Mitt Romney: Bully?

[Chrisoc13]

You're right, I made an assumption based on that 10-20% of kids are physically bullied, my own personal experiences and the seriousness of the incident. But the additional information seems to corroborate it. The point still stands that Romney not only allegedly physically assaulted a boy but led other boys in the assault, something the vast majority of kids do not do, and you excuse it by pointing to the kids who bullied by non-physical means.

Fixed that for you.

I can bring research to the table about non-physical means being every bit as damaging as physical means. If you don't think so what do you have to say about kids committing suicide over it? As others have stated that was 50 years ago, things were different then.

Which leads me to ask:
A survey from 2010 somehow is relevant to what the situation was like in 1965 in what way?

I would have a hard time believing you are undecided based on your pattern of discussion in this thread.

[msduncan]

The point still stands that Romney not only physically assaulted a boy but led other boys in the assault, something the vast majority of kids do not do, and you excuse it by pointing to the kids who bullied by non-physical means.

Clearly he had leadership ability even half a century ago.

[msduncan]

Other things that happened in 1965:

Average Cost of new house $13,600.00
Average Income per year $6,450.00
Gas per Gallon 31 cents
Average Cost of a new car $2,650.00
Loaf of bread 21 cents
Average Rent per month $118,00

-- Race Riots Break Out In Watts, California leaving large parts of the city burnt and looted and 34 dead.

-- Lyndon B. Johnson announces his program to create Medicare and to expand his war on poverty

-- In St. Louis, Missouri, the 630-foot-tall parabolic steel Gateway Arch is completed

Popular movies of the year:
Mary Poppins
The Sound of Music
Goldfinger
My Fair Lady
What's New Pussycat?
Cat Ballou

[Defiant]

I can bring research to the table about non-physical means being every bit as damaging as physical means. If you don't think so what do you have to say about kids committing suicide over it?

I know they are. But it's a lot easier to verbally bully someone than it is to lead a posse to physically assault someone, which is why it happens much, much more frequently.

A survey from 2010 somehow is relevant to what the situation was like in 1965 in what way?

If you have a survey from 1965, please, enlighten us.

I would have a hard time believing you are undecided based on your pattern of discussion in this thread.

I am no longer undecided when it comes to Romney, as I have stated.

[Defiant]

Those who insist on weighing Romney in view of his apparent obnoxiousness back when he was at prep school must also take into account his apparent generosity and kindness in the decades since. If you're going to judge a man by his works, judge a man by all his works.

To use one or two regrettable incidents against him while disallowing his good deeds as salient factors in assessing him is inconsistent.

I'd call it more than a "regrettable" incident - in a just world, he would have been arrested for what he had done. And he's running for the highest office in the land.

And as I've admitted, my reaction is partly - maybe even mostly - emotional.

[Chrisoc13]

Those who insist on weighing Romney in view of his apparent obnoxiousness back when he was at prep school must also take into account his apparent generosity and kindness in the decades since. If you're going to judge a man by his works, judge a man by all his works.

To use one or two regrettable incidents against him while disallowing his good deeds as salient factors in assessing him is inconsistent.

I'd call it more than a "regrettable" incident - in a just world, he would have been arrested for what he had done. And he's running for the highest office in the land.

And as I've admitted, my reaction is partly - maybe even mostly - emotional.

And President Obama would have been arrested for his drug use yet he is IN the highest office of the land. Turns out I don't care about that either.

[Chrisoc13]

I can bring research to the table about non-physical means being every bit as damaging as physical means. If you don't think so what do you have to say about kids committing suicide over it?

I know they are. But it's a lot easier to verbally bully someone than it is to lead a posse to physically assault someone, which is why it happens much, much more frequently.

A survey from 2010 somehow is relevant to what the situation was like in 1965 in what way?

If you have a survey from 1965, please, enlighten us.

I would have a hard time believing you are undecided based on your pattern of discussion in this thread.

I am no longer undecided when it comes to Romney, as I have stated.

Odd. I saw this:

I'm not sure why that's relevant - are we only permitted to post if the issue is a factor to our 2012 decision? but if so:

I was undecided.

