4 -year-old Accused of Improperly Touching Teacher

[0:->]

Interesting story.

Let's consider.

Teachers and teachers aides are frequently spontaneously hugged by
children without anything at all being made of it.

What was so "special" about this hug that the aide felt compelled to
report it?

Uh huh.

You guessed it.

It's not hard to tell the difference between a genuine affectionate
hug, and one loaded with sexual imperative.

Children that have been exposed to sexual activity can very quickly be
developmentally compromised. And the notion a 4 year old is 'sexually
innocent?' Well, R R R R R R ....

Not if someone has already introduced them to sexual activity.

The police should look into this case. Most large metro areas have a
Crimes Against Children unit.

And if you men don't believe me about knowing when a "hug" is sexually
loaded, ask a woman.

Kane

http://www.kxxv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5785699


4 -year-old Accused of Improperly Touching Teacher

Dec 8, 2006 08:51 PM

by Jennifer Kent

BELLMEAD- A four-year-old hugged his teachers aide and was put into
in-school suspension, according to the father. But La Vega school
administrators have a different story.

Damarcus Blackwell's four-year-old son was lining-up to get on the bus
after school last month, when he was accused of rubbing his face in the
chest of a female employee.

The prinicipal of La Vega Primary School sent a letter to the
Blackwells that said the pre-kindergartener demonstrated "inappropriate
physical behavior interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual
harassment."

Blackwell says it's ridiculous that the aide would misread a hug from a
four-year-old. Blackwell wrote to administrators demanding that the
whole incident be expunged from his son's academic file because his son
is too young to know what it means to act sexually.

David Davis, the executive director of the Advocacy Center in Waco
tends to agree with Blackwell. He says assuming the boy has not had
sexual encounters, or been inappropriately exposed to pornography, most
four-year-olds are sexually innocent.

Blackwell got a response from the La Vega administration. The sexual
references on the discipline referral were removed. But the thing that
makes Blackwell most upset is they told him "your request for an
apology by the aide and removal of all paperwork regarding this
incident is denied." Now the young student's file will refer to the
incident as "inappropriate physical contact." And Blackwell says he
will continue to fight the district.

La Vega I.S.D. administrators told News Channel 25 they couldn't
comment on this case because of student privacy issues.
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and KXXV. All Rights
Reserved.
For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service.

[Greegor]

Kane wrote
> It's not hard to tell the difference between a genuine affectionate
> hug, and one loaded with sexual imperative

How do we know the tot wasn't hungry and having residual breast feeding
reflex?

Isn't that MORE likely than a sexual connotation in a 4 year old?

Would it be normal for a 4 year old to have boundaries
making them avoid contact with breasts?

Do we really know that the tot rubbing their face
in clothed boobs wouldn't have done the same
thing with a soft tummy?

You'd start a sex abuse WITCH HUNT over this?



