought against disciplinary actions against her daughter for legitimate infractions.



The defense filed an appeal, fired the defense attorney trial attorney they hired (Wesley Newell of Dallas) and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel (saying the defense attorney didn’t do his job well enough). The Court of Appeals in Texarkana ruled that the juvenile would not be released on bond pending their final appeal decision. That decision has not yet been handed down.


This juvenile would not be in TYC if her mother had agreed to cooperate with conditions of probation after the jury found her essentially guilty.
Black leaders in our community, as well as the local chapter of the NAACP, have shyed away from the case because it is an issue of irresponsible parenting. The mother and her fringe, extremist, anti-white organization (Concerned Citizens for Racial Equality) who are aligned with the New Black Panthers want to blame the system and the judge for her daughter being in TYC.

BluePlanet

Degsy wrote: »

It was about fraud and money..NOT about race.

Rubbish.
Those white parents and administrators in that school just didn't want a black around the place, so they hired a private investigator to FOLLOW CHILDREN going home from school to "prove" they didn't live in the "right" area.

It's disgusting.

c0rk3r

Im aware of the money she has to pay back. Im sure the money earned from her story will cover it No doubt people who disagree with her sentence have a place to donate money to pay for her costs. As i said i wouldn't worry about it


Im also aware its fraud. I dont believe what she done was morally wrong

Degsy

BluePlanet wrote: »

Rubbish.
Those white parents and administrators in that school just didn't want a black around the place, so they hired a private investigator to FOLLOW CHILDREN going home from school to "prove" they didn't live in the "right" area.

It's disgusting.

So she was the only "Black" in the school? I find that rather difficult to believe..what say you listen to the testimony of the people who were present at the trial?

dark crystal

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The really interesting thing was her defence. She claimed she moved her kids to the other school, not for academic reasons, but because she was 'scared for their safety.'
So according to her, ALL schools in Akron district are highly dangerous, yet she worked in one happily. And the schools are dangerous for her kids, but not actually living in the projects.
So, all in, she's a real chancer. One lie after another.
Now, she taught in a school she wouldn't send them to.

Lots of people work in environments they wouldn't want their kids in. they do it to earn a living for those kids.

Anyway, my hat goes off to that woman - she simply wanted a better life for her kids and there's no crime in that, as far as I'm concerned.

Degsy

dark crystal wrote: »

Anyway, my hat goes off to that woman - she simply wanted a better life for her kids and there's no crime in that, as far as I'm concerned.

No sghe didnt she defrauded thousands of dollars and falsified legal documents..that is a crime!

prinz

dark crystal wrote: »

Anyway, my hat goes off to that woman - she simply wanted a better life for her kids and there's no crime in that, as far as I'm concerned.

What about the next person who just thieves directly instead? You can sympathise with her situation but the ends don't always justify the means.

Degsy

Fraud is Fraud is Fraud...she was lucky she only got ten days jail.

dark crystal

Degsy wrote: »

No sghe didnt she defrauded thousands of dollars and falsified legal documents..that is a crime!

Yes, I understand that, but if the rule is a silly one, I really don't mind someone bending it for a greater good, as long as they're not harming anyone else.

That's just my opinion - I can understand her reasons for doing what she did.

Shenshen

Degsy wrote: »

It was about fraud and money..NOT about race.

How do you account for the fact that the children's grandfather was living within the district of the better school and was in fact paying taxes to support that school?

It was about fraud, granted, but it certainly wasn't about money the school was owed. People aren't taxed per child, even in the US. The school saw a nice way of making extra cash, that's what this was about.

jackiebaron

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This is getting embarrassing for you. It seems you don't know the first thing about this woman or this case and have gone off completely half-cocked.
She was a teaching assistant for special needs kids at Buchtel High School, the one marked B on that map, the one less than a mile from where she lived. She was studying to be a teacher at Akron Uni, about two miles from her house.
The really interesting thing was her defence. She claimed she moved her kids to the other school, not for academic reasons, but because she was 'scared for their safety.'
So according to her, ALL schools in Akron district are highly dangerous, yet she worked in one happily. And the schools are dangerous for her kids, but not actually living in the projects.
So, all in, she's a real chancer. One lie after another.
Now, she taught in a school she wouldn't send them to.