For a number of reasons, of which this is a major one, I now think it next to impossible for me to vote for Romney.

But I am still undecided.

So no longer undecided? Because honestly you haven't seem undecided this entire thread but then there is this post last page.

I don't have a survey from 1965, but my point is a survey from today is worthless when looking at 1965 when this alleged incident took place.

[Defiant]

And President Obama would have been arrested for his drug use yet he is IN the highest office of the land.

I'm not a big fan of Obama, either. (Edit: Although I know which crime I care a lot more about.)

[msduncan]

And President Obama would have been arrested for his drug use yet he is IN the highest office of the land.

I'm not a big fan of Obama, either. (Edit: Although I know which crime I care a lot more about.)

Dude seriously, this happened HALF A CENTURY AGO when a guy was 18. He cut a guy's hair. Let's start picking apart stuff you did when you were 18. Ever looked off someone's test for answers? Ever drank before it was legal for you to do so?

Half a century ago. Cutting hair. NOT beating someone to a pulp. Not even giving someone a black eye. Cutting someone's hair when you were 18 and should have been walking to the store to get a pack of skittles.

[RunningMn9]

Crisoc13, I think you are over-committing yourself to modern research on post-teenager brain development. While I am at least passingly familiar with this sort of research (in particular National Geographic had a well done article about the teenage brain a few months back), what I have seen focused on certain aspects of brain development such as risk analysis and perception of consequences.

There was nothing in the article about using this research to dismiss an obvious (alleged) example of cruelty on behalf of a preferred Presidential candidate.

I assume that you went to high school with some douchey a-holes that picked on or beat up other kids that were weaker than them and/or different in some way. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't vote for any of those sorts of kids in my high school. It doesn't have any impact on me with Romney, because I wasn't there and I didn't see it. But for the things I did see? F those guys.

And lastly, I have no memories of tormenting anyone through my teen years (despite my undeveloped teenager brain). If I found out today that someone else felt that I had done that to them, I would be horrified and very apologetic. I wouldn't laugh it off as boys will be boys.

That is the only thing that somewhat bothers me about this situation. It just isn't how I would react to an accusation like this, and so it seems really odd to me.

[msduncan]

That is the only thing that somewhat bothers me about this situation. It just isn't how I would react to an accusation like this, and so it seems really odd to me.

How is this not adequate then?

MITT ROMNEY: I don't recall the incident myself, but I've seen the reports and I'm not going to argue with that. There's no question that I did some stupid things when I was in high school, and obviously if I hurt anyone by virtue of that I would be very sorry for it and apologize for it.

[RunningMn9]

He cut a guy's hair.

With all due respect, I really wish you would stop doing this. You are intentionally and grossly mischaracterizing what happened. Did it happen a really long time ago? Yes. Has enough time passed that we can examine the last 46 years of behavior to see if he is still that same boy? I think so.

But grossly understating something like this - while simultaneously grossly overstating anything that has or is happening with your political opponents really doesn't reflect well.

This wasn't an incident of just cutting a kids hair. You are making it sound like a few buddies shaved their friends he's while passed out drunk after a party. That's a "prank".

Leading a group of other kids to hold down a weaker/different kid and to forcefully cut his hair while he is actively trying to escape and is crying is something altogether different. The cutting of the hair isn't even important. The leading a group of boys to torment another boy who was crying while trying to escape is the important part.

I have no problem if you don't care about it because it happened almost 50 years ago. I can get on board with that. But what you are doing int trying to minimize the actual incident is just wrong. At least Chrisoc13 is trying to explain it as a function of a lack of brain development.

[msduncan]

He cut a guy's hair.

With all due respect, I really wish you would stop doing this. You are intentionally and grossly mischaracterizing what happened. Did it happen a really long time ago? Yes. Has enough time passed that we can examine the last 46 years of behavior to see if he is still that same boy? I think so.

But grossly understating something like this - while simultaneously grossly overstating anything that has or is happening with your political opponents really doesn't reflect well.

This wasn't an incident of just cutting a kids hair. You are making it sound like a few buddies shaved their friends he's while passed out drunk after a party. That's a "prank".