0:-> wrote:
> Interesting story.
>
> Let's consider.
>
> Teachers and teachers aides are frequently spontaneously hugged by
> children without anything at all being made of it.
>
> What was so "special" about this hug that the aide felt compelled to
> report it?
>
> Uh huh.
>
> You guessed it.
>
> It's not hard to tell the difference between a genuine affectionate
> hug, and one loaded with sexual imperative.
>
> Children that have been exposed to sexual activity can very quickly be
> developmentally compromised. And the notion a 4 year old is 'sexually
> innocent?' Well, R R R R R R ....
>
> Not if someone has already introduced them to sexual activity.
>
> The police should look into this case. Most large metro areas have a
> Crimes Against Children unit.
>
> And if you men don't believe me about knowing when a "hug" is sexually
> loaded, ask a woman.
>
> Kane
>
> http://www.kxxv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5785699
>
>
> 4 -year-old Accused of Improperly Touching Teacher
>
> Dec 8, 2006 08:51 PM
>
> by Jennifer Kent
>
> BELLMEAD- A four-year-old hugged his teachers aide and was put into
> in-school suspension, according to the father. But La Vega school
> administrators have a different story.
>
> Damarcus Blackwell's four-year-old son was lining-up to get on the bus
> after school last month, when he was accused of rubbing his face in the
> chest of a female employee.
>
> The prinicipal of La Vega Primary School sent a letter to the
> Blackwells that said the pre-kindergartener demonstrated "inappropriate
> physical behavior interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual
> harassment."
>
> Blackwell says it's ridiculous that the aide would misread a hug from a
> four-year-old. Blackwell wrote to administrators demanding that the
> whole incident be expunged from his son's academic file because his son
> is too young to know what it means to act sexually.
>
> David Davis, the executive director of the Advocacy Center in Waco
> tends to agree with Blackwell. He says assuming the boy has not had
> sexual encounters, or been inappropriately exposed to pornography, most
> four-year-olds are sexually innocent.
>
> Blackwell got a response from the La Vega administration. The sexual
> references on the discipline referral were removed. But the thing that
> makes Blackwell most upset is they told him "your request for an
> apology by the aide and removal of all paperwork regarding this
> incident is denied." Now the young student's file will refer to the
> incident as "inappropriate physical contact." And Blackwell says he
> will continue to fight the district.
>
> La Vega I.S.D. administrators told News Channel 25 they couldn't
> comment on this case because of student privacy issues.
> All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and KXXV. All Rights
> Reserved.
> For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy and
> Terms of Service.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
> > It's not hard to tell the difference between a genuine affectionate
> > hug, and one loaded with sexual imperative
>
> How do we know the tot wasn't hungry and having residual breast feeding
> reflex?

Was his name Greg?

> Isn't that MORE likely than a sexual connotation in a 4 year old?

Nope. Few 4 year olds have any desire to nurse.

> Would it be normal for a 4 year old to have boundaries
> making them avoid contact with breasts?

Yes. They have all kinds of boundaries by 4, Greg.

> Do we really know that the tot rubbing their face
> in clothed boobs wouldn't have done the same
> thing with a soft tummy?

You'd have to ask the aide that it happened to. Usually they are quite
aware of innocent contacts vs sexual ones. Ask a woman.

> You'd start a sex abuse WITCH HUNT over this?

Nope, but an investigation into what other things are happening in this
child's life to warrant his behavior.

You afraid of an investigation, Greg?

Given things you've written about yourself, and you seeming
unconsciousness about sexuality, including your own, I don't think
YOU'D be a good judge of what a child's behavior indicated.

I think women are born with a built in detector that grows more
accurate over time.

Can you guess why this might be?

When I worked in mental health work I found that all of the children
the agency treated had such problems. Most traced to sexual abuse by
someone.

Teachers and aides have to be aware of such behaviors both for their
own protection and that of the children.

You'd be amazed how often it works out they were right.

Do you know why these thing get reported now and did not so much in the
past?

At one time such things never got past the principal's desk. The bad PR
you see. So many a child went back home to an abuser. No help, more
abuse.

The times they are a changin' Greg. Bother you does it?

Good.


