NationStates Jolt Archive

Link! http://www.tampabays10.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=14260

Just watch the video. I can't believe that the American judicial system is so ****ed up that those kids could be charged with felony assault. That fatass piece of **** excuse for a human being should be the one charged with felony assault. Just another example of how our school system can get away with murder.

I swear to God, I would have beat that mother****er to within an inch of his life if he had assaulted my brother; then my dad would have shot the mother****er later.

Why? They deserved it. Finally a judicial system that acts to control youth, not let them walk all over authority.

Hmm, could not see the video. If I have kids they will not be going to public school. Not nessiarily for this but for other reasons.

I'm sorry, but the bus driver is the adult, and the children were 13 and 15. It is the bus driver's responsibility to not act like a total fuck-stick, and initiate the physical confrontation, as was the case here.

From the Article

Taylor says it all started when a student on the bus refused to calm down. He pulled the bus over and called police before heading to the back of the bus. That's when the 13-year-old and his 15-year-old brother began yelling and cursing, escalating the fight.

The two teens face felony counts of assault, while Taylor is charged with a misdemeanor. The bus driver has also been suspended with pay.

This is completely absurd. "Yelling and cursing"?? When two adults argue, and person A starts yelling, and person B proceeds to hit and choke him...person B goes to jail, period.

Not to worry though, these kids will get a damned good lawyer, as somebody will certainly pick up the tab for them. That bus-driver will be fired before all is said and done.

Not to worry though, these kids will get a damned good lawyer, as somebody will certainly pick up the tab for them. That bus-driver will be fired before all is said and done.I sincerely hope you're right, but sadly, I would not be surprised if the bus driver gets a slap on the wrist, and the kids go to juvenile hall. Such is the American justice (or lack thereof) system.

He did not do the right thing, but he reacted. He did not cause the fight, he got involved.

I sincerely hope you're right, but sadly, I would not be surprised if the bus driver gets a slap on the wrist, and the kids go to juvenile hall. Such is the American justice (or lack thereof) system.

In Britain, its the other way round. Juveniles can get away with anything, and be let off scot free. An adult who fires a BB gun at them to scare them off gets charged. British 'chav' youth are scum. There is no other way of describing them.

The little bastards got what they deserved. Maybe next time they'll think twice before acting a fool towards an adult.

The little bastards got what they deserved. Maybe next time they'll think twice before acting a fool towards an adult.

I've made it to a point in life where I don't issue respect to adults just because they are just that, adults. If an adult tries to assume a position of authority over me "just because", they're leaning into bitch slap territory. I refuse to be controlled by some random adult just because they said so, especially the ignorant, uneducated, and arrogant ones around here. Like all people, they must earn my respect, they must earn their leadership over me. I will not follow someone who doesn't have any more sense than me. As for the kids in the video, they got what they deserved.

I sincerely hope you're right, but sadly, I would not be surprised if the bus driver gets a slap on the wrist, and the kids go to juvenile hall. Such is the American justice (or lack thereof) system.

It's absurd to complain that children's rights are trampled at the expense of adults' rights in the American justice system.

If I were a bus driver, I would carry a can of pepper spray.

If I saw two kids fighting in the back, I would stop the bus, go back there, and spray both of them down.

Then I would go back up to the front, and continue with the route. After all, it's not legal for me to throw the little bastards off until they get to their stop.

I believe that during the first week, I would warn the students that any behavior (there's probably an official list) that is considered violent will be addressed by pepper spray.

I believe that I wouldn't have any problems.

Yeah, right.
Maybe some of you fellows should try riding a school bus, on a hot day, for two hours.
Theres ALWAYS (well, most of the time) some group of idiots who sit in the middle and talk loudly about their 'sexual exploits', while throwing things. The driver cant do anything about it unless they plainly assault somebody because lawsuit happy parents will shred them if they kick poor Johnny off the bus for shooting 100 spitwads at Jimmy.
While the busdriver overeacted a bit, but personaly I wish this had happened on my bus. I know a few little arseholes that could use some choking. They sit behind me, dont get off until after my stop and laugh like this:
"Hur hur hur hur"
Im sure those of you that were children at some point remember them.

The parents of those kids did a piss-poor job raising them. My kids wouldn't want to be doing what those boys did. I can guarantee you it wouldn't happen twice.

I've made it to a point in life where I don't issue respect to adults just because they are just that, adults. If an adult tries to assume a position of authority over me "just because", they're leaning into bitch slap territory. I refuse to be controlled by some random adult just because they said so, especially the ignorant, uneducated, and arrogant ones around here. Like all people, they must earn my respect, they must earn their leadership over me. I will not follow someone who doesn't have any more sense than me. As for the kids in the video, they got what they deserved.I also don't do that. I find that respecting people just because of their age is stupid. I've known a lot of not-very-smart people who are older than me, and some very wise people who are younger.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I also don't do that. I find that respecting people just because of their age is stupid. I've known a lot of not-very-smart people who are older than me, and some very wise people who are younger.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

You don't have to respect the bus driver, and they don't have to respect you.

But, in consideration of the fact that the government is providing the bus and the driver for your convenience, the government makes the rules.

I believe it's well within the government's right to ban people from riding who won't follow the rules.

Where I live, they make the children and the parents sign a copy of the rules (along with certification that they have read the rules, or have had the rules read to them, and that they understand the rules.

Break the rules, just once, and you're not riding the bus for the rest of the year.

The driver won't fight with you - they'll just report you. And the video camera on the bus will be better evidence than anything a person can say.

You can still disrespect the bus driver - just make sure it's not audible or visible.

A definate case of FUBAR

Link! http://www.tampabays10.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=14260

Just watch the video. I can't believe that the American judicial system is so ****ed up that those kids could be charged with felony assault. That fatass piece of **** excuse for a human being should be the one charged with felony assault. Just another example of how our school system can get away with murder.

I swear to God, I would have beat that mother****er to within an inch of his life if he had assaulted my brother; then my dad would have shot the mother****er later.
That kid was being a smart-assed little punk and got what he deserved. If I had been the bus driver, I probably would have smacked him a few more times just to slap some sense into him. Then I would have gone to his house and slapped his idiot parents for allowing him to act like that. :D

You can still disrespect the bus driver - just make sure it's not audible or visible.Are sarcastic remarks considered audible? I make those all the time. :D



~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

The parents of those kids did a piss-poor job raising them. My kids wouldn't want to be doing what those boys did. I can guarantee you it wouldn't happen twice.

I totally agree with you. Being a law enforcement officer, I have to deal with stupid little shits who think they can get away with anything just because they are kids. It gets tiring after a while...

Besides from people assuming kids these days are all poorly raised and deserve what they get, can anyone show me where the kids initiate an assault on the driver? If i slander someone till he cant take it anymore, i will get charged with, guess what, slander and the guy who hits me will get assault with mitigating circumstances. By no way ever will any verbal abuse be considered assault. Any physical contact i see is initiated by the driver.

I totally agree with you. Being a law enforcement officer, I have to deal with stupid little shits who think they can get away with anything just because they are kids. It gets tiring after a while...Yes. I have no patience for...

1) Kids who think they can get away with anything just because they're kids

2) Adults who think they can control kids just because they're adults

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Yes. I have no patience for...

1) Kids who think they can get away with anything just because they're kids

2) Adults who think they can control kids just because they're adults

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe
I don't think I can "control" kids just because I'm an adult. I know I can control kids because I raised five of them! Did a damn fine job too, if how they are as adults now is any indication. :D

Yes. I have no patience for...

1) Kids who think they can get away with anything just because they're kids

2) Adults who think they can control kids just because they're adults

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

It is up to the adult to control kids because they are the adult. Would you rather have no adult around to enforce any rules? I find that sad.

It is up to the adult to control kids because they are the adult. Would you rather have no adult around to enforce any rules? I find that sad.
ANARCHY!

I can't stand rude children

I can't stand rude children
It usually implies idiot parents.

The bus driver has no excuses. Insulted or not, he should have known better. He's suppost to have more brains than a 15 year old kid.

On the flipside these kids should be punished for their actions. However, I would expect the SCHOOL to carry out the punishment and not the DA. Afterall it was a school bus.

Respect should always be given at a reasonable level, until you know the person better and decide if it should be removed or not.

Children should be better behaved, but they will always be children and push bounderies.

Bullying is when one person excersies unwanted control over another, Abuse is when one person acts inapropreately when in a position of authority/power.

As an adult male, and as can be seen in the video, the bus driver has considerably more strengh than the kids, his actions were an abuse of his position and bullying.

Someone posted that they got what they deserved, how? If you "tell" any child what to do they wont do it, "because" has never been an adequate excuse, You would not accept it as an adult why should a child?
Hitting children because they dont do what you say is bullying and un acceptable.

While I fully accept that some children behave unacceptably, as adults we should have the ability to teach by example and not brute force. Or should we go back to the stone age, Women may be upset at being used as objects again, smaller built men would be forced to act as slaves etc, this is not acceptable, niether is hitting children.

to quote an ancient martial artist, "I lost the fight before it was fought, because it was fought"

You know, now that I think about it, those kids did get what they deserved (no doubt about that), however, if someone hit my kid I would kill them. I would be the one to discipline my kid. I know this sounds two-sided but that's just how I view it. :p

It usually implies idiot parents.

You're so right

You know, now that I think about it, those kids did get what they deserved (no doubt about that), however, if someone hit my kid I would kill them. I would be the one to discipline my kid. I know this sounds two-sided but that's just how I view it. :p

Hitting someone smaller to make them conform to what you want?
way to go.

You know, now that I think about it, those kids did get what they deserved (no doubt about that), however, if someone hit my kid I would kill them. I would be the one to discipline my kid. I know this sounds two-sided but that's just how I view it. :p
If this had happened to one of my children when they were that age, I would have done my best to gather more information, then probably have rebuked the bus driver and told him that the next time anything like that happened to get in touch with me directly. I can assure you that, if my own child was at fault, there would have been ... trouble! :D

Hitting someone smaller to make them conform to what you want?
way to go.
Oh, get over it! As long as the kid knows that he's done wrong, having a bit of corporal punishment isn't going to warp his little character.

Hitting someone smaller to make them conform to what you want?
way to go.

Hey, sometimes a good smack is what some people need to straighten up.

Oh, get over it! As long as the kid knows that he's done wrong, having a bit of corporal punishment isn't going to warp his little character.

THANK YOU!!!!

Hey, sometimes a good smack is what some people need to straighten up.

OK a 6'6' guy decides you "need it" you going to accept it?

the reason kids have problems with adults has a lot to do with the constant double standards. Its not nessersary, as the saying goes a bad workman blames the tools.

Respect should always be given at a reasonable level, until you know the person better and decide if it should be removed or not.

Children should be better behaved, but they will always be children and push bounderies.

Bullying is when one person excersies unwanted control over another, Abuse is when one person acts inapropreately when in a position of authority/power.

As an adult male, and as can be seen in the video, the bus driver has considerably more strengh than the kids, his actions were an abuse of his position and bullying.

Someone posted that they got what they deserved, how? If you "tell" any child what to do they wont do it, "because" has never been an adequate excuse, You would not accept it as an adult why should a child?
Hitting children because they dont do what you say is bullying and un acceptable.

While I fully accept that some children behave unacceptably, as adults we should have the ability to teach by example and not brute force. Or should we go back to the stone age, Women may be upset at being used as objects again, smaller built men would be forced to act as slaves etc, this is not acceptable, niether is hitting children.

to quote an ancient martial artist, "I lost the fight before it was fought, because it was fought"

There's a difference between normal childhood disobedience and disrespect - and children who have definite antisocial or defiance problems.

It's possible to use non-physical control methods on normal children. They respond to them well.

For children with antisocial or defiance problems, it's a one way ticket to escalation. They do, however, understand "the bright line". They know exactly how far they can go before they're going to really get in trouble.

The closer you move that bright line down to the level of behavior you expect, the better they behave - but only as long as you're watching.

People with antisocial personality disorder or oppositional defiant disorder NEVER get better. They grow up to be first class criminals. Thinking you can cure them, fix them, or control their behavior by non-physical techniques is foolish thinking.

OK a 6'6' guy decides you "need it" you going to accept it?

the reason kids have problems with adults has a lot to do with the constant double standards. Its not nessersary, as the saying goes a bad workman blames the tools.

It depends, I'm not idiotic enough to piss off a 6'6 guy. Jeez, grow up.

OK a 6'6' guy decides you "need it" you going to accept it?

the reason kids have problems with adults has a lot to do with the constant double standards. Its not nessersary, as the saying goes a bad workman blames the tools.

But is that not what you are doing … blaming the tools others choose to use for causing harm (Im not saying wholesale slapping of minors is alright but like anything else it is another tool that has its time and place … it can be misused yes and it can be used at the wrong times and cause damage when another tool wouldn’t but I personally would want to have the availability of that tool when I need it)

People with antisocial personality disorder or oppositional defiant disorder NEVER get better. They grow up to be first class criminals. Thinking you can cure them, fix them, or control their behavior by non-physical techniques is foolish thinking.
Nor can you with physical techniques. You'll just piss them off more.

Nor can you with physical techniques. You'll just piss them off more.

It works only as long as you're watching them. Turn your head and they'll do whatever they want.

Regardless of what you do, they're pissed off.

Nor can you with physical techniques. You'll just piss them off more.

Actually I've seen people who had physical techniques used on them as children grow up to be very productive members of society. Sure they'll be pissed, but they'll eventually get over it.

In Britain, its the other way round. Juveniles can get away with anything, and be let off scot free. An adult who fires a BB gun at them to scare them off gets charged. British 'chav' youth are scum. There is no other way of describing them.

Agreed.

Americans, you should beware that you don't end up in a situation like we have in Britain where kids have nothing to do, and just deliberately cause trouble for the fun of it. It's because we have a society which doesn't teach moral values to our children, and doesn't teach them to respect their elders.

There was an incident two days in Greater Manchester where a bunch of youths vandalised a cemetery...

Agreed.

Americans, you should beware that you don't end up in a situation like we have in Britain where kids have nothing to do, and just deliberately cause trouble for the fun of it. It's because we have a society which doesn't teach moral values to our children, and doesn't teach them to respect their elders.

There was an incident two days in Greater Manchester where a bunch of youths vandalised a cemetery...
Ehhh stuff like that happens all over (youth) and has for a long time before this generation

Agreed.

Americans, you should beware that you don't end up in a situation like we have in Britain where kids have nothing to do, and just deliberately cause trouble for the fun of it. It's because we have a society which doesn't teach moral values to our children, and doesn't teach them to respect their elders.

There was an incident two days in Greater Manchester where a bunch of youths vandalised a cemetery...

I've heard it's the same way in Canada too.

True - but not to the same extent as, say, 50 years ago.

Actually I've seen people who had physical techniques used on them as children grow up to be very productive members of society. Sure they'll be pissed, but they'll eventually get over it.
Not the sociopaths.

It depends, I'm not idiotic enough to piss off a 6'6 guy. Jeez, grow up.