Whoa, back up a minute. I knew that she was was working with special ed kids. You claimed she was teaching in one of the schools that she wouldn't send her kids to.
Being an assistant to a special ed teacher is NOT teaching, so don't exaggerate. Helping autistic kids with some painting or Downs Syndrome kids with reading, while hard and admirable work, is not "teaching".

And what was she being paid for this work? Why was she living in the projects and on public assistance if she had such a great job?

We can go round in circles about this. But the only thing you're interested in is the fact that she was punished and punished harshly. Leaving her entire life and that of her family in ruins. You'll probably say that she only has herself to blame and while technically she was wrong, the satisfaction that you seem to derive from her plight is, quite frankly, disturbing. There's a name for people like that. Sadists.

Many are arguing that in this rules are rules. It's black and white. And technically that's true. But is anything really black and white? Why are the circumstances surrounding this case not examined? She didn't forge banknotes to buy jewellery. She sent her kids to school.
Why do the circumstances not matter? If someone kills someone then it has to be determined if it was crime of passion, an accident, self-defence or premeditated, all of which carry wildly differing sentences. The person is dead but somehow that's not black and white? On various legal blogs and fora lawyers and law students are calling this sentence a travesty and an insult to the notion of prosecutorial discretion. The judge, when asked why she handed down such a sentence stated that she wanted to make an example of Williams-Bolar.
So wrecking someone's life is setting an example? Again if you are in support of that then the word "sadist" springs to mind again.

Under current Ohio Law, this woman committed a crime. That cannot be argued. What can be argued is whether the actions of the court are appropriate for the woman's situation.

This woman's life and the prospects for her kids have been destroyed not because it serves the public interest and does any constructive good. This was done purely because they could do it.

They even refused to allow her to plead guilty to a misdemeanor which would have given her some possibility of completing her studies and perhaps securing a teaching post whereby she might then have had a chance to move off public assistance and give her children a chance.

But nah! any hint of compassion, any smidgin of empathy, any shred of consideration, any modicum of leniency is for pussies, right Cave?

I'm glad you are delighted at the thought of the lifelong misery that lies ahead of this woman.

prinz

dark crystal wrote: »

Yes, I understand that, but if the rule is a silly one, I really don't mind someone bending it for a greater good, as long as they're not harming anyone else..

The rule isn't a silly one.. and she may well have ended up harming someone else, what if a kid who did live in the locality and paid the taxes etc ended up not getting a place in their local school because people from outside that area were taking up the spaces available? Would that still make it right?

dark crystal wrote: »

That's just my opinion - I can understand her reasons for doing what she did.

So can I. That doesn't make it right, or mean she shouldn't face the consequences.

dark crystal

prinz wrote: »

The rule isn't a silly one.. and she may well have ended up harming someone else, what if a kid who did live in the locality and paid the taxes etc ended up not getting a place in their local school because people from outside that area were taking up the spaces available? Would that still make it right?

Why would a child who lived in the locality and whose parents paid taxes not get a place? Isn't the school district legally obliged to place such children? Is there any evidence that this particular school was overcrowded?

You can criticise this woman on technicalities for sure, but not everyone has such a beaurocratic mindset....as a parent, I really do sympathise with her on a human level. That's the only place I'm coming from here.

prinz

dark crystal wrote: »

Why would a child who lived in the locality and whose parents paid taxes not get a place? Isn't the school district legally obliged to place such children? Is there any evidence that this particular school was overcrowded?

I asked you a hypothetical question? Would you still support her actions if it meant that another child, closer to the school lost out?

dark crystal wrote: »

....as a parent, I really do sympathise with her on a human level. That's the only place I'm coming from here.

Did the midwife hand you your sense of empathy along with your first born? As a non-parent I empathise too, she was doing what she thought was best for her kids and it's unfortunate she was not in a position to organise repayment to the school preventing the indictment. She wasn't in a unique position, she just refused to face up to her predicament it seems.

niallers1

Anybody who believes this woman should be in Jail really needs a big hug.

jackie1974

niallers1 wrote: »

Anybody who believes this woman should be in Jail really needs a big hug.

Or a really big kick up the hole

Manic Moran

Surely if you are legally obliged to attend school in your home district, then that school is obliged to have a place for you, so I doubt her kids going to the school stopped anyone else going there!