>
>
>
> 0:-> wrote:
> > Interesting story.
> >
> > Let's consider.
> >
> > Teachers and teachers aides are frequently spontaneously hugged by
> > children without anything at all being made of it.
> >
> > What was so "special" about this hug that the aide felt compelled to
> > report it?
> >
> > Uh huh.
> >
> > You guessed it.
> >
> > It's not hard to tell the difference between a genuine affectionate
> > hug, and one loaded with sexual imperative.
> >
> > Children that have been exposed to sexual activity can very quickly be
> > developmentally compromised. And the notion a 4 year old is 'sexually
> > innocent?' Well, R R R R R R ....
> >
> > Not if someone has already introduced them to sexual activity.
> >
> > The police should look into this case. Most large metro areas have a
> > Crimes Against Children unit.
> >
> > And if you men don't believe me about knowing when a "hug" is sexually
> > loaded, ask a woman.
> >
> > Kane
> >
> > http://www.kxxv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5785699
> >
> >
> > 4 -year-old Accused of Improperly Touching Teacher
> >
> > Dec 8, 2006 08:51 PM
> >
> > by Jennifer Kent
> >
> > BELLMEAD- A four-year-old hugged his teachers aide and was put into
> > in-school suspension, according to the father. But La Vega school
> > administrators have a different story.
> >
> > Damarcus Blackwell's four-year-old son was lining-up to get on the bus
> > after school last month, when he was accused of rubbing his face in the
> > chest of a female employee.
> >
> > The prinicipal of La Vega Primary School sent a letter to the
> > Blackwells that said the pre-kindergartener demonstrated "inappropriate
> > physical behavior interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual
> > harassment."
> >
> > Blackwell says it's ridiculous that the aide would misread a hug from a
> > four-year-old. Blackwell wrote to administrators demanding that the
> > whole incident be expunged from his son's academic file because his son
> > is too young to know what it means to act sexually.
> >
> > David Davis, the executive director of the Advocacy Center in Waco
> > tends to agree with Blackwell. He says assuming the boy has not had
> > sexual encounters, or been inappropriately exposed to pornography, most
> > four-year-olds are sexually innocent.
> >
> > Blackwell got a response from the La Vega administration. The sexual
> > references on the discipline referral were removed. But the thing that
> > makes Blackwell most upset is they told him "your request for an
> > apology by the aide and removal of all paperwork regarding this
> > incident is denied." Now the young student's file will refer to the
> > incident as "inappropriate physical contact." And Blackwell says he
> > will continue to fight the district.
> >
> > La Vega I.S.D. administrators told News Channel 25 they couldn't
> > comment on this case because of student privacy issues.
> > All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and KXXV. All Rights
> > Reserved.
> > For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy and
> > Terms of Service.

[Greegor]

0:-> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > Kane wrote
> > > It's not hard to tell the difference between a genuine affectionate
> > > hug, and one loaded with sexual imperative
> >
> > How do we know the tot wasn't hungry and having residual breast feeding
> > reflex?
>
> Was his name Greg?
>
> > Isn't that MORE likely than a sexual connotation in a 4 year old?
>
> Nope. Few 4 year olds have any desire to nurse.

That's not very Freudian of you!