I am grown up (in fact I am the 6'6' guy), But I do like your well reasoned response. you have really made your case well here ~sarcasm~

I do think that the latest generation have grown up with parents who have washed thier hands of thier responsibilities, expecting "society" to deal with bringing up the children. Now those adults need to be sorted out.

2) Adults who think they can control kids just because they're adults

It's mostly because adult have legal responsability that kid's dont. take a group of 3 teenager 16-17 and 18 years old. If they brake the law, the 18 years old will take most of the blame.

Also, the bus driver had responsability towar the kid (like not dropping them in the middle of nowhere). Try screaming and insulting random people in a public bus as an adult, and you will get kicked really fast.

Laws controls adults, adults controls kids, kids have the shitty underdog role...

My dad didn't waste a minute thinking about my "self-esteem".

He lived a respectful and responsible life in front of me, told me what he expected of me, taught me the difference between right and wrong and the reasons for it, kicked my butt when I did wrong, spent quantity time with me showing me and teaching me how to do things, and encouraged me to "earn" what I got.

He didn't have to worry about how to blame somebody else for my misbehavior.

If some adult overreacted to my misbehavior, my dad kicked my butt and then talked to the adult outside of my presence. If someone did something to me and I was innocent, my dad was ferocious in defending me.

My 90 year old dad is one helluva man and father.

I agrre with Pirates. I grew up the same way and I raised my children like that.

My dad didn't waste a minute thinking about my "self-esteem".

He lived a respectful and responsible life in front of me, told me what he expected of me, taught me the difference between right and wrong and the reasons for it, kicked my butt when I did wrong, spent quantity time with me showing me and teaching me how to do things, and encouraged me to "earn" what I got.

He didn't have to worry about how to blame somebody else for my misbehavior.

If some adult overreacted to my misbehavior, my dad kicked my butt and then talked to the adult outside of my presence. If someone did something to me and I was innocent, my dad was ferocious in defending me.

My 90 year old dad is one helluva man and father.

Sounds a lot like my dad lol he was not there to be my friend he was there to be my role model and to make sure I knew what was what. He was fair to me and made sure other adults gave me a fair shake I may have other issues with him but he was a good parent

Here is a good start to learn where and why criminal behavior starts:
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/samenow.htm

Hey, sometimes a good smack is what some people need to straighten up.

Perhaps, but that doesn't make it right. Fact of the matter is that the bus driver broke the law by laying his hands on the kid. Whether the kid 'had it coming' or 'deserved it' is neither here nor there. The bus driver had no right by law to lay his hands on the kid for speaking, no matter what came out of the boy's mouth.

(Hypothetically) If I heard your son using foul language in the supermarket, would you be fine with me slapping him in the head and telling him to shut up? After all, you've obviously raised the boy wrong, and he needed a good knock in the head to straighten him up...

Oh, get over it! As long as the kid knows that he's done wrong, having a bit of corporal punishment isn't going to warp his little character.
exactamente

(Hypothetically) If I heard your son using foul language in the supermarket, would you be fine with me slapping him in the head and telling him to shut up? After all, you've obviously raised the boy wrong, and he needed a good knock in the head to straighten him up...No

but i would fully expect the staff to tell you to take your kid out of the store...

and shall you do it again...i expect the manager to tell you you are not welcomed anymore.

Perhaps, but that doesn't make it right. Fact of the matter is that the bus driver broke the law by laying his hands on the kid. Whether the kid 'had it coming' or 'deserved it' is neither here nor there. The bus driver had no right by law to lay his hands on the kid for speaking, no matter what came out of the boy's mouth.

(Hypothetically) If I heard your son using foul language in the supermarket, would you be fine with me slapping him in the head and telling him to shut up? After all, you've obviously raised the boy wrong, and he needed a good knock in the head to straighten him up...

The child approached the busdriver from behind and was yell at him and appeared violent. You can't hear the video well enough to know for sure what was going on. They will sort it out, but you don't know for sure if you would have felt threatened by these boys, nor do you know anything about their history. It's impossible to say for sure that the busdriver was wrong here. One thing was clear. He was not trying to hurt the boys. His hand was open and he hit the kid in the head, not the face. When he grabbed the boy he grabbed his neck (as we all know, it's almost impossible to hurt some the way he had that kid) from behind. It was a clear attempt to control the child. He did not set out to beat the child. I don't generally agree with adults hitting children, but anyone who has been in a high school lately knows that teachers and other authority figures have to be allowed to defend themselves where necessary. That is very likely exactly what happened here.

Great video. I wish that old dude would have punched that smartass kid right in the mouth, though. He had it coming!

There was no need to slap me beside the head when I was younger. A simple "I am going to tell your father" was sufficient.

Here is my advice to all NSplayers...

do you live in North America or north Europe?

down and out..looking for a job?

DO NOT...DO-NOT take a school bus driver job...

take anything else...paperboy, busboy, trash colector, anything!!!

just DO-NOT take that school bus driver job...

Perhaps, but that doesn't make it right. Fact of the matter is that the bus driver broke the law by laying his hands on the kid. Whether the kid 'had it coming' or 'deserved it' is neither here nor there. The bus driver had no right by law to lay his hands on the kid for speaking, no matter what came out of the boy's mouth.

(Hypothetically) If I heard your son using foul language in the supermarket, would you be fine with me slapping him in the head and telling him to shut up? After all, you've obviously raised the boy wrong, and he needed a good knock in the head to straighten him up...

I'll tell you the truth. Those two loudmouthed kids are REAL LUCKY I wasn't the bus driver.

I'm sorry, but the bus driver is the adult, and the children were 13 and 15. It is the bus driver's responsibility to not act like a total fuck-stick, and initiate the physical confrontation, as was the case here.



This is completely absurd. "Yelling and cursing"?? When two adults argue, and person A starts yelling, and person B proceeds to hit and choke him...person B goes to jail, period.


Not to worry though, these kids will get a damned good lawyer, as somebody will certainly pick up the tab for them. That bus-driver will be fired before all is said and done.


Assualt sounds about right for yelling and cursing.

If you hit someone you commit battery, not assualt.
You commit assualt when you put a reasonable person in fear of being hit.

Also, if the kids fought back they wouldn't be able to claim self-defense because they used "fighting words".

If you escalate a verbal argument with words that would tend elicit a physical response you have no right to use physical force in self defense. This rule is necessary to prevent situations in which predators goad their victims into striking first.

Assualt sounds about right for yelling and cursing.

If you hit someone you commit battery, not assualt.
You commit assualt when you put a reasonable person in fear of being hit.

Also, if the kids fought back they wouldn't be able to claim self-defense because they used "fighting words".

If you escalate a verbal argument with words that would tend elicit a physical response you have no right to use physical force in self defense. This rule is necessary to prevent situations in which predators goad their victims into striking first.
Always reminds me of Simpson’s

“Wanna Fight”
“Thems fightin words”
*fight ensues*

Assualt sounds about right for yelling and cursing.

If you hit someone you commit battery, not assualt.
You commit assualt when you put a reasonable person in fear of being hit.

Also, if the kids fought back they wouldn't be able to claim self-defense because they used "fighting words".

If you escalate a verbal argument with words that would tend elicit a physical response you have no right to use physical force in self defense. This rule is necessary to prevent situations in which predators goad their victims into striking first.

It's a rule of mine if I'm being verbally threatened in public to start by raising my hands above my head (to show witnesses and cameras that I'm in a submissive mode), and I start by saying loudly that I don't want trouble.

If I'm in a location where there are no witnesses, and no cameras, as has been the case when people have attempted to rob me, the response is quite different.

It's a rule of mine if I'm being verbally threatened in public to start by raising my hands above my head (to show witnesses and cameras that I'm in a submissive mode), and I start by saying loudly that I don't want trouble.

If I'm in a location where there are no witnesses, and no cameras, as has been the case when people have attempted to rob me, the response is quite different.

How often does it happen to you?

How often does it happen to you?

I've successfully prevented myself from being robbed three times (the private scenario).

When I was younger, I've been in the public scenario more times than I can count. Alcohol makes people stupid, and it's more important who believes you after the fight than who can kick the most ass (although my ribs beg to differ).

If you look like you were trying to avoid a fight, and there's a bit of ass kicking, you may not even be arrested. But if there isn't anyone to say, "he kept trying to avoid the fight" then you're going downtown.

In private, you're much more likely to be killed. And the rules change - what matters is that you live to see the next day.

That kid was being a smart-assed little punk and got what he deserved. If I had been the bus driver, I probably would have smacked him a few more times just to slap some sense into him. Then I would have gone to his house and slapped his idiot parents for allowing him to act like that. :D

I agree. The state of American youth is sickening, to me. They need to be hit harder, and more often, if anything. And parents being punished for not maintaining discipline is a GREAT idea, imho.

And yet, I see kids running amok, and if their parents slap them down for it, -they- go to jail. Fuck that very much. When I screwed up as a kid, I was punished. Severely. After being the victim of a savage thrashing, I would clean my act up and do my absolute best not to fuck up again. I think that is the problem with kids nowadays. There's nothing for them to fear anymore because parents are getting soft.

I agree. The state of American youth is sickening, to me. They need to be hit harder, and more often, if anything. And parents being punished for not maintaining discipline is a GREAT idea, imho.

And yet, I see kids running amok, and if their parents slap them down for it, -they- go to jail. Fuck that very much. When I screwed up as a kid, I was punished. Severely. After being the victim of a savage thrashing, I would clean my act up and do my absolute best not to fuck up again. I think that is the problem with kids nowadays. There's nothing for them to fear anymore because parents are getting soft.

Often parents go over bored, the kids that I know that still get hit by their parents drink, smoke and fight more than most of us apart from one kid whos just really fucked up. How can you respect your parents if they result to the belt everytime they want you to do something?

There's a big old split in opinions about whether hitting kids is good. It all stems back to nature v. nuture. Is the kid "bad" from birth, or does he get that way cause you beat him up for screwing up, until he loses all empathy?

Me, I'm somewhere in the middle.

Violence against children is almost never necessary. If you have to resort to violence, it's because you aren't smart enough to come up with another way. Substitute bus drivers aren't known for their intelligence. The fact that so many of you in this forum support him suggests the same.

There is nothing in the kids' demeanor which suggest they are about to attack the driver. And given the relative sizes, he has no reason to fear such an attack. Furthermore, he is the aggressor. When the kid starts punching back, the kid is within his rights to defend himself against a superior opponent.

I find it interesting that so many people are sheepishly jumping in line with the "loudmouthed kids" opinion based on a video which contains no audio, and in which there is no visual evidence to support taunting or verbal abuse.

Violence against children is almost never necessary. If you have to resort to violence, it's because you aren't smart enough to come up with another way. Substitute bus drivers aren't known for their intelligence. The fact that so many of you in this forum support him suggests the same.

There is nothing in the kids' demeanor which suggest they are about to attack the driver. And given the relative sizes, he has no reason to fear such an attack. Furthermore, he is the aggressor. When the kid starts punching back, the kid is within his rights to defend himself against a superior opponent.

I find it interesting that so many people are sheepishly jumping in line with the "loudmouthed kids" opinion based on a video which contains no audio, and in which there is no visual evidence to support taunting or verbal abuse.

Watch it on the news. You can actually here them yelling at the driver though it's not entirely clear enough to tell what is actually happening.

Again, there is a significant difference in the way you attack a person in the eyes of the law. You are much more likely to get away with controlling someone than beating the crap out of them. The busdriver open-hand hit the kid in the head, when his face was completely open. He also grabbed him by the scruff of the neck which is a rather famous controlling mode. Just because the kids were not in a position to defeat the busdriver does not mean they weren't in a position to hurt the busdriver.

It comes down to whether there is evidence that the busdriver felt threatened. Guilt is not necessarily about who struck first as has been pointed out several times in this thread. The busdriver asked a boy to come to the front of the bus and the boy refused so the busdriver went to the back of the bus to get him (as he is permitted to do) when he did another boy (the first boy's brother) agressively approached him from behind and the busdriver reacted.

You nor nobody here has enough evidence to know whether the busdriver felt threatened. I did enjoy how you decided that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be simple. "Almost never necessary" translates to "sometimes necessary". This may have been one of those cases. You know nothing about the history of these boys, the school, the busdriver or any other pertinent information but you did a fine job of simplifying it to the point of insult. Very impressive.

"Almost never" translates into the following situations:

1) Fear of death or injury
2) Prevention of harm to the child or others

Neither condition was met here. If the boy ignored the driver's commands, he was not impotent. He could simply wait for the police he had already summoned and have the boy removed by proper authorities. Explaining to his parents why they had to pick him up at jail would have been a whole lot worse punishment than anything the driver could have done to him. But the driver simply wasn't very smart.

An open-handed strike is not a controlling maneuver. Grabbing at the throat from the front is not a controlling maneuver. An example of a controlling maneuver would be the grasping of a wrist or forearm in one hand, and the back of the neck with the other. The driver could have reached for the boy's right wrist with his own right hand, pulled his body around, and gotten his left hand on the back of the neck, at which point he could have applied pressure to lead the kid wherever he wanted.

The manuevers the bus driver employed were examples of battery, though of a lesser kind than the child's closed-fisted strikes.

"Almost never" translates into the following situations:

1) Fear of death or injury
2) Prevention of harm to the child or others

Neither condition was met here. If the boy ignored the driver's commands, he was not impotent. He could simply wait for the police he had already summoned and have the boy removed by proper authorities. Explaining to his parents why they had to pick him up at jail would have been a whole lot worse punishment than anything the driver could have done to him. But the driver simply wasn't very smart.

An open-handed strike is not a controlling maneuver. Grabbing at the throat from the front is not a controlling maneuver. An example of a controlling maneuver would be the grasping of a wrist or forearm in one hand, and the back of the neck with the other. The driver could have reached for the boy's right wrist with his own right hand, pulled his body around, and gotten his left hand on the back of the neck, at which point he could have applied pressure to lead the kid wherever he wanted.

The manuevers the bus driver employed were examples of battery, though of a lesser kind than the child's closed-fisted strikes.

So, you could hear what the boy said, could you? Good. Could you type it out for the rest of us to read. Otherwise, you don't know that the boys were not putting themselves, the busdriver or the other students in danger.

As far as controlling maneuvers, where did he grab the boy again? It looked to me like he had him by the back of the neck, but, silly me, I tend to believe my eyes when I see the busdriver clearly grab the boy by the back of the neck and not the front. Yes, the driver could have reached for the boy's wrist, but he didn't and you weren't there. You don't know the driver's knowledge of self-defense. You don't know how threatened he felt. You don't even know what was being said. What is clear is that both boys were being beligerent and the driver felt it was enough of a problem to call the police. It is also clear from the video that when the driver went to remove the first boy from the bus the second boy approached him agressively from behind. Now, I wouldn't have hit the boy at that point, but I wasn't there. The driver was. He knew he was on video. He knew the police were coming. And he felt threatened enough to respond with force, knowing he was going to have to explain this to a group of people who were likely not to side with him and would have video evidence of what went on.