Leading a group of other kids to hold down a weaker/different kid and to forcefully cut his hair while he is actively trying to escape and is crying is something altogether different. The cutting of the hair isn't even important. The leading a group of boys to torment another boy who was crying while trying to escape is the important part.

I have no problem if you don't care about it because it happened almost 50 years ago. I can get on board with that. But what you are doing int trying to minimize the actual incident is just wrong. At least Chrisoc13 is trying to explain it as a function of a lack of brain development.

I really don't care about it because it happened 50 years ago. Would I care about a murder 50 years ago? Yes. A sexual assault? Yes. A burglary when you were 18? Maybe not even that depending on the circumstances and what has happened since. I certainly don't care that Obama might have smoked a joint when he was 18. Bullying when someone was in high school is far down on my list of offenses to judge a man that is around 60 years old.

I know plenty of douche bags from High School that have grown up and were totally pleasant people based on our conversations at my High School reunion -- and not even as much time has passed for those people.

This is a political hit job by Obama supporters. Nothing more. I'm actually encouraged it was the best thing they could come up with.

[Defiant]

Dude seriously, this happened HALF A CENTURY AGO when a guy was 18. He cut a guy's hair. Let's start picking apart stuff you did when you were 18. Ever looked off someone's test for answers? Ever drank before it was legal for you to do so?

No. Eh? I didn't purchase alcohol before it was legal for me to do so, if that's what you mean.

The most shameful thing I did when I was 18 was remaining in the closet.

Half a century ago.

And yet it troubled the victim and the other bullies for over 30+ years.

Cutting hair.

Leading a group of kids to chase and hold down a screaming, crying, no doubt traumatized kid while he cut off his hair.

NOT beating someone to a pulp. Not even giving someone a black eye.

Because bringing a pair of scissors to the bullying would, what, reassure the victim?

Don't belittle the incident.

[msduncan]

And yet it troubled the victim and the other bullies for over 30+ years.

Yeah?

Christine Lauber, the older sister of Romney’s classmate, John Lauber, claims she has no knowledge of the bullying incident involving her brother, who passed away from liver cancer in 2004. When ABC News showed Christine the story, she became agitated and somewhat emotional.

“Even if it did happen, John probably wouldn’t have said anything,” she said. “If he were still alive today, he would be furious [about the story].”

And

“Mitt was a thoughtful guy with a great sense of humor who cared about his classmates. He had a good perspective on how to balance all the pressures high school students face,” said Richard Moon, a former classmate, in a statement released by the campaign. “He would never go out and do anything mean spirited. Clownish, yes. Never mean.”

And

Ex-classmate John French echoed this sentiment in the release as well, stating, ”Mitt never had a malicious bone in his body – trying to imply or characterize him as a bully is absurd.”

So what we are left with is a carefully timed story that implies a student 50 years ago was homosexual (which the family denies) that comes out 1 day after President Obama was maneuvered into coming out in favor of gay marriage. Political hit job.

Because here ist he family's response that the guy was even homosexual at all:

“The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda,” she said. “There will be no more comments from the family.”

[msduncan]

Maybe instead of focusing on a prank 50 years ago, we should be focusing on a bribe 4 years ago.

[GreenGoo]

Just throwing out a comment.

I think leading a group of people to assault someone is a bit different than smoking up or other youthful "indiscretions".

Whether cutting someone's hair against their will because they were gay (probably) and scaring the ever living crap out of them is important enough an event for you to base a significant part of your decision on who should be president of the US of A is up to the individual.

[Defiant]

That is the only thing that somewhat bothers me about this situation. It just isn't how I would react to an accusation like this, and so it seems really odd to me.

How is this not adequate then?

MITT ROMNEY: I don't recall the incident myself, but I've seen the reports and I'm not going to argue with that. There's no question that I did some stupid things when I was in high school, and obviously if I hurt anyone by virtue of that I would be very sorry for it and apologize for it.

He laughed it off

He claims not to remember it when a number of others remembered it vividly (although he does remember the kid and that he didn't think he was gay)

He called it "hijinks and pranks" that may have "gone too far".

He gave a conditional apology: "if anybody was hurt by that or offended by that I apologize." If?!