It will, however, have diluted the budget available to disburse between all the students.

The biggest strike against her isn't even that she committed a crime.

She was convicted on two counts of tampering with court records

It's the crime that she committed.
More than anything else, more than education, elections, whatever, the US's strength is its legal system. Flawed though it may be in some ways, it serves the US very well. You just can't allow people to go tampering with court records.

Not to mention, it probably would screw over her kids later on down the line. Let's say they want to become a federal employee, join the Army, whatever. The kid, likely not knowing what 'quiet' changes have been made to their official records, puts down one thing on the SF86 form, only to have the government discover that the records say something else. So you now have the kid lying on a federal form. That does not sit well with the Feds, trust me. Or, maybe the kid is told about the subterfuge, writes down the 'official' information and the government, whilst conducting the background check, discovers that in reality, they were living elsewhere. Just as badly screwed. (And trust me, the government checks. And they don't just call the people you list as references either).

The woman has a vote. Every other person living in that district has a vote, they probably all want better education for their kids. What are their city, county and State representatives up to, and why are they getting elected?

NTM

Nodin

Degsy wrote: »

Thats for the judge to decide...

Well, evidently the Judge takes a less dim view of vehicular manslaughter and arson than a shove. That doesn't strike you as odd?

Degsy wrote: »

you werent at the trial were you?...

Were you?

Degsy wrote: »

If one of my parents was a teacher and assaulted by a thug i would be quite happy to see them go to prison.

An assault that only sees the assailant injured, and that assailant being a 14 year old girl?

You being you, you probably would.....

Degsy wrote: »

As for the poor lil shove girl:.

A link to go with your c&p would be nice.

Degsy

Nodin wrote: »

Well, evidently the Judge takes a less dim view of vehicular manslaughter and arson than a shove. That doesn't strike you as odd?


.

Not really..as i have pointed out there was far more to the situation than you're making out..the child was a persistent troublemaker and her mother refused to guarantee her behaviour,merely choosing to shout "racist" at everybody who tried to discipline her.
The judge decided that the kid would be better off away from the mother's influence and ordered her to be detained..the same thing happens in this country all the time..i dont see whatthe big deal is,thuggish behaviour from the child and irresponsible behaviour from the mother resulted in the kid being locked up..as much for her own sake as anything else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaquanda_Cotton

Read for yourself..the kid was a thug and the mother a member of a black racist group.

Cotton's jury consisted of three men and three women, one of whom was African-American. After testimony, the jury reached a guilty verdict on the higher felony count of assaulting a public servant in less than 10 minutes.[3]

During the punishment phase of the trial, prosecutors recommended sentencing to the Texas Youth Commission facility. Judge Superville stated that this sentence would be a "last resort" for the case. Prosecutors argued that Cotton's mother Creola was an impediment to probation and stated that her response to any disciplinary problem for her daughter at school was "to paint school officials as racist." School officials including Johnson testified to this point. Johnson stated that after he wrote Cotton up, Creola Cotton "berated him" and called him an "Uncle Tom." [3

Remember this the Jury finds either guilt or innocence so the black juror must have also been racist against the black girl by your reckoning.

As usual,you havnt a leg to stand on..perhaps Pamela Whatshername requires your help somewhere?

Nodin

Degsy wrote: »

Not really..(........) somewhere?

Selective quoting there Degsy. From your own link.

Some allege that some of the writeups before the incident were in retaliation for her mother Creola Cotton and Brenda Cherry, who were co-founders of a civil rights organization called Concerned Citizens For Racial Equality, filing civil rights complaints against the school district on numerous occasions, and that the writeups increased dramatically after the incident

Teacher Althea Dixon, also an African-American, testified that she had handled only two problems, one being a skirt that was an inch too short and the other being Cotton pouring too much paint into a styrofoam cup. The majority of the writeups were for minor things such as tardiness but were used as prior offenses at trial

Degsy wrote: »

.....the mother a member of a black racist group.......

From your own link again....

Concerned Citizens For Racial Equality is not listed as a hate group. All protests have been peaceful and no racist statements have been identified as coming from Cherry or the civil rights organization, Concerned Citizens For Racial Equality.