You also mention size fairly frequently. When I was thirteen I knocked out a two-hundred pound man with one punch. I was under five feet tall and was wrestling in the 93-lb weight class at the time. While size can be a factor, it is certainly not the only factor.

This man had two teenage boys acting aggressively towards him (and possibly other students). He reacted. Whether his actions were justified is yet to be decided, but you can't simply dismiss them based on the limited evidence you have. Or you can assume he's just dumb and anyone who thinks he deserves the benefit of the doubt is too. Oh, wait, you already did that.

So, you could hear what the boy said, could you? Good. Could you type it out for the rest of us to read. Otherwise, you don't know that the boys were not putting themselves, the busdriver or the other students in danger.

And you can? You and others in this thread seem to be automatically assuming that the boy was threatening him. In this country, there is a such thing as presumed innocence.


As far as controlling maneuvers, where did he grab the boy again? It looked to me like he had him by the back of the neck, but, silly me, I tend to believe my eyes when I see the busdriver clearly grab the boy by the back of the neck and not the front. Yes, the driver could have reached for the boy's wrist, but he didn't and you weren't there.

I had to watch it again to see, because he grabs the kid so violently that it happens pretty quickly and details can be missed. But if you watch it again you can see that the driver actually tried to grab for the kid's wrist, too, which means he did apply a controlling maneuver pretty much as I described. I stand corrected on that score. However...

You don't know the driver's knowledge of self-defense. You don't know how threatened he felt. You don't even know what was being said. What is clear is that both boys were being beligerent and the driver felt it was enough of a problem to call the police. It is also clear from the video that when the driver went to remove the first boy from the bus the second boy approached him agressively from behind.

There is nothing in the boy's body language that communicates aggression. At the time of the attack, the boy's right hand is resting lazily on the seat, and his left hand is hanging by his side. He did not crowd the driver's personal space. Without making serious assumptions about what was being said, you cannot conclude that the driver had reason to feel threatened.

Now, I wouldn't have hit the boy at that point, but I wasn't there. The driver was. He knew he was on video. He knew the police were coming. And he felt threatened enough to respond with force, knowing he was going to have to explain this to a group of people who were likely not to side with him and would have video evidence of what went on.
You say he felt threatened enough to respond with force, but this is an unproven assumption. The assumption that he has low emotional intelligence and reacted out of anger has just as much validity at this point. The question is how angry he would have been versus how threatened he felt. I see nothing here that justifies any feeling of danger on his side.

You also mention size fairly frequently. When I was thirteen I knocked out a two-hundred pound man with one punch. I was under five feet tall and was wrestling in the 93-lb weight class at the time. While size can be a factor, it is certainly not the only factor.

You should stop watching so much TV.

This man had two teenage boys acting aggressively towards him (and possibly other students). He reacted. Whether his actions were justified is yet to be decided, but you can't simply dismiss them based on the limited evidence you have. Or you can assume he's just dumb and anyone who thinks he deserves the benefit of the doubt is too. Oh, wait, you already did that.
Whereas you and others have already decided the kids were punk bastards and that anything they get is less than they deserve. Now do you see my point?

And you can? You and others in this thread seem to be automatically assuming that the boy was threatening him. In this country, there is a such thing as presumed innocence.

Only for the boys, right? Not for the busdriver?

I had to watch it again to see, because he grabs the kid so violently that it happens pretty quickly and details can be missed. But if you watch it again you can see that the driver actually tried to grab for the kid's wrist, too, which means he did apply a controlling maneuver pretty much as I described. I stand corrected on that score. However...

Huh? If he didn't feel threatened I wonder why he was trying to control him. Maybe you can answer that one for me, Kojak.

There is nothing in the boy's body language that communicates aggression. At the time of the attack, the boy's right hand is resting lazily on the seat, and his left hand is hanging by his side. He did not crowd the driver's personal space. Without making serious assumptions about what was being said, you cannot conclude that the driver had reason to feel threatened.

You don't feel the boy was threatening from an armchair perspective, from behind the boy, from a completely safe place.

The driver was approached by the boy from behind. Again, he knew he was on camera and that the police were on their way. His motions suggest he felt the boy needed to be restrained. They do not suggest he was angrily beating the boy. All of this suggests the driver felt threatened. Whether his reasoning was sound is yet to be determined, but as you said, innocent until proven guilty.

You say he felt threatened enough to respond with force, but this is an unproven assumption. The assumption that he has low emotional intelligence and reacted out of anger has just as much validity at this point. The question is how angry he would have been versus how threatened he felt. I see nothing here that justifies any feeling of danger on his side.

Well, considering you also thought he choked the boy, you called him and anyone defending him stupid and, most recently, you called me a liar, I'm not going to rest on your reasoning if you don't mind.

You should stop watching so much TV.

Ah, see, calling me a liar. The resorts of one with unfounded arguments. You need to become more studied on the art of self-defense. Are you seriously suggesting that it's impossible for a small teenager to knock out an average-sized man? I can introduce you to several of my family members and former neighbors who would beg to differ with you. I also wrestled my father to the ground and held him there when he attacked me when I was about the age of the boy the busdriver hit, 15. My father was about the size of the busdriver. Apparently, someone the size of the older boy can be at threat. Again, maybe you should learn a little more about the world before you suggest that because of the boy's size the busdriver has no reason to feel threatened. Again, you know nothing of the busdriver's experience, the boys' experience, events leading up to this point or anything that founds your condemnation of the busdriver, yet you feel completely justified in calling him stupid and anyone who agrees with his actions.

Whereas you and others have already decided the kids were punk bastards and that anything they get is less than they deserve. Now do you see my point?

When did I call them punk bastards or any names? When did I say they got what they deserved? When did I suggest anything other than the busdriver appears to feel threatened and responded as such? The only think I've 'decided' is that the boys were behaving agressively, which is clear on the video, and that the busdriver felt threatened, which is also fairly clear on the video.

My guess is your biggest problem with the video is the size of the busdriver and the size of the boys. If this had been some tiny woman, I think you wouldn't consider it stupid for the woman to have felt threatened by the agressive approach of the boy. Again, size isn't everything and the busdriver is not required to feel like he is danger of being subdued by the boys, only that he is in danger of being attacked by the boys. Those boys were large enough that if they knew how to fight they could have injured the busdriver, who, though he was larger, wasn't any spring chicken.

You don't have to respect the bus driver, and they don't have to respect you.

But, in consideration of the fact that the government is providing the bus and the driver for your convenience, the government makes the rules.

I believe it's well within the government's right to ban people from riding who won't follow the rules.

Where I live, they make the children and the parents sign a copy of the rules (along with certification that they have read the rules, or have had the rules read to them, and that they understand the rules.

Break the rules, just once, and you're not riding the bus for the rest of the year.

The driver won't fight with you - they'll just report you. And the video camera on the bus will be better evidence than anything a person can say.

You can still disrespect the bus driver - just make sure it's not audible or visible.
actually you do. theres a list of rules posted at the front of every school bus. one of them says treat the bus driver with respect. it also says alot of other things that the kids didnt do. dont swear and "observe classroom conduct", among them. true, the bus driver overreacted but i can see the kids getting charged. 13 and 15 is pretty old.

The bus driver has no excuses. Insulted or not, he should have known better. He's suppost to have more brains than a 15 year old kid.

On the flipside these kids should be punished for their actions. However, I would expect the SCHOOL to carry out the punishment and not the DA. Afterall it was a school bus.
so if i shoot you on the school bus, then the DA should do nothing and the school should expel me?

so if i shoot you on the school bus, then the DA should do nothing and the school should expel me?

Strawman. Yes, they are both crimes, but this is an exaggeration of the incident to the point of absurdity.

It works only as long as you're watching them. Turn your head and they'll do whatever they want.

Regardless of what you do, they're pissed off.
you'd think the bus driver watching the road rather than the back of the bus would make a better drive home. but i guess not...

Strawman. Yes, they are both crimes, but this is an exaggeration of the incident to the point of absurdity.
meh, if assault is involved, i think the police should be involved if either party thinks its necessary. meaning parents or bus driver

Only for the boys, right? Not for the busdriver?
The driver was presumed innocent until proven guilty by the video evidence.


Huh? If he didn't feel threatened I wonder why he was trying to control him. Maybe you can answer that one for me, Kojak.
What makes you think threat is necessary for someone to attempt a controlling maneuver? Why can't it be bullying?

You don't feel the boy was threatening from an armchair perspective, from behind the boy, from a completely safe place.
Do you react this way every time someone walks behind you?



Well, considering you also thought he choked the boy, you called him and anyone defending him stupid and, most recently, you called me a liar, I'm not going to rest on your reasoning if you don't mind.
I admitted I was wrong on the choking. I called the bus driver stupid and the people defending him because the driver was under no threat and acting the bully. And your story is ludicrous.


Ah, see, calling me a liar. The resorts of one with unfounded arguments...blah blah blah
You are committing the fallacy of anecdotal evidence. Your fantastic tales of physical prowess are not impressive, but even if they were, they are not arguments. Do not tell me I am resorting to unfounded arguments when I am simply refusing to acknowledge yours.


When did I call them punk bastards or any names? When did I say they got what they deserved? When did I suggest anything other than the busdriver appears to feel threatened and responded as such? The only think I've 'decided' is that the boys were behaving agressively, which is clear on the video, and that the busdriver felt threatened, which is also fairly clear on the video.
There is nothing clear about the driver feeling threatened. Unproven assumption.


My guess is your biggest problem with the video is the size of the busdriver and the size of the boys. If this had been some tiny woman, I think you wouldn't consider it stupid for the woman to have felt threatened by the agressive approach of the boy. Again, size isn't everything and the busdriver is not required to feel like he is danger of being subdued by the boys, only that he is in danger of being attacked by the boys. Those boys were large enough that if they knew how to fight they could have injured the busdriver, who, though he was larger, wasn't any spring chicken.
More unproven assumption.

The driver was presumed innocent until proven guilty by the video evidence.


What makes you think threat is necessary for someone to attempt a controlling maneuver? Why can't it be bullying?


Do you react this way every time someone walks behind you?
1. what? your innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers
2. it can, but that doesnt matter. it CAN be him trying to control the situation after feeling threatened
3. if they are yelling and swearing at me and i am outnumbered, yes.

1. what? your innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers
2. it can, but that doesnt matter. it CAN be him trying to control the situation after feeling threatened
3. if they are yelling and swearing at me and i am outnumbered, yes.
1) Do you mean to tell me that there is still some doubt that he laid his hands on that boy?

2) It can. However, the arguments that he feels threatened are fairly thin. Nobody can seem to understand what is being said when they hear the audio, and nothing in the visual evidence suggests aggression on the part of anyone but the driver.

3) The bus is stopped. The door is open. The police are en route. The driver does not have to wade into the center of the children if he believes they are likely to attack him.

1) Do you mean to tell me that there is still some doubt that he laid his hands on that boy?

2) It can. However, the arguments that he feels threatened are fairly thin. Nobody can seem to understand what is being said when they hear the audio, and nothing in the visual evidence suggests aggression on the part of anyone but the driver.

3) The bus is stopped. The door is open. The police are en route. The driver does not have to wade into the center of the children if he believes they are likely to attack him.
1. irrelevant. brush up on the constitution
2. no they are quite valid. the kids got up in such a manner that they could attack him. keep in mind they surrounded him and were standing around him. you dont think its possible for multiple, physically fit teenagers to take down a bus driver.
3. irrelevant. maybe the threat was established after the driver got up and was surrounded.

The driver was presumed innocent until proven guilty by the video evidence.

The video proves him guilty? Wow, interesting. So now you know for sure that he had no reason to feel threatened. Forgive me if I put hope upon hope that you'll never be on any jury trying me or anyone else who needs a fair trial.

What makes you think threat is necessary for someone to attempt a controlling maneuver? Why can't it be bullying?

It could be bullying, but the facts suggest otherwise, unless you think the busdriver was calling the police on himself. Why can't it be the fact that the boys are being belligerent, agressive and unruly? Combine his reaction with the fact that he already called the police I would see the busdriver believed an uncontrollable situation was developing.

Unlike you I don't the visual evidence seperately. I look at the information we have on the case and combined it suggests that the busdriver felt threatened. It doesn't prove it unless you can clearly hear what is being said, which you can't because the only copies I've found have newscasters talking over it. What you can hear is the the boys are yelling and swearing which is also supported by the report of the incident.

Do you react this way every time someone walks behind you?

If they were yelling and swearing at me (again, watch the video with sound, it's available on the linked site) and suddenly approached me from behind while I was trying to deal with another teenager who was also yelling and swearing and acting belligerent, I might. However, I wasn't there, so what I would do doesn't matter. It's also likely that I have a bit more training and experience than the busdriver.

I admitted I was wrong on the choking. I called the bus driver stupid and the people defending him because the driver was under no threat and acting the bully. And your story is ludicrous.

Ah, so the busdriver was under no threat? I guess everyone else here doesn't have the power to just make up facts that you do. Odd, that the police felt that the boys were not acting in self-defense. You do know what that means, yes? It means that the boys were being threatening and that the police felt the threat was not immediate and thus, neither party was justified (the driver was not justified in the blow and the boys were not justified in defending themselves), which may very well be the case. I suspect that the video will be reviewed further and one or all of the charges will be dropped.

And my story is true and you have no way of knowing otherwise, but then you don't believe adults are innocent until proven guilty. The man I hit was elbowing me while we were playing basketball, he was seven years older than me and over a hundred pounds heavier, slighly husky and just over six feet tall. I warned him to stop and he didn't listen so I slugged him. I caught him in the temple when he was off-guard and I knocked him out. Though I was well-trained in self-defense and an experienced fighter (rough neighborhood), I got lucky in both the hit and that there were several other adults around to restrain him as he regained consciousness (which happened fairly quickly).

I also regularly restrained my very violent father by the time I was fifteen. At that time I was wrestling 140 pounds and my father was about 6'1 and about 220. That would be me at about the size of those boys and my father at about the size of the busdriver. My anecdotal evidence wouldn't be useful as evidence at all if not for the fact that you'll find that many boys who were regularly slugged by their fathers had it out with them by the time they were fifteen or sixteen.

What is ludicrous is suggesting that a fifteen-year-old male is not a physical threat to an adult male.

You are committing the fallacy of anecdotal evidence. Your fantastic tales of physical prowess are not impressive, but even if they were, they are not arguments. Do not tell me I am resorting to unfounded arguments when I am simply refusing to acknowledge yours.

Anecdotal evidence tells me what most people already know that a smaller person can take down a larger person if they are either a)lucky or b) well-trained. You don't need to listen to my anecdotal evidence to know that a teenager can be a threat to grown adult. And you're right, my stories are not impressive, because they happen all the time. Boys beat up their abusive fathers as teenagers regularly. Anecdotal evidence is not useful in establishing a pattern unless you have a lot of it, but it is useful in disputing the validity of a particular response of a particular person. It's not a scientific study, it's a news story.