> > Would it be normal for a 4 year old to have boundaries
> > making them avoid contact with breasts?
>
> Yes. They have all kinds of boundaries by 4, Greg.
>
> > Do we really know that the tot rubbing their face
> > in clothed boobs wouldn't have done the same
> > thing with a soft tummy?
>
> You'd have to ask the aide that it happened to. Usually they are quite
> aware of innocent contacts vs sexual ones. Ask a woman.
>
> > You'd start a sex abuse WITCH HUNT over this?
>
> Nope, but an investigation into what other things are happening in this
> child's life to warrant his behavior.
>
> You afraid of an investigation, Greg?
>
> Given things you've written about yourself, and you seeming
> unconsciousness about sexuality, including your own, I don't think
> YOU'D be a good judge of what a child's behavior indicated.
>
> I think women are born with a built in detector that grows more
> accurate over time.
>
> Can you guess why this might be?
>
> When I worked in mental health work I found that all of the children
> the agency treated had such problems. Most traced to sexual abuse by
> someone.
>
> Teachers and aides have to be aware of such behaviors both for their
> own protection and that of the children.
>
> You'd be amazed how often it works out they were right.
>
> Do you know why these thing get reported now and did not so much in the
> past?
>
> At one time such things never got past the principal's desk. The bad PR
> you see. So many a child went back home to an abuser. No help, more
> abuse.
>
> The times they are a changin' Greg. Bother you does it?
>
> Good.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > 0:-> wrote:
> > > Interesting story.
> > >
> > > Let's consider.
> > >
> > > Teachers and teachers aides are frequently spontaneously hugged by
> > > children without anything at all being made of it.
> > >
> > > What was so "special" about this hug that the aide felt compelled to
> > > report it?
> > >
> > > Uh huh.
> > >
> > > You guessed it.
> > >
> > > It's not hard to tell the difference between a genuine affectionate
> > > hug, and one loaded with sexual imperative.
> > >
> > > Children that have been exposed to sexual activity can very quickly be
> > > developmentally compromised. And the notion a 4 year old is 'sexually
> > > innocent?' Well, R R R R R R ....
> > >
> > > Not if someone has already introduced them to sexual activity.
> > >
> > > The police should look into this case. Most large metro areas have a
> > > Crimes Against Children unit.
> > >
> > > And if you men don't believe me about knowing when a "hug" is sexually
> > > loaded, ask a woman.
> > >
> > > Kane
> > >
> > > http://www.kxxv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5785699
> > >
> > >
> > > 4 -year-old Accused of Improperly Touching Teacher
> > >
> > > Dec 8, 2006 08:51 PM
> > >
> > > by Jennifer Kent
> > >
> > > BELLMEAD- A four-year-old hugged his teachers aide and was put into
> > > in-school suspension, according to the father. But La Vega school
> > > administrators have a different story.
> > >
> > > Damarcus Blackwell's four-year-old son was lining-up to get on the bus
> > > after school last month, when he was accused of rubbing his face in the
> > > chest of a female employee.
> > >
> > > The prinicipal of La Vega Primary School sent a letter to the
> > > Blackwells that said the pre-kindergartener demonstrated "inappropriate
> > > physical behavior interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual
> > > harassment."
> > >
> > > Blackwell says it's ridiculous that the aide would misread a hug from a
> > > four-year-old. Blackwell wrote to administrators demanding that the
> > > whole incident be expunged from his son's academic file because his son
> > > is too young to know what it means to act sexually.
> > >
> > > David Davis, the executive director of the Advocacy Center in Waco
> > > tends to agree with Blackwell. He says assuming the boy has not had
> > > sexual encounters, or been inappropriately exposed to pornography, most
> > > four-year-olds are sexually innocent.
> > >
> > > Blackwell got a response from the La Vega administration. The sexual
> > > references on the discipline referral were removed. But the thing that
> > > makes Blackwell most upset is they told him "your request for an
> > > apology by the aide and removal of all paperwork regarding this
> > > incident is denied." Now the young student's file will refer to the
> > > incident as "inappropriate physical contact." And Blackwell says he
> > > will continue to fight the district.
> > >
> > > La Vega I.S.D. administrators told News Channel 25 they couldn't
> > > comment on this case because of student privacy issues.
> > > All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and KXXV. All Rights
> > > Reserved.
> > > For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy and
> > > Terms of Service.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> 0:-> wrote:
> > Greegor wrote:
> > > Kane wrote
> > > > It's not hard to tell the difference between a genuine affectionate
> > > > hug, and one loaded with sexual imperative
> > >
> > > How do we know the tot wasn't hungry and having residual breast feeding
> > > reflex?
> >
> > Was his name Greg?
> >
> > > Isn't that MORE likely than a sexual connotation in a 4 year old?
> >
> > Nope. Few 4 year olds have any desire to nurse.
>

Greg the Oblivious replies:

