Posted on 06/19/2002 7:09:54 AM PDT by MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
The court fight over whether a Baytown science teacher used a water pistol as a teaching tool or to assault a student has ended with the boy's parents dropping the charges. Bryan and Dana Adkins agreed to dismiss the misdemeanor assault charges against Maria Ripke after half the students in their 11-year-old son's Baytown Junior School class were interviewed and none would substantiate his story. "If nobody else would come forward, I didn't want to put my son on the stand to tell his story and then have an older teacher contradict it," said Bryan Adkins, a Baytown patrolman.
But before he filed the charges, he said Ripke "fessed up" during a teacher-parent conference about having squirted his son in the chest and face to discipline him for not paying attention in class. "I think none of the other children are coming forward now because of peer pressure," Adkins said. "They don't want to get involved in something that does not pertain to them." Ripke said she was prepared to prove her innocence. "They only dropped the charge for lack of evidence," she said
1. Not properly rearing his child to pay attention in class.
2. Bringing charges against a teacher for use of a water gun? Arrrghhh!!!
And further, if someone in that area is on their toes, call Childrens' Protective Services and report that the Adkins are not properly disciplining their child. You have the names, you have the locations. Make the calls. If enough people call, they will HAVE to investigate. How stupid to let this man get away with this. If it had been my child, I would have congratulated the teacher and then disciplined the child at home.
Any wonder that the kid didn't behave in class?
Good grief. If we weren't homeschooling I had planned to tell my teachers the ruler was fine. A water pistol? I suspect that would only encourage my boys.
patent
--- I wonder if that means "none would testify", or "they would testify otherwise".
Five minutes later here came a grinning kid, a mad poppa and a principal. Mad poppa said, "My son said you wouldn't let him go out the front door." I said, "That's correct. Your son was the only kid in second grade who didn't follow directions. We don't let them go out that door because of the moving traffic. If it's okay with you that he goes out into a line of moving cars and possibly gets hit by one, it's okay with me."
The father apologized but it never ceases to amaze me how kids consistently represent their parents. What kind of person would get upset because his kid wasn't allowed to go out a certain door? How would any adult not realize that there must be a reason for it?
Assault and Battery: Two distinct offenses which can occur independently or together. Assault is placing someone in reasonable apprehension of a battery, e.g. by making threatening statements or raising a fist. Battery is causing bodily harm to a person by any means, or making physical contact with a person of an insulting or provocative nature.So technically, the parents have justification, although I don't see where the bodily harm is.
Please help clarify.
Assault is the "threat" to do bodily harm with the capacity to carry out the threat.
Battery is the action of delivering bodily harm or simply making unwanted contact.
And, test the dad for mental illness. He is a peace officer and lives may be at stake.
Put a “squirting flower” in the barrel of the squirt gun and nail them with that
Tell them its a peace statement
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.