There is nothing clear about the driver feeling threatened. Unproven assumption.

Strange how so many people here felt the busdriver felt threatened, isn't it? Strange how he called the police, rather than the school administration or the boy's parents, isn't it? Strange how he clearly tried to restrain the boy rather than just angrily beating him, isn't it? But I guess none of this holds up against your "proof" that the driver is guilty. How unfortunate that the rest require actual proof and that we incorporate that silly "reasonable doubt" stuff that some idiot included in the law.

While it may be an unproven assumption, it is not a disproven assumption as you claimed above.

More unproven assumption.

This last assumption is something youcan reply to, as it was about you, but chose not to. Hmmm... why? Because nothing you say is actually based on fact other than the boys were smaller than the busdriver. Wonder what comes from that fact, uh, not a damn thing.

1) Do you mean to tell me that there is still some doubt that he laid his hands on that boy?

Laying hands on the boy does not make him guilty. It says nothing of whether he was attempting to protect himself or the children on the bus.

2) It can. However, the arguments that he feels threatened are fairly thin. Nobody can seem to understand what is being said when they hear the audio, and nothing in the visual evidence suggests aggression on the part of anyone but the driver.

Oh, but they will understand what is being said on the video. Cleaning up that type of audio is actually not that difficult and can be done by your average computer geek with the right programs. Also, they have the testimony of the other children on the bus which must have supported some level of aggression since the boys were not considered to be defending themselves.

3) The bus is stopped. The door is open. The police are en route. The driver does not have to wade into the center of the children if he believes they are likely to attack him.

The driver is responsible for the safety of the children on the bus. This means he has a responsibility to maintain a safe environment. He had a responsibility to control the situation until the police arrived. If those boys had injured themselves or other students he would have been held responsible, unless he could show that he was unable to control the situation (he clearly was able to control the situation since no one was actually injured).

2. no they are quite valid. the kids got up in such a manner that they could attack him. keep in mind they surrounded him and were standing around him. you dont think its possible for multiple, physically fit teenagers to take down a bus driver.
This one brought to you from the intellectual school of Making $hit Up. He was not surrounded. He approached one boy, and his brother approached from behind. Neither was behaving in a physically aggressive manner. Your implication that all the children closed around him does not hold water.

3. irrelevant. maybe the threat was established after the driver got up and was surrounded.
And we're supposed to believe that based on what?

Laying hands on the boy does not make him guilty. It says nothing of whether he was attempting to protect himself or the children on the bus.

It makes him guilty of laying his hands on the boy. Duh.

Oh, but they will understand what is being said on the video. Cleaning up that type of audio is actually not that difficult and can be done by your average computer geek with the right programs. Also, they have the testimony of the other children on the bus which must have supported some level of aggression since the boys were not considered to be defending themselves.
At which time the audio evidence can be entered into regarding the threat posture presented by the boys. The visual evidence simply isn't there. Assuming that there was a viable threat posture at this point is premature at best.


The driver is responsible for the safety of the children on the bus. This means he has a responsibility to maintain a safe environment. He had a responsibility to control the situation until the police arrived. If those boys had injured themselves or other students he would have been held responsible, unless he could show that he was unable to control the situation (he clearly was able to control the situation since no one was actually injured).

Is there any reason to believe the boys are about to present a danger to others? It looks like a bunch of kids sitting in their seats to me.

The little bastards got what they deserved. Maybe next time they'll think twice before acting a fool towards an adult.

perhaps. but he still has no right in doing that as far as I know

It makes him guilty of laying his hands on the boy. Duh.

Which is only a crime if he was not protecting himself or others. Thus, he is innocent of the crime until proven guilty which the video does not accomplish. You admit that the audio evidence may show that the man felt threatened. You know what that is, ladies and gentlemen, reasonable doubt.

At which time the audio evidence can be entered into regarding the threat posture presented by the boys. The visual evidence simply isn't there. Assuming that there was a viable threat posture at this point is premature at best.

Or they could just use the testimony of the children on the bus. Or WE could just use the fact that he called to the cops to believe the busdriver felt like the situation was getting out of control. Odd, if the boys were just sitting there doing nothing.

Is there any reason to believe the boys are about to present a danger to others? It looks like a bunch of kids sitting in their seats to me.

Can you see the boy he was going back there to get? Nope. Can you hear what the boy is saying? Nope. The busdriver could and he felt like it was enough of a problem to call the police. I don't know how it works where you're from, but where I'm from people don't usually call the police to come and give the students awards for good behavior.

The funny thing is you act like if the evidence doesn't prove him innocent then he's guilty. Fortunately, the opposite is true. They have to prove that it is not reasonable for the man to feel threatened by a bunch of teenage boys who seem to have been yelling and swearing and acting aggressively. And I know you keep saying nothing was agressive about it, but for what reason did the boy leave his seat to approach the busdriver who was attempting to deal with one of the other students he was responsible for? Was the busdriver to suppose the boy was just getting up to stretch his legs at an inopportune time? Or maybe the boy was going to help the busdriver deal appropriately with his brother? It was an act of aggression. He was required to control one of the boys and when he attempted to do so another boy who was also yelling and cursing jumped out of his seat and came up behind him.

Which is only a crime if he was not protecting himself or others. Thus, he is innocent of the crime until proven guilty which the video does not accomplish. You admit that the audio evidence may show that the man felt threatened. You know what that is, ladies and gentlemen, reasonable doubt.
There is no doubt that he put his hands on the boy. His only way out of responsibility is to prove that the boys were threatening him. In other words, you have to prove the boys were guilty of a crime in order to acquit the driver. The boys are presumed innocent until proven guilty, which unfortunately means the driver is presumed guilty. It's a bummer, but it's not a very uncommon situation, constitution notwithstanding.


Or they could just use the testimony of the children on the bus. Or WE could just use the fact that he called to the cops to believe the busdriver felt like the situation was getting out of control. Odd, if the boys were just sitting there doing nothing.
Do you have a transcript of the radio call to the police? The driver could have called the police for a wide range of issues that didn't necessarily relate to fear of violence to himself or the children.


Can you see the boy he was going back there to get? Nope. Can you hear what the boy is saying? Nope. The busdriver could and he felt like it was enough of a problem to call the police. I don't know how it works where you're from, but where I'm from people don't usually call the police to come and give the students awards for good behavior.
Bad behavior means many things, but you've already decided it means one particular thing. Another unproven assumption.

It just so happens that you can't see the boy he was going back there to get, except for the top of a head. That's because until the driver attacked his brother, the other boy remained seated. That sort of dispels the whole "surrounded" nonsense.

The funny thing is you act like if the evidence doesn't prove him innocent then he's guilty. Fortunately, the opposite is true. They have to prove that it is not reasonable for the man to feel threatened by a bunch of teenage boys who seem to have been yelling and swearing and acting aggressively. And I know you keep saying nothing was agressive about it, but for what reason did the boy leave his seat to approach the busdriver who was attempting to deal with one of the other students he was responsible for? Was the busdriver to suppose the boy was just getting up to stretch his legs at an inopportune time? Or maybe the boy was going to help the busdriver deal appropriately with his brother? It was an act of aggression. He was required to control one of the boys and when he attempted to do so another boy who was also yelling and cursing jumped out of his seat and came up behind him.
I already covered the innocence part. By presuming the driver innocent you are presuming the children guilty of threatening behavior without any evidence to support the assumption.

Approaching someone from behind is not a crime, and is not considered a threatening act. If it were, we'd have brawls all over the mall. We already see the boy stand up in his seat twice before the driver walks to the back, and there is nothing threatening about it then, either.

Presumably the boy says something to the driver as he follows him, and what is said would naturally have a lot to do with establishing any threat perception.

There was definitely a body language of threat in the bus driver as he walked to the back, and the boy would be reasonable to assume that his brother is about to be assaulted. In this case, it would be the driver who is responsible for creating a threat environment, rather than the other way around.

fighting words
n. words intentionally directed toward another person which are so nasty and full of malice as to cause the hearer to suffer emotional distress or incite him/her to immediately retaliate physically (hit, stab, shoot, etc.). While such words are not an excuse or defense for a retaliatory assault and battery, if they are threatening they can form the basis for a lawsuit for assault.

Whether or not the driver was justified, is a question for a jury of his peers to consider after he's presented a defense of his actions, assuming the State finds enough reason to prosecute him. I would suggest that the people so offended by his actions that they're gathering up rope, torches and pitchforks carefully consider that they've only seen the most infalmitory elements of the story in a base attempt to command their attention, and generate ad dollars by convincing them, that just maybe, this time man did bite dog. But on the up shot for him, he's certainly made his case for a stress claim, retirement ahoy. I look forward to his forthcoming line of "Jump to Conclusions" mats.

However uncomfortable, there is at least a little bit of truth in the sentiment that if parents beat their kids a little more, other people wouldn't have to.

My bro and I are adults but we look like kids. After canoeing down this river, we made it to the canoe ramp before everyone else did, because they sucked at steering, and they kept flipping over and wrecking. We were waiting to be loaded into the vans to take us back to where we parked, when these control freak dads came in and started picking who all went in the vans as if they were the employees of the canoe company. Of course they picked all thier loud annoying children and skipped us. We just stared at them stonefaced, and left to sit on a log and wait another 25 minutes for the next vans. When the next vans came, we both just jumped in them without the driver telling us to load up. It was a good thing we did, because if we didn't we would of probably had to wait another 25 minutes because another group of control freaks showed up with thier annoying kids. They all squeezed into the van behind us, but not all of them could fit on one trip. The control freaks looked at us like my bro and I were criminals for taking up "thier" space.

The kids on the drive back, peed on each other, gave each other titty twisters, tortured a frog they caught, spit on each other, and talked about thier sexual orientations. When we hopped out of the van at the end of the trip, my bro said, "It's good thing we got out of the van when we did because I was about to murder some kids." (sarcasticly). Both of us were waiting for one spitwad to hit the back of our heads to snap.

However uncomfortable, there is at least a little bit of truth in the sentiment that if parents beat their kids a little more, other people wouldn't have to.
There is even more truth in the sentiment that if parents beat their kids a little more, other people will have to throw them in jail later. Violence breeds violence.

The real problem here is that all too often parents simply don't invest the time necessary to be good parents. In single parent households, or households with both parents working, it can be difficult, but the parents often take the easy way out. Beatings are an easy way out. Rather than correcting the behavior, it just teaches the child to fear the parent and avoid getting caught.

Children fail to respect authority when the authority is used in an inconsistent and seemingly arbitrary manner. They decide the authority figure is stupid. And children get their impressions of authority figures primarily from their parents.

The driver could have presented realistic consequences and then followed through with them when the children failed to respond as directed. He was on the way there when he called the police and pulled the bus over. Had he simply stayed the course he would have won an important victory.

The kids on the drive back, peed on each other, gave each other titty twisters, tortured a frog they caught, spit on each other, and talked about thier sexual orientations.tipical N.A. kids.

This one brought to you from the intellectual school of Making $hit Up. He was not surrounded. He approached one boy, and his brother approached from behind. Neither was behaving in a physically aggressive manner. Your implication that all the children closed around him does not hold water.

And we're supposed to believe that based on what?
1. the walking area of a bus is narrow. as a result the only way out is through the back emergency door or the front door. if you look at the video there are people on both sides of the bus driver. as such, he has no way out and is surrounded. its all on video
2. you dont have to believe jack shit, its called reasonable doubt

1. the walking area of a bus is narrow. as a result the only way out is through the back emergency door or the front door. if you look at the video there are people on both sides of the bus driver. as such, he has no way out and is surrounded. its all on video
2. you dont have to believe jack shit, its called reasonable doubt
1) The one boy is standing behind the driver. The student standing in front of the driver is a girl who is uninvolved. It's hard to make out where she comes from exactly, because the driver's body is in the way when she does, but it looks like she moved out of the seat next to the other boy, getting out of the way.

Try again.

2) You've just contradicted yourself in grand moronic fashion. Think about what you just said for a minute.

And I'd just like to mention that I have seen a clip with audio now, and:

1) The bus driver demands a deputy over the radio but does not give any sort of explanation.
2) As soon as he puts down the radio he stomps aggressively to the back of the bus.
3) The older boy who steps behind him does say something, bleeped out because it's an expletive, but probably not a threat. A threat would have included a couple more words that didn't need to be bleeped.

The case is looking worse and worse for the driver.

http://www.theomahachannel.com/news/4519756/detail.html

Here's a link with the full audio in all its glory.

And are you ready to have this whole farcical notion of threat defeated utterly? Check out what the older boy says at the end, when they're back at the front of the bus. The boy shoves the driver and promises to knock him out. Driver's reaction? Nothing. He turns away. Does he look scared to you?

The driver was stupid and mean. He's just a bully who should not be allowed around children. The kids posed no threat to him.

And what was the driver doing by the kid up front before he stomped to the back?

Sometimes the youngins need to be taught a hard lesson. Now, was the driver a bit out of line? Most definately. Was it completely uncalled for and unprovoked? I don't know as I have Dial-up and the video doesn't download for me. Could someone get me a transcript?

Now, kids these days(I refer to 16 & some 17 year olds kids, and I'm only 18!) have zero respect. They are little jackasses only worried about A)Sex B)Disorder C)Sex D)Getting sex by ANY means. I lost it on a couple of really sick freaks-trust me, you don't want to know-, not one of them was able to walk after I was through with them, and the "leader" could barely move for three days. Trust me, they deserved it. E)Acting "cool"(Seriously, it's really funny these little 10th grade morons who think they have a chance in hell with Seniors or even people in college... then they meet these people's boyfriends), oh and F)Sex

Now, back when I was that young, if I talked back to or did something in the least bit offensive to a Senior, I'd get my ass kicked for here till sunday and back. But these days, we can't do shit. If we would even touch an underclassmen, even in self defense, we would get EXPELLED. What would they get? Oh, a few days of suspension. Just because "We were supposed to be examples to them". BULL. If they don't show respect, you make them. That's how I grew up in school. Showing respect got us nowhere and fast.

Fortunately, off school grounds was another thing. Those little bastards actually think they can stand a chance against me, let alone fight me. Cocky asses got what they deserved when off the grounds of school. Not to say I actually looked for fights with these little morons. No, it was always them. Hell, I could even handle words. But quickly they get balsy and take a shove, acting all cool, and get floored by whichever senior they decide to "act tough" with, sometimes me. Then I turned 18. Felonies. Great, can't touch these bastards, unless they hit me three times. Great.