He claims not to have known that he didn't know the kid was gay and it was absurd to think he knew - as if that justifies his actions - when it's clear from another bully that he was targeted in part because he was presumed gay and from another person (posted elsewhere on this thread) that it was obvious the victim was gay.

[GreenGoo]

Maybe instead of focusing on a prank 50 years ago, we should be focusing on a bribe 4 years ago.

I think bribes need to be illegal for them to be called bribes. I'm not sure though.

I don't really care, shutting up people who are going to hurt you is part of the political game. I don't like it. I think it sucks. In this case there isn't much of a skeleton in the closet so I don't consider it important.

Offering some money to someone to keep their viewpoint to themselves for a few months isn't great, but no assault was involved, so I think we're good. By we I mean the American public.

[msduncan]

He gave a conditional apology: "if anybody was hurt by that or offended by that I apologize." If?!

He claims not to have known that he didn't know the kid was gay and it was absurd to think he knew - as if that justifies his actions - when it's clear from another bully that he was targeted in part because he was presumed gay and from another person (posted elsewhere on this thread) that it was obvious the victim was gay.

He clearly says that he doesn't remember that incident. He then admits that he did stupid stuff in high school and that it could have happened. Then he says he apologizes if it did happen and hurt someone.

MEANWHILE YOU ARE IGNORING

His *****FAMILY****** saying it didn't happen the way reported, that their son/sibling is being mischaracterized, and that this whole thing is a political hit job that would have their son spinning in his grave.

Do you apologize for things that you don't remember doing? Probably only rarely.
If you do not remember them but still feel they might have happened, you put conditions on the apology do you not?

Are some things in life more significant to some people than others? Are memories important to people who find a particular incident significant versus those who do not? I had a bully try to punch me in the face one time. I remember it like it was yesterday -- I was on a golf cart bridge with a friend. We had been trying to catch bullfrogs. It was 6th grade. Partly cloudy. He swung at me and missed and I walked away.... some people came out of a nearby apartment to intervene and the bully walked away.

I would put down $500 right here and now that he doesn't remember that incident ever happening. I remember it because it was more significant to me than it was to him. The NEXT YEAR the guy sat next to me in 7th grade and chatted friendly to me like it had never happened.

[GreenGoo]

There is ZERO chance that Romney doesn't remember this. And if he doesn't, he shouldn't be president just based on the condition of his mind.

I remember bullying that OTHER people did to other people. But he can't remember a bullying incident that he participated in? That he led? I was hoping we were past letting politicians off the hook every time they claim they don't recall something that might have a negative impact on their career.

The only other possibility I can see is that he's a sociopath, and honestly doesn't remember stepping on people like ants because, well, they're ants, and who can remember all the fun you had stepping on them? I don't believe this for a minute. He's doing what any politician would do in his place. I think we have a duty to at least not believe them when they lie this outrageously.

As I said earlier, the family's opinion on this is irrelevant. And you're misinterpreting (intentionally, or due to bias) what inaccuracies in the facts mean. If the family thought the story was substantially inaccurate, they would have said so. A weasel sentence like "that statement is not factually correct" can mean anything at all, and they know it. They are intentionally casting doubt on the event without clarifying. Given that they are not the only witnesses to this event, it's the best they can do without lying outright.

But it doesn't matter because this isn't about the victim, let alone the family of the victim.

[Grundbegriff]

I'd call it more than a "regrettable" incident - in a just world, he would have been arrested for what he had done.

A kid who snips another kid's hair should be arrested by the state?

[silverjon]

Because here ist he family's response that the guy was even homosexual at all:

“The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda,” she said. “There will be no more comments from the family.”

No, what they say is that the portrayal is "factually incorrect", but they decline to say how so. You're assuming his family believes John Lauber was not gay, but even if that's their issue, is that because they know or because they were in denial?

Lauber could be furious about the story because he wanted his life kept private, or because it's embarrassing. His sister Christine does not say the incident never happened, but that he probably wouldn't have told her about something like that if it did. But if he were alive, the journalist would at least have attempted to interview him personally and let him speak for himself.

