There’s a kid in his high school, who’s having some difficulties. A bunch of guys start ragging on him about his learning disability and what they’ll do to him. He is hit, and mocked and demeaned every day. Every day for MONTHS. He starts to get depressed. He loses weight. His school seems… unwilling to provide a way out. His mother is worried and there seems to be no course of action for him. So, this kid in Pennsylvania catches his bullies in the act with the power of technology, and the school charges the victim with wiretapping.
Okay, somebody explain this to me. The kid and his mother approach the school, saying he’s being bullied. School says they need proof. Kid GETS proof in the class, presents it with parent to the school and the school charges HIM with disorderly conduct and wiretapping. Is it just me, or does that pretty much entrap him?
He has no evidence, he can’t stop the abuse. He presents evidence to the school of said abuse happening on campus and he is ordered to erase it BY the school and charged with a felony on top of that.
Am I crazy, or does that sound like the school board is protecting the aggressors? Or, are they just trying to pretend that this kind of behavior does not happen on their campus?
I’m really trying to get how attempting to protect himself has somehow landed this kid in WAY hotter water than the jerks who’ve been abusing him. This is the very definition of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”
Pennsylvania law says that all parties of the recording must sign off on being in the recording to be admissible. Umm, am I wrong in assuming that a bunch of teenagers know enough to say one thing and do another, if presented with this option? Who’s going to co-sign this and then proceed to torment the kid, same as any other day? Who came up with this rule?!
Perhaps this hits a little too close to home for me. Like most kids, I faced my share of bullies, but back in the day, everybody was at fault.
If they hit me, they were in trouble for hitting. If I hit back, I was in trouble for not coming to the school and everybody’s parents would get called.
And you fought. You fought back, because your only other option was just to let it continue to eat away at your soul. My mother was a big proponent of, “if someone hits you, you hit them back.” Then again, my mother also knew that when she was in school, anybody messing with her would have to answer to her mother, father and 11 siblings. When you have a baseball team readily available to defend you, you don’t really worry about support too much. Current schoolyard policies prohibit that behavior, big time. So, what is this kid supposed to do, huh?
My father, on the other hand, was more of a “Daddy’s going to HANDLE THIS” sort of guy. He was a very hands-on protector. When he found out I had become afraid to walk to school because of a bunch of boys, he was all over that. This was not a man concerned about litigation. He just had to come to my rescue once.
Word got out quick.
But, those days are long gone. Were I in the same position as a teen now, not only would my dad be on trial for threatening a minor, all my business would be on line for random strangers to join in on the feeding frenzy. Hitting back would mean I and my mother would be sued by the parents and the school administration. It’s looking more like these rules are being put in effect to protect the abusers, not the abused.
So, what exactly do you do when no one’s there to protect your back? That’s the kind of thing that pushes kids to do some serious damage to themselves as well as others. And then everyone else stands around, going “What went wrong?”
If someone could tell me what he was supposed to do, I’d really appreciate it.