Frankly, the lack of respect in the younger grades is astonishing. They have no respect, and will serve only to be a detriment to society.

so if i shoot you on the school bus, then the DA should do nothing and the school should expel me?

any crime can be dealt with a number of different authorities. I'm just saying that in this case the school is sufficient to handle the situation. (please excuse my spelling)

In my honest opinion it's the home life and the schools.
When the cane was in use children were beaten with the cane to show they were in the wrong. This was also done in front of the other children as an example.
Now it's my thoughts that if we continued with this then we'd not have some of the problems we have today. If things like this are tackled in a proper way then a lot of this can be stopped.
Children dont understand as much, but they've learnt that recently adults or people in charge cant do anything about them swearing and threatening them, before the kids would have learnt that respect needs to be given and that would in turn lead them into earning the respect of others because they learn to keep their mouths shut when they need to and to not threaten others.
Maybe schools could employ some other method of dealing with these problems. A lot of these kids vent at adults because they know nothing can be done. Maybe the introduction of some form of meditation might help? Who knows.
It's just my opinion because you never used to see children running around the streets causing mayhem, swearing, assaulting adults...and they take these values on with them into adulthood and so they carry on swearing to everyone else and assaulting whomever they please in front of their children and so it continues...

The problems with the children in this position the world over needs to be sorted out somehow.

And with that video, I'd say they're all in the wrong.
Kids shouldn't have been pushing it and such, the driver shouldn't have reacted the way he did...but what else can be done apart from saying "sit down please", "calm down please", "stop throwing things and making a mess"...there's no enforcement in these issues. The schools take it back to the parents, the parents who dont have any cares in the world go "oh right...he's grounded" and a few days later after staying in his bedroom with his video games he goes back out to cause trouble.

Enforcement helped before with the cane in schools...I think they should be bought back but then it is only my opinion, and it would also depend on the ability of the teachers to use their discretion.

15:27:35.04 Bus driver issues commands to boy in back.
15:27:43.76 Bus driver goes to radio for police.
15:27:47.62 Boys brother moves to edge of his seat, arms poised over seat.
15:27:52.54 Bus driver heads to rear of bus.
15:27:53.96 Bus driver passes boys brother.
15:27:53.26 Boys brother, after being passed by bus driver uses arm leverage to hoist from seat, falling in pace behind driver.
15:27:54.56 Boy kicks forward, looks to be an attempted tripping of the driver.
15:27:54.90 Bus driver begins turning around towards boys brother.
15:27:55.22 Bus driver confronts boy. Boy's hand is tensed over back of seat. (Appears to be saying something to the driver).
15:27:56.56 Bus driver attempts to grab boys neck, boy hunches to avoid.
15:27:56.84 Bus driver has back of boy's shirt, Boy twists, and grabs Bus drivers hand.
15:27:57.14 Bus driver has rear of boys neck, boy turns to head into seat.
15:27:57.72 Bus driver forces boy back into his seat (hand still placed into controling move).
15:27:58.20 Boy turns and swings at bus driver.
15:27:58.50 Bus driver uses other arm to block, as grip is held at rear of boys neck.
15:28:00.00 Boy uses leverage, arm agaisnt window to push into Bus driver. Breaking out of seat. (Bus driver maintains controling grip.)
15:28:02.14 Bus driver, still in controling grip, holds kid prostrate. Appears to be attempted communication with the boy.
15:28:04.34 Boy breaks from Bus drivers controling grip. Boy located in front of the bus stands before the camera.
15:28:04.76 Bus driver attempts resume of grip as boy continues attempt to flee to rear of bus.
15:28:06.62 Boy breaks grip again. Swings around to face driver.
15:28:06.08 Boy swings at bus driver again (unknown if there was contact.
15:28:08.08 Boy looks to make another attempted swing. Other boy (in front) stands, head is now blocking camera view.
15:28:12.65 Boy (in front) moves slightly, camera shows boy making another swing at the driver's head (with closed fist).
15:28:13.08 Boy (in front) moves again. Camera shows driver pushing boy again to the rear of the bus. Boy still fighting.
15:28:14.85 Driver gets boy into seat near rear of bus. (Other Boy in front's head is blocking direct sight of activity, his head turning towards the front of the Bus, possibly a call comming in).
15:28:18.88 Movement of Boy in front reveals LOS to activity again. Bus driver holding boy down in his seat.
15:28:18.31 Boy reaches us, and wraps hands around Driver's neck.
15:28:21.91 Original Boy, passes behind bus driver and moves to front of bus. Driver, get up, and turns towards Boy (in Blue). Brother gets up from seat, and approaches driver (again) from the rear.
15:28:24.57 Bus driver comes to front (looks to be responding to the call?).
15:28:25.61 Bus driver turns to see Boy behind him again.
15:28:25.27 Boy approaches even closer to driver.
15:28:26.65 Bus drivers arms raise (in slow manner) appears to be a controling or blocking move) Body is blocking most of view.
15:28:27.23 Driver appears to go for another controling move.
15:28:27.43 Boy breaks move and backs.
15:28:32.19 Boy approaches driver, gets in drivers face (saying something)... Driver appears very tensed.
15:28:32.25 Boy pushes driver.
15:28:33.67 Boy continues saying something as he backs up.
15:28:33.35 Driver turns to do something (radio/cell phone? again?)
15:28:44.67 Driver sits...

I'm sorry to all you people pissed for the driver getting a misdemeanor. But, after extensive look of the video. The driver likely shouldn't even have gotten that. The boys here were definitely seriously in the wrong. And deserve what they got.... What the driver did here is no different then what anyone else working in such a situation would have done... All moves the driver made were of controling nature, to handle a child who is in a completely aggressive state. All provoking moves, and actual attack moves were made by the boy.

Given all evidence available on the video. I must rule in favor of the driver.

Those boys only swung at the bus driver after the bus driver attacked one of them. The first attempt at physical contact in that video is made by the driver. The kids don't even swing back until quite a while after the bus driver goes on the offensive.

Those boys only swung at the bus driver after the bus driver attacked one of them. The first attempt at physical contact in that video is made by the driver. The kids don't even swing back until quite a while after the bus driver goes on the offensive.

The Driver attempted controling moves at a youth who was acting in an agressive manner. The first actual "swing" was initiated by the youth. As such, they deserve their juvie time. The driver might have been able to do better (I'm not sure), but he was being surrounded by two youths, who were being aggressive, and posing a threat.

I viewed the video. Made a point by point list of the actions taken by the parties, down to the points where they occured. I made my decision by the content and evidence presented in that point by point list of actions in the video.

The Bus driver made attempts to subdue the boys AFTER they surrounded him and posed in an agressive manner... Once the driver subdued one, the other began making moves. Whenever the drive would confront one, the other would act agressively.

I hope, in light of this, Drivers in Florida start carrying mace... That way they don't have to use "physical" force.

In this case, however, I believe, from the evidence in the video, that force was justified by the driver.... The two punks, on the other hand, should have shut up, and the step-brother should have kept is ignorant ass seated where he belonged, instead of trying to attack and assualt the driver.

The Driver attempted controling moves at a youth who was acting in an agressive manner. The first actual "swing" was initiated by the youth. As such, they deserve their juvie time. The driver might have been able to do better (I'm not sure), but he was being surrounded by two youths, who were being aggressive, and posing a threat.

I viewed the video. Made a point by point list of the actions taken by the parties, down to the points where they occured. I made my decision by the content and evidence presented in that point by point list of actions in the video.

The Bus driver made attempts to subdue the boys AFTER they surrounded him and posed in an agressive manner... Once the driver subdued one, the other began making moves. Whenever the drive would confront one, the other would act agressively.

I hope, in light of this, Drivers in Florida start carrying mace... That way they don't have to use "physical" force.

In this case, however, I believe, from the evidence in the video, that force was justified by the driver.... The two punks, on the other hand, should have shut up, and the step-brother should have kept is ignorant ass seated where he belonged, instead of trying to attack and assualt the driver.The kid was not being threatening. He was standing behind the bus driver with one hand resting on the seat and one hand by his side. The bus driver turned around, struck the kid, and then grabbed him by the neck. The brother should have done more than what he did do. His little brother was under attack.

In Britain, its the other way round. Juveniles can get away with anything, and be let off scot free. An adult who fires a BB gun at them to scare them off gets charged. British 'chav' youth are scum. There is no other way of describing them.

That's usually how it works in the US as well. This is a rarity.

Kids today know they can't legally be touched by anyone (even their parents now), and have realized that they can do pretty much anything they want. And a great many parents can't come to the realization that their "angels" are really assholes getting away with bullying, crime, etc. Discipline is sorely lacking in today's US society.

Suggestion to kids: Don't aggravate someone larger and stronger than you. They might not care about the law and break parts of you.

Suggestion to kids: Don't aggravate someone larger and stronger than you. They might not care about the law and break parts of you.

Suggestion: don't try to rob, rape, assault, or kill me. I'm pretty good at giving someone a lead shampoo.

Kids seem a little more arrogant and defiant than I remember. I dont like to generalize, but they seem pretty disrespectful-more than I remember when I was in my teens.
In any case, no matter how badly they behaved, if I heard and then saw video of anyone grabbing one of my children by the neck, as the driver did in this video, that person wouldnt make it to his hearing.

Suggestion: don't try to rob, rape, assault, or kill me. I'm pretty good at giving someone a lead shampoo.

Good point.

Kids seem a little more arrogant and defiant than I remember. I dont like to generalize, but they seem pretty disrespectful-more than I remember when I was in my teens.
In any case, no matter how badly they behaved, if I heard and then saw video of anyone grabbing one of my children by the neck, as the driver did in this video, that person wouldnt make it to his hearing.Damn straight. If that was my brother who had been assaulted, that bus driver wouldn't have made it off the bus.

If the board of education doesn't back this bus driver then you will likely see a lot of drivers seeking new employment. Nation-wide. Think about it, would you want that job? Make it too hard and busses won't be moving. And parents will need to get their kids to school -- a major inconvenience.

The parents have a stake in this and they might want to consider having their kids behave better.

Kids seem a little more arrogant and defiant than I remember. I dont like to generalize, but they seem pretty disrespectful-more than I remember when I was in my teens.
In any case, no matter how badly they behaved, if I heard and then saw video of anyone grabbing one of my children by the neck, as the driver did in this video, that person wouldnt make it to his hearing.
If that was my kid neither the bus driver nor my kid would have gotten off light I may disagree with what the bus driver did but there is no way in hell my kids would have gotten away with that either
They would have looked FORWARD to going to juvie hall rather then staying with me (not talking physical abuse but I would make their life a living hell till they learned)

The kid was not being threatening. He was standing behind the bus driver with one hand resting on the seat and one hand by his side. The bus driver turned around, struck the kid, and then grabbed him by the neck. The brother should have done more than what he did do. His little brother was under attack.

The step-brother, the moment the driver moves to contact authorities moves to the edge of his seat, poising (15:27:43.76-15:27:47.62)

The driver heads to the rear of the bus, (15:27:52.54), at the moment the driver passes the step-brother (15:27:53.26-15:27:53.96) the step-brother imediately falls in behind the driver... At this point the boy kicks forward, and the driver stumbles.

The driver turns (15:27:54.90-15:27:55.22) and confronts the boy, who poises his arm, tensed upon the seat... Appearantly saying something to the driver.

At 15:27:56.56 the driver attempts to grab the back of the boys neck. The boy lurches sideways to avoid the grasp. Grabs the drivers arm (15:27:56.84) but the driver manages to get the boy by the back of the neck (15:27:57.14) and move him to his seat (15:27:57.72).

The boy then turns and swings at the driver (first attempt to strike) at 15:27:58.20, but the driver manages to block (15:27:58.50). The boy then uses his leverage to push past the driver (15:28:00.00), though driver manages to retain controling grip.

Sorry, you're overruled. The video does not support your testimony. Perhapse if you actually WATCHED it, as opposed to glancing at it, you would be able to confront the testimony here.... While the driver probably used alittle more force than necessary. The boys were being agressive, posturing, and were commiting felony assult.

No where in the video does the driver strike the youths. Only using "controling" moves to attempt to subdue the two youths.

If you wish to provide evidence otherwise, feel free to do so.

I've got frames showing the driver attempting controling moves three times. And about 4 frames where the youth attempts to swing, or actually hits the driver. As well as a final scene where the youth gets in the bus drivers face, and pushes him again, against the front of the bus.

#1, The step-brother was acting in a manner, with fore-thought, and intent, towards aggression.
#2, The step-brother was the one initiating all attacks.
#3, The bus driver did not use anything but controling moves to subdue the aggressive youth.

If you can't see that, I'd suggest you go get your eyes examined.

Yep, the kids deserved it. Respect adults and crap like that doesn't happen, does it?

Tekania - good job!

I wish my bus drivers stood up for themselves like that if they did I may go back to using public transport

There is no doubt that he put his hands on the boy. His only way out of responsibility is to prove that the boys were threatening him. In other words, you have to prove the boys were guilty of a crime in order to acquit the driver. The boys are presumed innocent until proven guilty, which unfortunately means the driver is presumed guilty. It's a bummer, but it's not a very uncommon situation, constitution notwithstanding.

The driver is not presumed guilty. It must be shown that the driver could not reasonably felt threatened. I think Tekania pretty clearly shows that he could.

Do you have a transcript of the radio call to the police? The driver could have called the police for a wide range of issues that didn't necessarily relate to fear of violence to himself or the children.

The driver called the boy up to the front most likely to take him away from the other children at which point he called for the deputy. This suggests that he felt the boy was making the environment unsafe.

Bad behavior means many things, but you've already decided it means one particular thing. Another unproven assumption.

Bad behavior is a problem because it seriously degrades the safe environment required on a school bus. Anything that amounts to being out of control which these boys clearly were degrades the environment that the bus driver is required to protect.

It just so happens that you can't see the boy he was going back there to get, except for the top of a head. That's because until the driver attacked his brother, the other boy remained seated. That sort of dispels the whole "surrounded" nonsense.

I already covered the innocence part. By presuming the driver innocent you are presuming the children guilty of threatening behavior without any evidence to support the assumption.

Presuming the children guilty is perfectly acceptable if they are not on trial. Their trials will be seperate. In the driver's trial, it is acceptable to presume them guilty of threatening behavior particularly when it is supported by evidence. Also, I'm presuming them guilty of threatening behavior? I saw them behaving threatenly on video. Thank you for providing the link you did. It made it much clearer that boy was acting aggressively toward the driver.

Approaching someone from behind is not a crime, and is not considered a threatening act. If it were, we'd have brawls all over the mall. We already see the boy stand up in his seat twice before the driver walks to the back, and there is nothing threatening about it then, either.

Approaching someone from behind and saying something like, hey, asshole or the like and posturing the way the boy did is clearly threatening behavior. The boy appeared to be barely able to contain himself until the driver passed him.

Presumably the boy says something to the driver as he follows him, and what is said would naturally have a lot to do with establishing any threat perception.

There was definitely a body language of threat in the bus driver as he walked to the back, and the boy would be reasonable to assume that his brother is about to be assaulted. In this case, it would be the driver who is responsible for creating a threat environment, rather than the other way around.

The driver was in a position of authority and was trying to regain control. His behavior on the way to the back of the bus was in line with this.

Tekania: With all due respect, you're talking out of your ass here. You've made a lot of statements here which are categorically untrue, and I have to wonder which video you're watching.