> That's not very Freudian of you!
>
> > > Would it be normal for a 4 year old to have boundaries
> > > making them avoid contact with breasts?
> >
> > Yes. They have all kinds of boundaries by 4, Greg.
> >
> > > Do we really know that the tot rubbing their face
> > > in clothed boobs wouldn't have done the same
> > > thing with a soft tummy?
> >
> > You'd have to ask the aide that it happened to. Usually they are quite
> > aware of innocent contacts vs sexual ones. Ask a woman.
> >
> > > You'd start a sex abuse WITCH HUNT over this?
> >
> > Nope, but an investigation into what other things are happening in this
> > child's life to warrant his behavior.
> >
> > You afraid of an investigation, Greg?
> >
> > Given things you've written about yourself, and you seeming
> > unconsciousness about sexuality, including your own, I don't think
> > YOU'D be a good judge of what a child's behavior indicated.
> >
> > I think women are born with a built in detector that grows more
> > accurate over time.
> >
> > Can you guess why this might be?
> >
> > When I worked in mental health work I found that all of the children
> > the agency treated had such problems. Most traced to sexual abuse by
> > someone.
> >
> > Teachers and aides have to be aware of such behaviors both for their
> > own protection and that of the children.
> >
> > You'd be amazed how often it works out they were right.
> >
> > Do you know why these thing get reported now and did not so much in the
> > past?
> >
> > At one time such things never got past the principal's desk. The bad PR
> > you see. So many a child went back home to an abuser. No help, more
> > abuse.
> >
> > The times they are a changin' Greg. Bother you does it?
> >
> > Good.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 0:-> wrote:
> > > > Interesting story.
> > > >
> > > > Let's consider.
> > > >
> > > > Teachers and teachers aides are frequently spontaneously hugged by
> > > > children without anything at all being made of it.
> > > >
> > > > What was so "special" about this hug that the aide felt compelled to
> > > > report it?
> > > >
> > > > Uh huh.
> > > >
> > > > You guessed it.
> > > >
> > > > It's not hard to tell the difference between a genuine affectionate
> > > > hug, and one loaded with sexual imperative.
> > > >
> > > > Children that have been exposed to sexual activity can very quickly be
> > > > developmentally compromised. And the notion a 4 year old is 'sexually
> > > > innocent?' Well, R R R R R R ....
> > > >
> > > > Not if someone has already introduced them to sexual activity.
> > > >
> > > > The police should look into this case. Most large metro areas have a
> > > > Crimes Against Children unit.
> > > >
> > > > And if you men don't believe me about knowing when a "hug" is sexually
> > > > loaded, ask a woman.
> > > >
> > > > Kane
> > > >
> > > > http://www.kxxv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5785699
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 4 -year-old Accused of Improperly Touching Teacher
> > > >
> > > > Dec 8, 2006 08:51 PM
> > > >
> > > > by Jennifer Kent
> > > >
> > > > BELLMEAD- A four-year-old hugged his teachers aide and was put into
> > > > in-school suspension, according to the father. But La Vega school
> > > > administrators have a different story.
> > > >
> > > > Damarcus Blackwell's four-year-old son was lining-up to get on the bus
> > > > after school last month, when he was accused of rubbing his face in the
> > > > chest of a female employee.
> > > >
> > > > The prinicipal of La Vega Primary School sent a letter to the
> > > > Blackwells that said the pre-kindergartener demonstrated "inappropriate
> > > > physical behavior interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual
> > > > harassment."
> > > >
> > > > Blackwell says it's ridiculous that the aide would misread a hug from a
> > > > four-year-old. Blackwell wrote to administrators demanding that the
> > > > whole incident be expunged from his son's academic file because his son
> > > > is too young to know what it means to act sexually.
> > > >
> > > > David Davis, the executive director of the Advocacy Center in Waco
> > > > tends to agree with Blackwell. He says assuming the boy has not had
> > > > sexual encounters, or been inappropriately exposed to pornography, most
> > > > four-year-olds are sexually innocent.
> > > >
> > > > Blackwell got a response from the La Vega administration. The sexual
> > > > references on the discipline referral were removed. But the thing that
> > > > makes Blackwell most upset is they told him "your request for an
> > > > apology by the aide and removal of all paperwork regarding this
> > > > incident is denied." Now the young student's file will refer to the
> > > > incident as "inappropriate physical contact." And Blackwell says he
> > > > will continue to fight the district.
> > > >
> > > > La Vega I.S.D. administrators told News Channel 25 they couldn't
> > > > comment on this case because of student privacy issues.
> > > > All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and KXXV. All Rights
> > > > Reserved.
> > > > For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy and
> > > > Terms of Service.

[Greegor]

Greg wrote
> How do we know the tot wasn't hungry and having residual breast feeding reflex?
> Isn't that MORE likely than a sexual connotation in a 4 year old?

Kane wrote
> Nope. Few 4 year olds have any desire to nurse.

Greg wrote
> That's not very Freudian of you!

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Greg wrote
> > How do we know the tot wasn't hungry and having residual breast feeding reflex?
> > Isn't that MORE likely than a sexual connotation in a 4 year old?
>
> Kane wrote
> > Nope. Few 4 year olds have any desire to nurse.
>
> Greg wrote
> > That's not very Freudian of you!

Relevance?

[Greegor]

0:-> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > Greg wrote
> > > How do we know the tot wasn't hungry and having residual breast feeding reflex?
> > > Isn't that MORE likely than a sexual connotation in a 4 year old?
> >
> > Kane wrote
> > > Nope. Few 4 year olds have any desire to nurse.
> >
> > Greg wrote
> > > That's not very Freudian of you!
>
> Relevance?

