By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - First-grader suspended for 'sexual harassment'

Maybe the principal should be the suspended, he's clearly high.



Around the Network

It's lucky the UK isn't like this, I used to be a little player.





What is this saudi arabia ?



Ssenkahdavic said:
Cj2i3 said:

That's how it is now, if the other family wanted to they could also sue the living crap out of the kids family and have a good chance of winning.


They wouldnt win.  A child under the age of 7 has been found incapable of understanding and commiting a "illegal" act.  It would probably be thrown out.

That said, they probably could sue the school for allowing this "heinous" act to occur.  Tho it appears that it was not an unwanted act.

Hence why they would be suing the kids family. Lawyer would just have to prove that the parents in someway taught little Jimmy it's okay to touch a girl in that way.

Though your right they could also sue the school.



Around the Network
Cj2i3 said:
Ssenkahdavic said:
Cj2i3 said:

That's how it is now, if the other family wanted to they could also sue the living crap out of the kids family and have a good chance of winning.


They wouldnt win.  A child under the age of 7 has been found incapable of understanding and commiting a "illegal" act.  It would probably be thrown out.

That said, they probably could sue the school for allowing this "heinous" act to occur.  Tho it appears that it was not an unwanted act.

Hence why they would be suing the kids family. Lawyer would just have to prove that the parents in someway taught little Jimmy it's okay to touch a girl in that way.

Though your right they could also sue the school.

Had a conversation about this yesterday with a friend of mine (whos wife is an attorney).  I do not remember the exact words and Im on my phone so, cant look it up, but she had said any lawyer who tried to sue the family better be very careful.  As they can lose their license for this type of thing (bringing up completely friviolous lawsuits without having the facts and whatnot is very frowned apon).  As the kid cannot be liable for commiting an illegal act, its the same with proving that he was coerced by his family.   There was a good bit more legaleese, but I had gotten the point. 

She did say the school would almost certainly lose if it was determined that it had affected the female child, since it had happened before and they were responsible to make sure it didnt happen again (if it was unwanted, which the article said wasnt the case)



Ssenkahdavic said:
Cj2i3 said:
Ssenkahdavic said:
Cj2i3 said:

That's how it is now, if the other family wanted to they could also sue the living crap out of the kids family and have a good chance of winning.


They wouldnt win.  A child under the age of 7 has been found incapable of understanding and commiting a "illegal" act.  It would probably be thrown out.

That said, they probably could sue the school for allowing this "heinous" act to occur.  Tho it appears that it was not an unwanted act.

Hence why they would be suing the kids family. Lawyer would just have to prove that the parents in someway taught little Jimmy it's okay to touch a girl in that way.

Though your right they could also sue the school.

Had a conversation about this yesterday with a friend of mine (whos wife is an attorney).  I do not remember the exact words and Im on my phone so, cant look it up, but she had said any lawyer who tried to sue the family better be very careful.  As they can lose their license for this type of thing (bringing up completely friviolous lawsuits without having the facts and whatnot is very frowned apon).  As the kid cannot be liable for commiting an illegal act, its the same with proving that he was coerced by his family.   There was a good bit more legaleese, but I had gotten the point. 

She did say the school would almost certainly lose if it was determined that it had affected the female child, since it had happened before and they were responsible to make sure it didnt happen again (if it was unwanted, which the article said wasnt the case)

Yeah tha definately sounds about right, definately can't bring ludicrous accusations in court. But if a lawyer can somehow prove that the parents showing constant affection(sex/kissing/etc, not very likely) towards each other infront of little jimmy which led him to do this they Definitely would have a case. But as you stated that information would be very difficult to get a hold of and is most likely not even the case.

I'm just spouting out hypotheticals though I guess my first statement would be off then. I gotta admit I find Amercian law intriguing.

But, I swear something similar happened like this and a parent sued the school and a kids parents and won. Though I may be off a bit.



Cj2i3 said:
Ssenkahdavic said:
Cj2i3 said:
Ssenkahdavic said:
Cj2i3 said:

That's how it is now, if the other family wanted to they could also sue the living crap out of the kids family and have a good chance of winning.


They wouldnt win.  A child under the age of 7 has been found incapable of understanding and commiting a "illegal" act.  It would probably be thrown out.

That said, they probably could sue the school for allowing this "heinous" act to occur.  Tho it appears that it was not an unwanted act.

Hence why they would be suing the kids family. Lawyer would just have to prove that the parents in someway taught little Jimmy it's okay to touch a girl in that way.

Though your right they could also sue the school.

Had a conversation about this yesterday with a friend of mine (whos wife is an attorney).  I do not remember the exact words and Im on my phone so, cant look it up, but she had said any lawyer who tried to sue the family better be very careful.  As they can lose their license for this type of thing (bringing up completely friviolous lawsuits without having the facts and whatnot is very frowned apon).  As the kid cannot be liable for commiting an illegal act, its the same with proving that he was coerced by his family.   There was a good bit more legaleese, but I had gotten the point. 

She did say the school would almost certainly lose if it was determined that it had affected the female child, since it had happened before and they were responsible to make sure it didnt happen again (if it was unwanted, which the article said wasnt the case)

Yeah tha definately sounds about right, definately can't bring ludicrous accusations in court. But if a lawyer can somehow prove that the parents showing constant affection(sex/kissing/etc, not very likely) towards each other infront of little jimmy which led him to do this they Definitely would have a case. But as you stated that information would be very difficult to get a hold of and is most likely not even the case.

I'm just spouting out hypotheticals though I guess my first statement would be off then. I gotta admit I find Amercian law intriguing.

But, I swear something similar happened like this and a parent sued the school and a kids parents and won. Though I may be off a bit.

Its very possible.  Our legal system is all kinds of screwed up.

Its sad but I think the school had to do this (the suspension...calling it sexual harassment is bullshit).  They have to show that this is unacceptible cause if it happened again and was not wanted (this is harassment) and were shown to allow this behavior...all hell would break loose.  I just think its a shame that they overreacted to it.

If the day happens when the courts could ever say I am liable for anything because I kiss my girlfriend, or show her affection (especially at home) is the day I move out of this country. 



This looks less like "sexual harassment" and more like "find a reason to discipline the trouble kid"



Monument Games, Inc.  Like us on Facebook!

http://www.facebook.com/MonumentGames

Nintendo Netword ID: kanageddaamen

Monument Games, Inc President and Lead Designer
Featured Game: Shiftyx (Android) https://market.android.com/details?id=com.MonumentGames.Shiftyx

Free ad supported version:
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.MonumentGames.ShiftyxFree

WTF?!