15:27:54.56 Boy kicks forward, looks to be an attempted tripping of the driver.
Which boy was that? The older stepbrother does not kick out. The younger boy is seated to the outside of the bus and beyond reach. I see nothing anywhere that indicates what you're talking about. The only thing I can think of is that you're confused by the girl who pops out of her seat as the driver approaches.

15:27:55.22 Bus driver confronts boy. Boy's hand is tensed over back of seat. (Appears to be saying something to the driver).
Tensed on seat? That's a creative description. Apparently you only see what you want to see.

What he said was, "Hey !"

None of the rest of your sequence matters, because it's all after the driver initiates physical abuse.

I'm sorry to all you people pissed for the driver getting a misdemeanor. But, after extensive look of the video. The driver likely shouldn't even have gotten that. The boys here were definitely [b]seriously in the wrong. And deserve what they got.... What the driver did here is no different then what anyone else working in such a situation would have done... All moves the driver made were of controling nature, to handle a child who is in a completely aggressive state. All provoking moves, and actual attack moves were made by the boy.
The controlling moves were provoking moves, and the boys acted as provoked.
The Bus driver made attempts to subdue the boys AFTER they surrounded him and posed in an agressive manner... Once the driver subdued one, the other began making moves. Whenever the drive would confront one, the other would act agressively.

The boys had not surrounded him. The younger boy was still at his seat to the outside of the bus. A girl was standing in front of the driver in the aisle, and the older boy approached him from behind. There was nothing physically aggressive in the boy's approach. The younger boy never reacted in any sort of aggressive manner until after his brother was attacked... and not even until some time after repeatedly yelling "Get off of him!"

I'm afraid you're just making things up here.

The driver is not presumed guilty. It must be shown that the driver could not reasonably felt threatened. I think Tekania pretty clearly shows that he could.
On the basis of made-up facts which are not backed up by the video, the imaginary kick and the "tensed up" grip. The boy never tenses his grip on the seat until after he is grabbed.


The driver called the boy up to the front most likely to take him away from the other children at which point he called for the deputy. This suggests that he felt the boy was making the environment unsafe.
The boy was having a verbal confrontation with the other boy in the front of the bus, but he remained seated to the outside of a girl who (presumably) was not involved. The idea that there was any imminent danger to the other children is laughable.


Bad behavior is a problem because it seriously degrades the safe environment required on a school bus. Anything that amounts to being out of control which these boys clearly were degrades the environment that the bus driver is required to protect.
Explain how a bus driver promotes a safe environment by escalating an incident to the point of physical violence. In that scuffle, any number of innocent bystanders could have become injured. This represents flagrant disregard for the safety of ALL of the children.


Presuming the children guilty is perfectly acceptable if they are not on trial. Their trials will be seperate. In the driver's trial, it is acceptable to presume them guilty of threatening behavior particularly when it is supported by evidence. Also, I'm presuming them guilty of threatening behavior? I saw them behaving threatenly on video. Thank you for providing the link you did. It made it much clearer that boy was acting aggressively toward the driver.

The boy acted aggressively after the driver attacked him, not before.

Approaching someone from behind and saying something like, hey, asshole or the like and posturing the way the boy did is clearly threatening behavior. The boy appeared to be barely able to contain himself until the driver passed him.
There was nothing in the boy's posture which conveyed threat. If he intended to threaten, he would have balanced himself in a fighting stance, rather than standing straight-legged with one foot forward, a rather awkward stance. He would not have had a hand resting casually on the seat slightly behind him. Your tall tales suggest you know something about self-defense, so you should know better.


The driver was in a position of authority and was trying to regain control. His behavior on the way to the back of the bus was in line with this.
The boy in the back refused his command, and he went stomping to the back to force compliance. His older stepbrother objected, and received violence instead.

I've seen the video a few more tims in the past hours. As the drivers wades to the back of the bus, one boy closer to the front satnds up and in the aisle. I dont know what he said, but it doesnt matter-the driver turned around immediately and smacked the boy with his right hand on the boy's left side-the ear/neck area. This turned into the driver grabbing him by the neck. Policemen arent allowed to grab a violent adult offender by the neck.

The driver reacted out of anger and could barely control his rage-this could have turned out much worse. I am not saying the boys were right or wrong-they are BOYS. The driver was the adult. BE AN ADULT. He wasnt in control.

No-the boys shouldnt have been cursing and out of their seats.

If it were my children that he handled like that, I would have returned the favor. If the old coot survived, they would be debating wether or not to remove his feeding tube in a few months.

If I knew I was on camera, I would wait for someone to hit me before I laid into them.

That being said, it's local policy in our school district that if the bus driver reports you for a violation (the rules you signed at the beginning of the year along with your parents), you will be walking to school for the rest of the year.

On the basis of made-up facts which are not backed up by the video, the imaginary kick and the "tensed up" grip. The boy never tenses his grip on the seat until after he is grabbed.


The boy was having a verbal confrontation with the other boy in the front of the bus, but he remained seated to the outside of a girl who (presumably) was not involved. The idea that there was any imminent danger to the other children is laughable.


Explain how a bus driver promotes a safe environment by escalating an incident to the point of physical violence. In that scuffle, any number of innocent bystanders could have become injured. This represents flagrant disregard for the safety of ALL of the children.


The boy acted aggressively after the driver attacked him, not before.

There was nothing in the boy's posture which conveyed threat. If he intended to threaten, he would have balanced himself in a fighting stance, rather than standing straight-legged with one foot forward, a rather awkward stance. He would not have had a hand resting casually on the seat slightly behind him. Your tall tales suggest you know something about self-defense, so you should know better.


The boy in the back refused his command, and he went stomping to the back to force compliance. His older stepbrother objected, and received violence instead.

It is clear that many people here could see the boy was behaving in a threatening way prior to the busdriver touching him. You clearly have not seen a lot of fights. If you had you would learn a few things like most people know nothing about self-defense. You make it sound like every 15-year-old boy knows martial arts. Most don't, just as most adults don't. The boy lead with what is most likely his off-foot (left). That's a popular stance because it allows for your following, usually favored, hand to be more powerful. You'd also know this if you knew anything about self-defense. Yes, he's straight-legged (or mostly so) but again, you assume he knows the difference. Most people have no idea how to actually attack someone which is why so many fights end with no injuries. This fact does not change the driver's responsibilty to the children and to himself.

The boy jumped out of his seat and the kick that he made while exiting his seat may have been aimed at tripping the driver (which is what tekania saw), though I'm not sure this was the case. However, the boy moved to the outside of his seat before the driver passed and immediately jumped up as the driver passed. He yelled at the driver for attention which is exactly what I used to do when I was younger and more violent. I used to call people's attention because I thought it was more honorable to let them know I was coming. Again if you see a lot of fights you'll find that attacks vary from a complete sucker punch to the person clearly explaining they are about to hit the other person. In my opinion, the boy was clearly willing to do whatever he felt necessary to distract the driver from his brother. He appears to clear his hand from the seat by placing it on top of it. He does this before the driver passes so he can exit the seat more quickly and he does this as he approaches the driver. Why did he do when he approached the driver? I don't know. I'm not the boy. But neither do you and neither did the driver. It is a reasonable assumption that the boy cleared his hand to use it. The driver could reasonably feel threatened and unless we change the laws to be applied that way you suggest they should be then the driver is not guilty because he behaved in a reasonable manner. Would you like to offer any suggestions as to why the boy would approach the driver and yell obscenities at him if not to escalate the situation? Was it to protect his brother? Perhaps, but this still suggests that he was moving towards the driver to become physical. Whether or not the boy felt he needed to protect his brother, the driver was not in the wrong at this point. If the boy was moving in an effort to confront the driver and to protect the driver than the driver had every reason to feel like the teenaged boy was going to attack him. And he didn't have three days to discuss it on the internet. He had a few seconds to decide what to do and he did.

Also, your insults only prove that you do not feel your case is strong enough to rest on facts alone. You continue to call me a liar, but you cannot present any evidence that shows that the older boy (alone) could not have been a threat to the driver. You suggest it's ridiculous that the driver could feel threatened by the boy because of his size, but your suggestion does not bear out in reality.

Also, I am curious as to whether you've ever been in a classroom when a fight or a threat of a fight broke out. It is customary to remove the children involved from the other children. This is exactly what the driver attempted to do. The reason for this as I explained earlier is the responsibility of a caregiver to make sure a safe environment exists. To allow two children who are fighting or attempting to fight to remain in contact with the other children degrades the safety of the environment. The driver was attempting to regain control of the bus as is his duty when a third older boy confronts him. That in and of itself is agressive. However, you may add in, the shouting, the swearing/insult and the fact that the boy cleared his hand.

If I knew I was on camera, I would wait for someone to hit me before I laid into them.



Yeah-and I would give that kid in the front of the bus $10.00 to stand in the way while I did.

Yeah-and I would give that kid in the front of the bus $10.00 to stand in the way while I did.

That's what he did. The kid just wasn't sure where the camera was. Didn't you see the beginning of the video where the busdriver stood up and went to the kid in the front and gave him ten bucks?

:gundge: I couldn´t watch the video,so I´ll have a slice of humble pie to go with that green tea. All I know is that if youth is so wreckless,ungrateful,and loveless it´s the adult´s fault mainly. Whether or not due to a passive or agressive posture. We could try to save youth,but who´s gonna rehabilitate a grown-up,which is a sad excuse for a youngster only fatter,balder and no longer owner of his soul or his dreams?

It is clear that many people here could see the boy was behaving in a threatening way prior to the busdriver touching him. You clearly have not seen a lot of fights. If you had you would learn a few things like most people know nothing about self-defense. You make it sound like every 15-year-old boy knows martial arts. Most don't, just as most adults don't. The boy lead with what is most likely his off-foot (left). That's a popular stance because it allows for your following, usually favored, hand to be more powerful. You'd also know this if you knew anything about self-defense. Yes, he's straight-legged (or mostly so) but again, you assume he knows the difference. Most people have no idea how to actually attack someone which is why so many fights end with no injuries. This fact does not change the driver's responsibilty to the children and to himself.
I'm not saying the boy knows self-defense, but there are certain things people do instinctively. This is why I am placing so much emphasis on the boy's body language. Look at him prior to the grab. His hands are relaxed at his sides. His shoulders are slumped. His stance is casual.

Look at the driver prior to the grab. Every movement is punctuated, and exaggerated. Everything is faster and more forceful than necessary. His body language communicates aggression. The boy and the driver are a study in contrasts, until the driver starts a fight. Look at the boy's body language again when they move to the front of the bus and he threatens to knock the driver out. His hands are up in front of him, near his head. His motions are quick and forceful. That's what he looks like when he's being aggressive, which is quite different from how he was when he first approached the driver.

The boy jumped out of his seat and the kick that he made while exiting his seat may have been aimed at tripping the driver (which is what tekania saw), though I'm not sure this was the case.
The driver was already well past the kid when the kid came out of his seat, and I don't see a move that looks like a kick.

However, the boy moved to the outside of his seat before the driver passed and immediately jumped up as the driver passed.
The boy had been seated to the inside of the bus for the moments prior to the driver moving back. When he did sit down, his knee was in the aisle, and the driver pushed past. If this is Tekania's phantom kick, then he needs to look at it again.

He yelled at the driver for attention which is exactly what I used to do when I was younger and more violent. I used to call people's attention because I thought it was more honorable to let them know I was coming.
Another assumption. If you were correct, then the boy's body language would have argued along with you, but that's not the case. The boy could simply have been moving back there to yell at the driver. Since a child would naturally expect that a person of authority would not abuse him, he would have felt quite safe in confronting the driver verbally. The boy's body language argues for this interpretation.


Again if you see a lot of fights you'll find that attacks vary from a complete sucker punch to the person clearly explaining they are about to hit the other person. In my opinion, the boy was clearly willing to do whatever he felt necessary to distract the driver from his brother. He appears to clear his hand from the seat by placing it on top of it.
You're reading too much into the hand on the seat. If you watch him fidgeting in a bored manner in the moments before, you'll see that he usually has a hand on the seat. Habit.


He does this before the driver passes so he can exit the seat more quickly and he does this as he approaches the driver.
An argument for premeditation does not work, because the boy has no reason to suspect the driver is going to move to the back of the bus and extract his brother by force until he moves back there to do it.


Why did he do when he approached the driver? I don't know. I'm not the boy. But neither do you and neither did the driver. It is a reasonable assumption that the boy cleared his hand to use it.
Nope, for the reasons above. It is an unreasonable assumption.

Furthermore, you need to address your own contradiction here. In the beginning you argue he has no martial arts training, and then you argue that he knows enough to clear the path for his hand. Which is it?

The driver could reasonably feel threatened and unless we change the laws to be applied that way you suggest they should be then the driver is not guilty because he behaved in a reasonable manner.
I have suggested a change in the law? Where was that?

Would you like to offer any suggestions as to why the boy would approach the driver and yell obscenities at him if not to escalate the situation? Was it to protect his brother?
Covered. Verbal confrontation to protect his brother, safe in the mistaken knowledge that an adult in authority would not attack him.

Perhaps, but this still suggests that he was moving towards the driver to become physical. Whether or not the boy felt he needed to protect his brother, the driver was not in the wrong at this point. If the boy was moving in an effort to confront the driver and to protect the driver than the driver had every reason to feel like the teenaged boy was going to attack him. And he didn't have three days to discuss it on the internet. He had a few seconds to decide what to do and he did.
The driver had no business stalking to the back of the bus to pull a recalcitrant child out of his seat by force. The deputy was on its way. No further action on his part was required.

Also, your insults only prove that you do not feel your case is strong enough to rest on facts alone. You continue to call me a liar, but you cannot present any evidence that shows that the older boy (alone) could not have been a threat to the driver. You suggest it's ridiculous that the driver could feel threatened by the boy because of his size, but your suggestion does not bear out in reality.
Quit crying about your anecdotes. If you haven't yet recognized that everyone on the internet is married to a supermodel, drives a Viper, and has superhuman strength, then you haven't been on long. Your stories rank very low on the plausibility scale.

And AGAIN, if the driver felt threatened, then why did he turn his back after the boy clearly promised to knock him out? Answer that one this time, please.

Also, I am curious as to whether you've ever been in a classroom when a fight or a threat of a fight broke out. It is customary to remove the children involved from the other children. This is exactly what the driver attempted to do. The reason for this as I explained earlier is the responsibility of a caregiver to make sure a safe environment exists. To allow two children who are fighting or attempting to fight to remain in contact with the other children degrades the safety of the environment. The driver was attempting to regain control of the bus as is his duty when a third older boy confronts him. That in and of itself is agressive. However, you may add in, the shouting, the swearing/insult and the fact that the boy cleared his hand.
I don't know what you're talking about here. You're presuming that there was a previous altercation between two boys, which could only have involved the younger boy and the one sitting up front. The very first thing to do in a situation where a fight breaks out is to separate the combatants. They were already separated. Moving the boy to the front of the bus brings them together again for more fighting. A teacher does not order fighting students to stand in the same corner of the room. He keeps them separate and escorts them to the office to make sure there are no other incidents. Or, if the teacher cannot leave the rest of the class unattended, the teacher sends them to opposite corners of the room until another person in authority can be summoned.