[Grundbegriff]

This wasn't an incident of just cutting a kids hair. You are making it sound like a few buddies shaved their friends he's while passed out drunk after a party. That's a "prank".

Leading a group of other kids to hold down a weaker/different kid and to forcefully cut his hair while he is actively trying to escape and is crying is something altogether different. The cutting of the hair isn't even important. The leading a group of boys to torment another boy who was crying while trying to escape is the important part.

I'm confused. Why is that worse than taking advantage of someone who's utterly, helplessly asleep?

Both seem awful, but screwing around with people while they're unconscious seems to me more despicable.

[Defiant]

I'd call it more than a "regrettable" incident - in a just world, he would have been arrested for what he had done.

A kid who snips another kid's hair should be arrested by the state?

A legal adult who leads others into chasing, tackling, holding down someone else and then while he's crying and screaming for help, cuts his hair?

Yes.

[Defiant]

This wasn't an incident of just cutting a kids hair. You are making it sound like a few buddies shaved their friends he's while passed out drunk after a party. That's a "prank".

Leading a group of other kids to hold down a weaker/different kid and to forcefully cut his hair while he is actively trying to escape and is crying is something altogether different. The cutting of the hair isn't even important. The leading a group of boys to torment another boy who was crying while trying to escape is the important part.

I'm confused. Why is that worse than taking advantage of someone who's utterly, helplessly asleep?

Both seem awful, but screwing around with people while they're unconscious seems to me more despicable.

They're both despicable, but in the first you have the added violence/threat of violence (a group of bullies, chasing, tackling, pinning someone down) as well as the fear of violence instilled in the victim.

[silverjon]

This wasn't an incident of just cutting a kids hair. You are making it sound like a few buddies shaved their friends he's while passed out drunk after a party. That's a "prank".

Leading a group of other kids to hold down a weaker/different kid and to forcefully cut his hair while he is actively trying to escape and is crying is something altogether different. The cutting of the hair isn't even important. The leading a group of boys to torment another boy who was crying while trying to escape is the important part.

I'm confused. Why is that worse than taking advantage of someone who's utterly, helplessly asleep?

Both seem awful, but screwing around with people while they're unconscious seems to me more despicable.

I'm inclined to agree with Grundbegriff about action, but I think RM9 was looking at motive and consequences for the victim. The passed-out haircutting is "ohhhhhhh he's gonna be pissed when he wakes up", whereas with leading a group of boys to the incident as described the motive appears to be "we're gonna get the long-hair and make him conform" (or, "we're gonna get the queer", depending who you talk to).

Swap the haircut out for applying make-up. Washes off, so the physical signs are undone in five minutes. How does passed-out guy feel about it later? Was it just a goofy prank pulled by his buddies, or does he feel hurt by it? The guy who cried while he was held down, was this still something done to frighten and humiliate him?

Edit: It's also important to look at the relationships among the actors. In the passed-out incident, the pranksters could be quite certain their friend will get angry but ultimately laugh it off, so it won't damage their friendship (though they could be wrong). None of these students were Lauber's friends. It's hard to tell if Lauber even had friends.

[msduncan]

I'd call it more than a "regrettable" incident - in a just world, he would have been arrested for what he had done.

A kid who snips another kid's hair should be arrested by the state?

A legal adult who leads others into chasing, tackling, holding down someone else and then while he's crying and screaming for help, cuts his hair?

Yes.

I'm amazed. A few months prior to this incident, he could have just been an innocent kid walking to the store for a bottle of coke and Skittles. Now he's an adult that needs to be arrested.

[Grundbegriff]

They're both despicable, but in the first you have the added violence/threat of violence (chasing, tackling, pinning someone down) as well as the fear of violence instilled in the victim.

What's more terrifying-- open hazing or a sneak attack?

In any case, the deeper issue isn't bullying as such but hazing in particular. Whether in a fraternity, on an athletic team, in ROTC, or (in this case) in some upper form at a boys' prep school, hazing is all too often understood to be part of the experience. That was especially so many decades ago.

I don't approve of hazing, and I find repugnant the attitude that gives a wink and a nod to its occurrence. But the reality is that hazing has long been a part of certain institutional environments, and it very much sounds as if that culture of conformism and those mechanisms of enforcement were unsurprising at Cranbrook in the mid 20th century.