Probable Cause??

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> 0:-> wrote:
>> Greegor wrote:
>>> Greg wrote
>>>> How do we know the tot wasn't hungry and having residual breast feeding reflex?
>>>> Isn't that MORE likely than a sexual connotation in a 4 year old?
>>> Kane wrote
>>>> Nope. Few 4 year olds have any desire to nurse.
>>> Greg wrote
>>>> That's not very Freudian of you!
>> Relevance?
>
> Probable Cause??

There no remedy for that kind of choking. Sorry.

[Greegor]

0:-> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > 0:-> wrote:
> >> Greegor wrote:
> >>> Greg wrote
> >>>> How do we know the tot wasn't hungry and having residual breast feeding reflex?
> >>>> Isn't that MORE likely than a sexual connotation in a 4 year old?
> >>> Kane wrote
> >>>> Nope. Few 4 year olds have any desire to nurse.
> >>> Greg wrote
> >>>> That's not very Freudian of you!
> >> Relevance?
> >
> > Probable Cause??
>
> There no remedy for that kind of choking. Sorry.

How did Freud interpret choking? Please explain!

You think a 4 year old touching breasts is sexual?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> 0:-> wrote:
> > Greegor wrote:
> > > 0:-> wrote:
> > >> Greegor wrote:
> > >>> Greg wrote
> > >>>> How do we know the tot wasn't hungry and having residual breast feeding reflex?
> > >>>> Isn't that MORE likely than a sexual connotation in a 4 year old?
> > >>> Kane wrote
> > >>>> Nope. Few 4 year olds have any desire to nurse.
> > >>> Greg wrote
> > >>>> That's not very Freudian of you!
> > >> Relevance?
> > >
> > > Probable Cause??
> >
> > There no remedy for that kind of choking. Sorry.
>
> How did Freud interpret choking? Please explain!

Can't. Don't know. Wasn't and aren't a Freudian. Too many years since
my college days when he was the subject of lecture and study. Want me
to dig in my files?

First I'd have to know what you are looking for, and of course there is
that fee thingie.
>
> You think a 4 year old touching breasts is sexual?

Sure, if he's been sexually molested by a female or a couple including
the female.

Do you really think 4 year olds aren't or can't be sexual?

Please. Newborns have erections both by friction and spontaneously.

Females lubricate early on for similar reasons.

Now the question is, was this spontaneous or not.

I know, you don't want anything investigated that isn't proven, thus,
of course, by circular reasoning impossible to investigate.

Cute ... and common to the criminal mind. You aren't I presume?

Kane

[Greegor]

So you DO think a 4 year old's interest in breasts is sexual!
Can only be the result of molestation? Right.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> So you DO think a 4 year old's interest in breasts is sexual!

Of course. Among other things.

> Can only be the result of molestation? Right.

If it is a sexual interest, yes, there can be an indicator of
molestation.

I actually doubt it was the case here, but we didn't interview the boy,
did we Greg?

And if those that did found more going on, then they aren't going to
release it to the public for two reasons, Greg.

One, an ongoing case. And two, a minor whose privacy must be protected,
legally in most states.

Notice the word accused in the title?

0:->

[Greegor]

Greegor wrote:
> So you DO think a 4 year old's interest in breasts is sexual!

Kane wrote
> Of course. Among other things.
>
G > Can only be the result of molestation? Right.
>
> If it is a sexual interest, yes, there can be an indicator of
> molestation.
>
> I actually doubt it was the case here, but we didn't interview the boy,
> did we Greg?
>
> And if those that did found more going on, then they aren't going to
> release it to the public for two reasons, Greg.
>
> One, an ongoing case. And two, a minor whose privacy must be protected,
> legally in most states.
>
> Notice the word accused in the title?

Do you believe that this would be probable cause to justify an
investigation?

Would Dan Sullivan advise the family to COOPERATE
with this sort of an assenine witch hunt?

Would a Judge issue any sort of court order based on this incident?