The driver is an ignorant git who doesn't know what he's doing. All he does is escalate the situation.

I'm not saying the boy knows self-defense, but there are certain things people do instinctively. This is why I am placing so much emphasis on the boy's body language. Look at him prior to the grab. His hands are relaxed at his sides. His shoulders are slumped. His stance is casual.

It's not casual. He appear nervous and as if he's not sure what he is going to do. In the seat he appears to be deciding whether to get involved or not. I saw his motions as if several times he had decided to get up and confront the driver and decided against it. His language and approach contradict his being in a casual stance as does the placing of his foot and hand.

Look at the driver prior to the grab. Every movement is punctuated, and exaggerated. Everything is faster and more forceful than necessary. His body language communicates aggression. The boy and the driver are a study in contrasts, until the driver starts a fight. Look at the boy's body language again when they move to the front of the bus and he threatens to knock the driver out. His hands are up in front of him, near his head. His motions are quick and forceful. That's what he looks like when he's being aggressive, which is quite different from how he was when he first approached the driver.

The driver also appears nervous and he seems to putting on a show to try to establish his authority. The boy is nervous and he handles it differently. The largest difference occurs when the boy and driver confront each other. You claim the driver was being aggressive and yet the boy was casual in his stance. This suggests the boy did not find the driver threatening which contradicts your statements about the driver. Later after the driver has laid hands on the boy the boy knows to keep his hands up when aggressively approaching the driver. The driver made no such assumption about the boy because he can make no such assumption. The penalty for a boy attacking a man is much less likely to be as severe as the penalty for the man attacking the boy. Thus the boy has a relative confidence in his safety while the driver has no such confidence. Congratulations, you have just confirmed that the driver was afraid and the boy wasn't. Exactly my point. Thank you for making it so eloquently.

The driver was already well past the kid when the kid came out of his seat, and I don't see a move that looks like a kick.

The driver was just passing the kid as the kid came out of the seat. They were within arms distance when the boy was fully up.

Another assumption. If you were correct, then the boy's body language would have argued along with you, but that's not the case. The boy could simply have been moving back there to yell at the driver. Since a child would naturally expect that a person of authority would not abuse him, he would have felt quite safe in confronting the driver verbally. The boy's body language argues for this interpretation.

He definitely believed that the driver was not going to hit him. We agree on that point, though you made the claim that the driver was being threatening which is also not born out by the actions of the boys. The points you are making would be solid if we were assuming the boy would only attack if he was threatened (leeway you are not giving the driver). Their actions make it clear that the boy did not feel physically threatened by the driver. The question is did the driver feel physically threatened by the driver and he appears to be feeling exactly that.

You're reading too much into the hand on the seat. If you watch him fidgeting in a bored manner in the moments before, you'll see that he usually has a hand on the seat. Habit.

I don't believe was bored. I believe he was deciding whether or not to confront the driver. I would assume that the boy was aware that he would be in trouble for what he was doing and he appeared to be deciding if it was worth it. As you said, he seemed to give no consideration to the physical threat of the driver.

An argument for premeditation does not work, because the boy has no reason to suspect the driver is going to move to the back of the bus and extract his brother by force until he moves back there to do it.

The boy moved the edge of the seat just as the driver called in the problem and started back. Watch it again. I'll wait.

Nope, for the reasons above. It is an unreasonable assumption.

Furthermore, you need to address your own contradiction here. In the beginning you argue he has no martial arts training, and then you argue that he knows enough to clear the path for his hand. Which is it?

First, I think it's clear that you have no idea what the boy planned to do. In a situation between two adults it is reasonable to feel threatened if another adult begins swearing at you and closes on you like the boy did. If a bouncer was in the process of approaching one adult to remove him and another patron did what this boy did, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The difference is the bouncer would be better trained, and these were children and not men. But that is the only differences.

Second, which do you think requires a more extensive understanding of combat, standing in a more powerful and mobile position or putting your hand somewhere where it can actually reach your opponent unobstructed. Your average child wouldn't throw a ball at someone who was behind a tree.

I have suggested a change in the law? Where was that?

Where he is presumed guilty because the boys must be presumed innocent. All parties are presumed innocent when they get their day in court. That is the actual law.

Covered. Verbal confrontation to protect his brother, safe in the mistaken knowledge that an adult in authority would not attack him.

Verbal confrontation is aggressive. You must know this much or he wouldn't have to have any knowledge about attack. Do you evaluate the chances of attack when you are in a completely non-aggressive situation?

The driver had no business stalking to the back of the bus to pull a recalcitrant child out of his seat by force. The deputy was on its way. No further action on his part was required.

Again, he is responsible for removing potential threats from the bus. He attempted to do so with no force whatsoever. The boy refused. Grabbing the boy and removing him is standard practice and you would witness it in any grade school.

Quit crying about your anecdotes. If you haven't yet recognized that everyone on the internet is married to a supermodel, drives a Viper, and has superhuman strength, then you haven't been on long. Your stories rank very low on the plausibility scale.

Whether you believe I did those things, or married a supermodel (single), or drive a viper ('92 Cadillac Allante), people do, do those things, marry supermodels, and drive vipers. You seem to be arguing that they are impossible. They are not, which is my point. They aren't even all that unlikely given the number of fights that occur in the world, the number of married supermodels and the number of vipers sold.

And AGAIN, if the driver felt threatened, then why did he turn his back after the boy clearly promised to knock him out? Answer that one this time, please.

By this time, he had experienced an altercation with the boy. The boy's ability to hurt him was no longer speculation. He'd had time to evaluate his position and decide that perhaps to continue would aggravate the situation. All things he didn't have the luxury of before.

I don't know what you're talking about here. You're presuming that there was a previous altercation between two boys, which could only have involved the younger boy and the one sitting up front. The very first thing to do in a situation where a fight breaks out is to separate the combatants. They were already separated. Moving the boy to the front of the bus brings them together again for more fighting. A teacher does not order fighting students to stand in the same corner of the room. He keeps them separate and escorts them to the office to make sure there are no other incidents. Or, if the teacher cannot leave the rest of the class unattended, the teacher sends them to opposite corners of the room until another person in authority can be summoned.

I'm not assuming. They had an ongoing verbal altercation. As a result the driver pulls the bus over. He attempts to remove the two children from the bulk of the children which is standard practice. You don't seperate the combatants, you remove them from the non-offending children and then you deal with them. He was escorting them off the bus in order to deal with them or he may have been moving the boy to an area of the bus where he could be adequately monitored which commonly happened to me as a child. He was handling it exactly as he should have. It is unacceptable to leave an out of control child among a bunch of other children.

The driver is an ignorant git who doesn't know what he's doing. All he does is escalate the situation.

Unproven assumption. What is not assumed is the 'ignorant git' could tell the difference between the front and back of the neck which apparently isn't that easy, is it?

Tekania: With all due respect, you're talking out of your ass here. You've made a lot of statements here which are categorically untrue, and I have to wonder which video you're watching.


Which boy was that? The older stepbrother does not kick out. The younger boy is seated to the outside of the bus and beyond reach. I see nothing anywhere that indicates what you're talking about. The only thing I can think of is that you're confused by the girl who pops out of her seat as the driver approaches.

The older step-brother, KICKS OUT of his seat, IMMEDIATELY after the bus driver passes him.

http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/frame_1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/frame_2.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/frame_3.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/frame_4.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/frame_5.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/frame_6.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/frame_7.jpg

It's not casual. He appear nervous and as if he's not sure what he is going to do. In the seat he appears to be deciding whether to get involved or not. I saw his motions as if several times he had decided to get up and confront the driver and decided against it. His language and approach contradict his being in a casual stance as does the placing of his foot and hand.
You're assuming the boy had the ability to predict the future.


The driver also appears nervous and he seems to putting on a show to try to establish his authority. The boy is nervous and he handles it differently. The largest difference occurs when the boy and driver confront each other. You claim the driver was being aggressive and yet the boy was casual in his stance. This suggests the boy did not find the driver threatening which contradicts your statements about the driver.
Just because the driver was clearly angry does not mean the boy had reason to fear him. There is no contradiction if the child incorrectly believed that, as a school official, the driver would not attack him.

Later after the driver has laid hands on the boy the boy knows to keep his hands up when aggressively approaching the driver. The driver made no such assumption about the boy because he can make no such assumption. The penalty for a boy attacking a man is much less likely to be as severe as the penalty for the man attacking the boy. Thus the boy has a relative confidence in his safety while the driver has no such confidence. Congratulations, you have just confirmed that the driver was afraid and the boy wasn't. Exactly my point. Thank you for making it so eloquently.
You haven't made a point yet, and you've continually dodged every one I've made. The boy can expect the driver to hit him back if he decides to attack. Why would he attack a much larger person?



The driver was just passing the kid as the kid came out of the seat. They were within arms distance when the boy was fully up.
I doubt it. The perspective isn't helpful, but the driver is moving a whole lot faster than the kid, and the kid doesn't even move until the driver is past. The boy has to take a couple extra steps to get within arms reach.

He definitely believed that the driver was not going to hit him. We agree on that point, though you made the claim that the driver was being threatening which is also not born out by the actions of the boys. The points you are making would be solid if we were assuming the boy would only attack if he was threatened (leeway you are not giving the driver). Their actions make it clear that the boy did not feel physically threatened by the driver. The question is did the driver feel physically threatened by the driver and he appears to be feeling exactly that.
The driver had no reason to feel threatened.

I don't believe was bored. I believe he was deciding whether or not to confront the driver. I would assume that the boy was aware that he would be in trouble for what he was doing and he appeared to be deciding if it was worth it. As you said, he seemed to give no consideration to the physical threat of the driver.
Ridiculous. What possible motivation does the boy have for attacking the driver before the driver goes after his brother? The assumptions are getting wilder by the minute.


The boy moved the edge of the seat just as the driver called in the problem and started back. Watch it again. I'll wait.
What's your point?

If the boy wanted a pre-meditated attack, he would have sprung it before the driver moved past him. Your argument is retarded.

First, I think it's clear that you have no idea what the boy planned to do. But apparently you see directly into his head.

In a situation between two adults it is reasonable to feel threatened if another adult begins swearing at you and closes on you like the boy did.
Funny, I had a situation just like that a few months ago, and it never came to violence. I don't know where you live, but where I live, grown-ups can have spirited disagreements without coming to blows. In fact, that sort of thing is rather common here at work.


If a bouncer was in the process of approaching one adult to remove him and another patron did what this boy did, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The difference is the bouncer would be better trained, and these were children and not men. But that is the only differences.
Are you saying the kids were drunk?

Second, which do you think requires a more extensive understanding of combat, standing in a more powerful and mobile position or putting your hand somewhere where it can actually reach your opponent unobstructed. Your average child wouldn't throw a ball at someone who was behind a tree.
You don't know much about children, do you?

Where he is presumed guilty because the boys must be presumed innocent. All parties are presumed innocent when they get their day in court. That is the actual law.
You don't know much about the law, either.

First of all, save that crap about their day in court. We're having a debate here, which is a sort of mock trial. Let's not get all sanctimonious and think that what we're saying here has any bearing on what will happen.

That said... the driver is charged with misdemeanor assault. The video establishes his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Ergo, he is guilty. You and others here have argued a defense for him that he felt threatened by the boys. You are, in effect, arguing a defense based on a mitigating circumstance. The burden of proof for a mitigating circumstance in the US rests upon the defendant. He must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the boys threatened him.

Not bloodly likely.


Verbal confrontation is aggressive. You must know this much or he wouldn't have to have any knowledge about attack. Do you evaluate the chances of attack when you are in a completely non-aggressive situation?
Calling someone a name is a very different kind of aggression. Do you feel the need to punch out everyone who calls you a name?

Of course, you're the one-punch maniac.

Again, he is responsible for removing potential threats from the bus. He attempted to do so with no force whatsoever. The boy refused. Grabbing the boy and removing him is standard practice and you would witness it in any grade school.
So he's supposed to put troublesome kids on the street? How is that consistent with his mandate for protecting their safety?

This was not grade school. This was middle school. You handle things differently there. You call the appropriate authorities and let them deal with it.


By this time, he had experienced an altercation with the boy. The boy's ability to hurt him was no longer speculation. He'd had time to evaluate his position and decide that perhaps to continue would aggravate the situation. All things he didn't have the luxury of before.
There was never any reason to doubt the boy's ability or intention to hurt him before the altercation began.


I'm not assuming. They had an ongoing verbal altercation. As a result the driver pulls the bus over. He attempts to remove the two children from the bulk of the children which is standard practice. You don't seperate the combatants, you remove them from the non-offending children and then you deal with them. He was escorting them off the bus in order to deal with them or he may have been moving the boy to an area of the bus where he could be adequately monitored which commonly happened to me as a child. He was handling it exactly as he should have. It is unacceptable to leave an out of control child among a bunch of other children.
In what way is a child seated in his seat out of control?

Unproven assumption. What is not assumed is the 'ignorant git' could tell the difference between the front and back of the neck which apparently isn't that easy, is it?
It's even harder to discern a clenched hand, an aggressive stance, a kick, premeditation, or being surrounded. I got one detail wrong and admitted it, which proves I have the ability to learn from my mistakes. You've made many, and failed to admit a single one of them. The inability to learn from repeated mistakes has a name.

The older step-brother, KICKS OUT of his seat, IMMEDIATELY after the bus driver passes him.

http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/frame_1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/frame_2.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/frame_3.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/frame_4.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/frame_5.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/frame_6.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/frame_7.jpg
Which of those frames is supposed to be showing the kid striking at the driver with his foot?

Frames 3, 4, and 5 clearly show the older boy kicking the driver in either the glutes or the back of the leg. At this point, the boy is blocking the entire aisle, and has incited major hostility in the entire vehicle. The driver probably feels that the situation has escalated beyond control, and that the two fighters he broke up devised this latest incident in order to trap him in the back of the vehicle.
He's not sure if the police will arrive in time to prevent him from being badly hurt. His best option is to make an example of the alpha male, so that the pack of monkies can't follow his lead. Hence the grabbing of the neck... clearly the driver was threatened and felt the need to project an image of danger to others who were planning on attacking him.

The driver stumbles just before Frame 7, after the boy has kicked out. It is after that the boy, standing aggressively, with hand not relaxed that the driver turns.. Towards the boy. The boy remained in pace behind the driver. He was not "moving slower".

The step-brother got up aggressively.

Followed the driver aggressively.

Held an aggressive stance as the driver turned to him. (His hand was tensed, the other arm held FORWARD)

The first move by the driver is to attempt a control move. Grabing the boy by the back of the neck.

The boy ducks and twists.

The driver manages to get his shirt, and then commence a grasp of the BACK of the boys neck.

The boy is forced back into his seat. Whereby he then gets back out, and commences even more aggression towards the driver.