If Mitt found himself saddled with expectations for leadership (dad being governor and all) in an elite environment in which mocking difference and enforcing norms was expected, off-the-books behavior, then perhaps he showed himself not cruel and sociopathic, but callow and susceptible to pressure.

In contrast, the very same deed committed in a 21st century public school rather than a mid-20th century private school would seem much more heinous. I have a feeling many are neglecting to take time, place, and culture into account.

There's no question in my mind that I would've found Romney a vile prig in that setting. (But then, I wouldn't have been in that setting.) But the question for me is whether he has shown any sign in the intervening four decades that he has transcended the stupidity, immaturity, and callousness of his youth.

[Defiant]

They're both despicable, but in the first you have the added violence/threat of violence (chasing, tackling, pinning someone down) as well as the fear of violence instilled in the victim.

What's more terrifying-- open hazing or a sneak attack?

This was not hazing, this was bullying.

Your attempts to diminish this attack - as a regrettable incident, snipping another kids hair, hazing - notwithstanding, while I would be terrified of both, I'd be more terrified of the pack of bullies that attack openly - that traumatize by chasing, tackling, pinning down their victims and brandish scissors - then the bully who is only capable of attacking me when I'm asleep.

[Chrisoc13]

Crisoc13, I think you are over-committing yourself to modern research on post-teenager brain development. While I am at least passingly familiar with this sort of research (in particular National Geographic had a well done article about the teenage brain a few months back), what I have seen focused on certain aspects of brain development such as risk analysis and perception of consequences.

It isn't just that article. My wife is a PhD candidate on developmental psychology I just posted a quick article. I am not simply flying by the seat of my pants on that one I actually have a foundation of knowledge on it. Fascinating stuff, something I didn't know much about until I met my wife. Now I have been inundated with information and countless studies regarding adolescent brain development, so no, I don't think I am overstating it. It certainly has changed my perception on teen issues.

I assume that you went to high school with some douchey a-holes that picked on or beat up other kids that were weaker than them and/or different in some way. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't vote for any of those sorts of kids in my high school. It doesn't have any impact on me with Romney, because I wasn't there and I didn't see it. But for the things I did see? F those guys.

And lastly, I have no memories of tormenting anyone through my teen years (despite my undeveloped teenager brain). If I found out today that someone else felt that I had done that to them, I would be horrified and very apologetic. I wouldn't laugh it off as boys will be boys.

That is the only thing that somewhat bothers me about this situation. It just isn't how I would react to an accusation like this, and so it seems really odd to me.

Romney did indeed apologize. It was fifty years go, and he never said boys will be boys. I am sure people wish he would have said that so they have another tool to use against him in a string of out of context quotes to show his lack of "empathy" but instead he said he regretted anything he did to hurt people in high school. As I said earlier he probably has faced this demon years ago.

Secondly I think few people have not hurt others with their words or deeds on purpose. Sorry but High School is full of that. If you honestly don't think you ever spread a rumor, talked bad about someone behind their back, mocked someone, ostracized someone then in my experience you would be the exception not the rule regarding the type of treatment teens give each other. That or you didn't interact with anyone your age. Or you have been blessed with the gift of forgetting.

[Defiant]

Secondly I think few people have not hurt others with their words or deeds on purpose. Sorry but High School is full of that. If you honestly don't think you ever spread a rumor, talked bad about someone behind their back, mocked someone, ostracized someone then in my experience you would be the exception not the rule regarding the type of treatment teens give each other.

Everyone sins, so it's fine to lie and steal, is that it?

Yes many people - though by no means everyone - did bad when they were young. That's not an acceptable excuse for assault.

[Chrisoc13]

Secondly I think few people have not hurt others with their words or deeds on purpose. Sorry but High School is full of that. If you honestly don't think you ever spread a rumor, talked bad about someone behind their back, mocked someone, ostracized someone then in my experience you would be the exception not the rule regarding the type of treatment teens give each other.

Everyone sins, so it's fine to lie and steal, is that it?