What would the primary DEFENSE against such an assenine investigation
be?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > So you DO think a 4 year old's interest in breasts is sexual!
>
> Kane wrote
> > Of course. Among other things.
> >
> G > Can only be the result of molestation? Right.
> >
> > If it is a sexual interest, yes, there can be an indicator of
> > molestation.
> >
> > I actually doubt it was the case here, but we didn't interview the boy,
> > did we Greg?
> >
> > And if those that did found more going on, then they aren't going to
> > release it to the public for two reasons, Greg.
> >
> > One, an ongoing case. And two, a minor whose privacy must be protected,
> > legally in most states.
> >
> > Notice the word accused in the title?
>
> Do you believe that this would be probable cause to justify an
> investigation?

Yes, based on the reaction of the teaching aide.

Or we society could ignore such things and wait to see if he turns out
to be dangerou perv.

> Would Dan Sullivan advise the family to COOPERATE
> with this sort of an assenine witch hunt?

Darned if I know.

Would you find it too difficult to use a new reader with a spell
checker?
>
> Would a Judge issue any sort of court order based on this incident?
>
What do you think?

> What would the primary DEFENSE against such an assenine investigation
> be?

You tell us.

Kane

[Greegor]

> Would Dan Sullivan advise the family to COOPERATE
> with this sort of an assenine witch hunt?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
>> Would Dan Sullivan advise the family to COOPERATE
>> with this sort of an assenine witch hunt?

I don't know. But my best guess is, no.

In fact I don't "advise" them to either, as it would be bad legal advice
if I were giving it as such, and as non-legal advice I don't think one
should, guilty or innocent, forget that it's innocent until proven
guilty in this country.

No one is "required" to cooperate with an investigation, Greg.

My argument is that there should be an investigation to determine if
what the teaching aid thought she was experiencing was true or not.

What have you got against an investigation? No one is immune from them,
Greg.

What Constitutional provision is being violated in this case, Greg?

Or get stupid and ask another pointless question. Do you know what Dan
would advise this family, or is this another of your childish innuendo
sessions?

0:-]

[Greegor]

Greegor wrote:
> Would Dan Sullivan advise the family to COOPERATE
> with this sort of an assenine witch hunt?

Kane wrote
> I don't know. But my best guess is, no.
>
> In fact I don't "advise" them to either, as it would be bad legal advice
> if I were giving it as such, and as non-legal advice I don't think one
> should, guilty or innocent, forget that it's innocent until proven
> guilty in this country.

That all SOUNDS nice, but was it you or Ron who
explained that caseworkers are actually trained on
how to CON their way into such homes?

Especially considering the disproportionate number
of lower income families targeted, are you
going to pretend that everybody has a "Dream Team"
or an attorney like Klicka to fend off such crap?

The old "all the justice you can buy" thing is not
an acceptable answer, is it?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > Would Dan Sullivan advise the family to COOPERATE
> > with this sort of an assenine witch hunt?
>
> Kane wrote
> > I don't know. But my best guess is, no.
> >
> > In fact I don't "advise" them to either, as it would be bad legal advice
> > if I were giving it as such, and as non-legal advice I don't think one
> > should, guilty or innocent, forget that it's innocent until proven
> > guilty in this country.
>
> That all SOUNDS nice, but was it you or Ron who
> explained that caseworkers are actually trained on
> how to CON their way into such homes?

Neither. You might want to rephrase your question though.

No "conning" takes place.

> Especially considering the disproportionate number
> of lower income families targeted,

They get reported more, and more often do more neglect...something more
dangerous than all the other abuses put together, for fatalities.
Notice?

> are you
> going to pretend that everybody has a "Dream Team"
> or an attorney like Klicka to fend off such crap?

Nope. That's life. Shall we not arrest, charge, and try bank robbers
based on their inability to afford top lawyers?

> The old "all the justice you can buy" thing is not
> an acceptable answer, is it?

Nope, but it's the truth.

And your solution would be........................?

R R RRR RRRR You've never answered my question.

Just how stupid ARE you, Greg?

[Greegor]

Kane wrote > No "conning" takes place.

That's hilarious!