Yes many people - though by no means everyone - did bad when they were young. That's not an acceptable excuse for assault.

Never said it was. I think it is a ridiculous reason to note vote for someone though. Especially in light of the research that he literally is wired different now and it was 50 years ago. I have said throughout this thread it is a terrible thing that allegedly happened. Absolutely terrible. But it is so stupid to think that it shows us Romney in a new light, because frankly it doesn't.

I think you are mixing up saying it should have no bearing on this election with saying it is acceptable. Not the same thing my friend.

[Defiant]

I'm amazed. A few months prior to this incident, he could have just been an innocent kid walking to the store for a bottle of coke and Skittles. Now he's an adult that needs to be arrested.

*scratches head*

Yes. Generally, several months before committing a crime, one is innocent. Unless you mean he would have gotten off scot free. Presumably, in a just world, if he had committed this prior to being a legal adult he might have been sent to juvie or something.

[msduncan]

I'm amazed. A few months prior to this incident, he could have just been an innocent kid walking to the store for a bottle of coke and Skittles. Now he's an adult that needs to be arrested.

*scratches head*

Yes. Generally, several months before committing a crime, one is innocent. Unless you mean he would have gotten off scot free. Presumably, in a just world, if he had committed this prior to being a legal adult he might have been sent to juvie or something.

No high school student is going to go to jail for cutting another kids hair. It wouldn't have happened back then. I wouldn't happen today. Period. Suspension? Yes. Detention? Yes. Jail? No.

What is your personal vendetta and motivation here? Were you bullied? Were you held down or taunted by a group of kids? You are being delusional if you think that this incident would cause a high school kid to go to jail -- especially decades ago.

[Grundbegriff]

What's more terrifying-- open hazing or a sneak attack?

This was not hazing, this was bullying.

Really? Cuz is smells just like prep school hazing.

[Combustible Lemur]

I'm amazed. A few months prior to this incident, he could have just been an innocent kid walking to the store for a bottle of coke and Skittles. Now he's an adult that needs to be arrested.

*scratches head*

Yes. Generally, several months before committing a crime, one is innocent. Unless you mean he would have gotten off scot free. Presumably, in a just world, if he had committed this prior to being a legal adult he might have been sent to juvie or something.

No high school student is going to go to jail for cutting another kids hair. It wouldn't have happened back then. I wouldn't happen today. Period. Suspension? Yes. Detention? Yes. Jail? No.

What is your personal vendetta and motivation here? Were you bullied? Were you held down or taunted by a group of kids? You are being delusional if you think that this incident would cause a high school kid to go to jail -- especially decades ago.

That's where you are wrong, if this same incident happened in my school, the romney character would, At the minimum, be arrested. And an easy argument could Be made for assault. Recently a few kids posted vicious things about a girl and were immediately yanked suspended and had police reports filed. Our school does not tolerate shenanigans. On the flip side Romney in any time period wouldn't be arrested. Funny that. FWiW I teach on the other side of the tracks. (by no means the worst)

Sent from mah Incredible'

[Grundbegriff]

if this same incident happened in my school, the romney character would, At the minimum, be arrested. And an easy argument could Be made for assault. Recently a few kids posted vicious things about a girl and were immediately yanked suspended and had police reports filed.

Now, travel back to the midwest in the 1950s-1960s....

[Defiant]

No high school student is going to go to jail for cutting another kids hair. It wouldn't have happened back then. I wouldn't happen today. Period. Suspension? Yes. Detention? Yes. Jail? No.

I said in a just world he would have been arrested.

3 charged in teens forced haircut (1999)

Charge 5 youths in forced haircut (1966)

Unwanted haircut results in felony charge against Houston man (2012)

Compulsory Haircut Gets Prison Sentence For Man (1966)

Man charged with assault after cutting woman's hair (2008)

A young husband yesterday landed in jail on suspicion of felonious assault after he forcibly gave his wife a short haircut in their Bellflower home, Sheriff's deputies said. (1950)

[Defiant]

What's more terrifying-- open hazing or a sneak attack?

This was not hazing, this was bullying.

Really? Cuz is smells just like prep school hazing.

That's funny, cause your comments smell like bull-