Sorry, my initial opinion was in favor of the boys when I saw this video on the news. Seeing it frame by frame, however, I have changed my opinion. The boys were DEFINITELY in the wrong here. And while the driver used more force than what may otherwise be necessary, I would have to assume I would take the same course of action, viewing these two deliquent juveniles' acts.

Your assumption that the boy was not posturing aggressively, is not true.

Your assumption the driver hit the boy, is not true.

If you continue your course, you will be ignored as a troll.

Let's get this back to simplicity. The driver moves up to discipline a boy who is acting out of line, normal enough, seen it a dozen times myself.

At this stage, usually it breaks up and he can return to the cab and drive on.

In this case, someone stands up behind him and yells in his ear. There's only oe response I would see available there. Turn and take control of the situation. If you ignore him he might wind up a punch or it would encourage others to take a stand.

He took control with aggression. Too much aggression IMO but some level of aggression was required. When he turned he had a fraction of a second to decide his move, he elected to strike physically. Personally I suspect I would have done much the same, minus the punch (and there was a punch, it sent the boy reeling before the driver grabbed him).

He's in a bad position and he knows it, whatever turn he takes he is surrounded, someone can strike from behind and the situation is escalating.

Another reply from the school of making $hit up.

Frame 1: Boy seated, looking at driver as he passes.
Frame 2: Boy turns body to the right. Left foot planted on the ground. Right foot still in the seat.
Frame 3: Boy rises from seat. Left foot still planted on the ground. Right foot behind him, right knee on seat.
Frame 4: Boy has finished rising. Left foot still planted. Right leg begins sliding forward off the seat, knee first.
Frame 5: Right foot is headed for the ground, but there was a little hop-step in between frames with the left foot in order to get the right foot clear of the seat. This is why the left foot appears to be located a few inches to the left of the frame between 4 and 5.
Frame 6: Right foot planted on the ground, stepping off of the left.
Frame 7: Left foot forward and planted on the ground, right foot planted on the ground. Right hand open and lying casually on the seat. Left hand hanging in front of him.

You can ignore me if you like, but I am no troll. I'm simply holding you accountable for the ridiculous things you attempt to pass off as proven facts.

You're assuming the boy had the ability to predict the future.

Really? Only if deciding what he will do in the future is predicting the future. The driver was already confronting his brother and the child that were having it out. The boy knew this. He knew his brother was in trouble and appeared to be considering joining in the fray or leaving things alone. We know which one he decided.

Just because the driver was clearly angry does not mean the boy had reason to fear him. There is no contradiction if the child incorrectly believed that, as a school official, the driver would not attack him.

We agree. The boy did not believe that an adult would strike him.

You haven't made a point yet, and you've continually dodged every one I've made. The boy can expect the driver to hit him back if he decides to attack. Why would he attack a much larger person?

No, I am suggesting that you don't know and that to come in here and call everyone stupid confirms that you don't know. I'm dodging the point? I'm suggesting yours is ignorant. The driver will likely lose his job and he will not likely be convicted. I feel like he felt like the boy was going to attack him and he tried to control the boy. This is clear in his methods of attack.

You're wrong. Children often believe that a larger person will not defend themselves even when provoked. In fact so do smaller people at times. People often attack people larger than them. Sometimes out of anger, sometimes out of fear, sometimes just because they're ornery. The boy appears to be acting out of all three of these, though this can't be confirmed by the video. What can be confirmed is that the boy approached the driver and was aggressive and the driver saw him as a threat.

I doubt it. The perspective isn't helpful, but the driver is moving a whole lot faster than the kid, and the kid doesn't even move until the driver is past. The boy has to take a couple extra steps to get within arms reach.

Your video clips show clearly that boy started out of the seat the moment the driver began to pass him. Thanks again for clearly making a point for me.

The driver had no reason to feel threatened.

You're correct, if you live in a fantasy land where adults never get beat up by teenage boys. Too bad that isn't a place called Earth.

Ridiculous. What possible motivation does the boy have for attacking the driver before the driver goes after his brother? The assumptions are getting wilder by the minute.

Explained above. Attacks are not always physical. I do believe the boy may have just planned to behave aggressively but not necessarily physically until the driver went after his brother. Why? I can't even tell you why I did it some of the time. I was a teenager and hormones make you nuts. The boy does appear nervous and he appears to trying to decide what to do. I personally believe that he was trying decide whether to get involved.

And yes, I'm making assumptions. So are you. We are talking about what we BELIEVE happened. My assumptions are supported by the video. Yours and some of the assumptions of others on here are not.

What's your point?

If the boy wanted a pre-meditated attack, he would have sprung it before the driver moved past him. Your argument is retarded.

The point is that boy was behaving aggressively. Closing the space between you and another person while yelling and cursing is aggressive. And if he was trying to spring an unexpected attack he may have sprung it then. But he doesn't appear to be trying to surprise the busdriver. He appears to expect that he is going to be the aggressor since the driver won't attack him so he has not reason to SPRING anything.

I like how you claim to know exactly how the boy would have handled the situation if he were being physically aggressive and then later accuse ME of thinking I can see inside his head.

Meanwhile, my 'retarded' argument shows that you need you eyes and ears checked as what I said is clearly exactly what happened in the video.

But apparently you see directly into his head.

You can't tell the difference between the statement "the boy appears to be deciding" and "I know the boy was doing x". I'm guessing. Just like you're guessing. And the driver was guessing. It will likely be found that the driver had reason to believe that boy was being physically aggressive and attempted to restrain him.

The difference between my assumptions and yours is that none of mine have been proven wrong and that I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot.

Funny, I had a situation just like that a few months ago, and it never came to violence. I don't know where you live, but where I live, grown-ups can have spirited disagreements without coming to blows. In fact, that sort of thing is rather common here at work.

I like how my anecdotes are not admissable to the argument but yours are. Let me explain to you how logic works. If I want to prove that something could happen a certain way, I only need give one example of it happening. If I want to prove that something couldn't happen that way, one example of it happening another way means jack shit. Meanwhile, you can't dispute that to scream obscenities at someone while closing on them can and sometimes will be viewed as threatening. Your example says nothing about that fact.

Are you saying the kids were drunk?

Did I say the bar patrons were? I don't believe that was part of my analogy, was it?

You don't know much about children, do you?

Huh? So a fifteen-year-old doesn't know that a ball won't pass through a tree. Yes, it's certainly a problem with my understanding.

You don't know much about the law, either.

Really? I seem to know what innocent until proven guilty means. I didn't realize understanding that phrase was so difficult.

First of all, save that crap about their day in court. We're having a debate here, which is a sort of mock trial. Let's not get all sanctimonious and think that what we're saying here has any bearing on what will happen.

Yes, and I'm claiming that he will not be found guilty, for one. Two, you came in here and called everyone stupid who didn't see the video the way you saw it. Even though many of your claims about the video have been proven false.

That said... the driver is charged with misdemeanor assault. The video establishes his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Ergo, he is guilty. You and others here have argued a defense for him that he felt threatened by the boys. You are, in effect, arguing a defense based on a mitigating circumstance. The burden of proof for a mitigating circumstance in the US rests upon the defendant. He must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the boys threatened him.

Not bloodly likely.

Again, you're wrong. I do smile everytime you make up the law so please continue. I can walk into a precinct and tell them that I was being robbed and that I stabbed a guy in the chest and killed him. They would have to show that it is not reasonable to believe the man was robbing me or I go free. The fact that I admit to stabbing the person does not place the burden of proof on me. This is called innocent until proven guilty. I know you've heard of it because you've mentioned it. The act is the only burden for guilty. There are other factors which you choose to ignore but others don't.

Calling someone a name is a very different kind of aggression. Do you feel the need to punch out everyone who calls you a name?

No, but if the were approaching the way this kid did and they were yelling and swearing, I might try to control them as the driver did. However, the point isn't what I would do in every situation, but whether it was reasonable for the driver to do it in this situation. It appears to be but their are other factors we don't know as I pointed out before.

Of course, you're the one-punch maniac.

Flaming. So I'll ignore. My arguments are good enough to not require such tactics.

So he's supposed to put troublesome kids on the street? How is that consistent with his mandate for protecting their safety?

He wasn't leaving them behind. He was removing them from the situation and dealing with it. You've never seen this before? What high school did you go to?

This was not grade school. This was middle school. You handle things differently there. You call the appropriate authorities and let them deal with it.

This was High School. The boy was fifteen. And I don't know what high school you went to, but teachers and other authorities often removed potentially violent children from the rest of the group. But then my high school hired security guards the year after I graduated.

I happen to know for a fact that teachers in that area do remove children in the same the driver attempted to as well as my sister-in-law is a teacher just south of where this occurred. To be fair, she knows nothing of the case that we don't know and thinks the driver probably overreacted (she has not seen the video), but she did comment that it would have been expected for the driver to remove the boys from the bus.

There was never any reason to doubt the boy's ability or intention to hurt him before the altercation began.

Again, I would love to live in a world where authority figures never get attacked by teenagers. Send me a ship and a map and we'll have a beer.

In what way is a child seated in his seat out of control?

Two children were swearing and threatening each other. Where I come from this is out of control. That you think it isn't is precisely why children behave this way.

It's even harder to discern a clenched hand, an aggressive stance, a kick, premeditation, or being surrounded. I got one detail wrong and admitted it, which proves I have the ability to learn from my mistakes. You've made many, and failed to admit a single one of them. The inability to learn from repeated mistakes has a name.

Are you arguing with me or with everyone else? I didn't say he had a clenched hand, a kick (I said it was possible that he attempted it when he threw his leg out but I thought he was just jumping up), or that anyone was surrounded. According to you premeditation is impossible because the boy had no way of knowing the driver was coming. The tapes doesn't follow your logic (or lack of it). I said he behaved aggressively which is born out by the facts. You admit he was aggressive but you claim that being verbally aggressive does not allow you to feel threatened. This is simply not true. You apparently can't tell the difference between my name and the names of others as you attribute other people's claims to me, the kick, the clenched hand, the driver was surrounded, etc. Please take a course in reading comprehension and then return to this thread. I'm patient so again I'll wait.

Meanwhile, you were clearly wrong about the boy beginning to move the moment the driver passed (thanks for proving that with your caps by the way), the driver choking the boy, what constitutes aggression, the law, and who said what. Again, forgive me if I rely on the logic of more reasonable people and my own eyes, before I rely on you, to decide what happened.

Now, I can see why people at your work often resort to name-calling and yelling if you are an example of the individuals there. It is common practice to resort to such things when logic fails. You can either refrain from doing so here or I will assume you realize your logic has failed and are unwilling to admit it and, as such, I will stop wasting my explanations on you.

Really? Only if deciding what he will do in the future is predicting the future. The driver was already confronting his brother and the child that were having it out. The boy knew this. He knew his brother was in trouble and appeared to be considering joining in the fray or leaving things alone. We know which one he decided.
What fray? Before the driver moves to the back, there is no fray.

It's also very relevant to know what the driver is doing with that other boy in front of the bus before moving back. If, as it appears, the driver is manhandling the other boy, that would give the stepbrother sufficient cause for alarm.

No, I am suggesting that you don't know and that to come in here and call everyone stupid confirms that you don't know. I'm dodging the point? I'm suggesting yours is ignorant. The driver will likely lose his job and he will not likely be convicted. I feel like he felt like the boy was going to attack him and he tried to control the boy. This is clear in his methods of attack.
It's not clear at all. The bus driver could have settled on controlling moves as being non-aggressive enough that he might get away with them. His story certainly didn't support the video.

You're wrong. Children often believe that a larger person will not defend themselves even when provoked. In fact so do smaller people at times. People often attack people larger than them. Sometimes out of anger, sometimes out of fear, sometimes just because they're ornery. The boy appears to be acting out of all three of these, though this can't be confirmed by the video. What can be confirmed is that the boy approached the driver and was aggressive and the driver saw him as a threat.
You keep repeating that the driver saw him as a threat, but you're not making the case.

Your video clips show clearly that boy started out of the seat the moment the driver began to pass him. Thanks again for clearly making a point for me.
What does this prove? That the boy was concerned for the brother's safety? Duh.

Explained above. Attacks are not always physical. I do believe the boy may have just planned to behave aggressively but not necessarily physically until the driver went after his brother. Why? I can't even tell you why I did it some of the time. I was a teenager and hormones make you nuts. The boy does appear nervous and he appears to trying to decide what to do. I personally believe that he was trying decide whether to get involved.
Now we're getting somewhere. You've admitted attacks are not always physical. I have argued that the boy intended to attack the driver verbally, but had no intention of attacking physically. The question is, why does the driver have to assume he is about to be attacked physically? Serious error of judgement, and he's not allowed to get away with physical abuse as a result. You don't just get to say, "Ooops. My bad."


And yes, I'm making assumptions. So are you. We are talking about what we BELIEVE happened. My assumptions are supported by the video. Yours and some of the assumptions of others on here are not.
Name one statement I have made within the last few posts which is not supported by video and audio evidence.


The point is that boy was behaving aggressively. Closing the space between you and another person while yelling and cursing is aggressive. And if he was trying to spring an unexpected attack he may have sprung it then. But he doesn't appear to be trying to surprise the busdriver. He appears to expect that he is going to be the aggressor since the driver won't attack him so he has not reason to SPRING anything.
It's aggressive, but not physically so. The driver is in no danger of attack.

I like how you claim to know exactly how the boy would have handled the situation if he were being physically aggressive and then later accuse ME of thinking I can see inside his head.
I don't have to guess, since we have video evidence of his natural behaviors before aggressive intent and after.

The difference between my assumptions and yours is that none of mine have been proven wrong and that I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot.
Wrong. You've had several assumptions proven wrong.

I like how my anecdotes are not admissable to the argument but yours are. Let me explain to you how logic works. If I want to prove that something could happen a certain way, I only need give one example of it happening. If I want to prove that something couldn't happen that way, one example of it happening another way means jack shit. Meanwhile, you can't dispute that to scream obscenities at someone while closing on them can and sometimes will be viewed as threatening. Your example says nothing about that fact.
At least my anecdotes happen in real life.


Did I say the bar patrons were? I don't believe that was part of my analogy, was it?
Bouncers are trained to deal with people who are drunk and aggressive. They are going to assume people are capable of anything because they work in an environment where people are capable of anything. Your analogy does not work.


Again, you're wrong. I do smile everytime you make up the law so please continue. I can walk into a precinct and tell them that I was being robbed and that I stabbed a guy in the chest and killed him. They would have to show that it is not reasonable to believe the man was robbing me or I go free. The fact that I admit to stabbing the person does not place the burden of proof on me. This is called innocent until proven guilty. I know you've heard of it because you've mentioned it. The act is the only burden for guilty. There are other factors which you choose to ignore but others don't.
Try it.

This was High School. The boy was fifteen. And I don't know what high school you went to, but teachers and other authorities often removed potentially violent children from the rest of the group. But then my high school hired security guards the year after I graduated.
High school, eh? Did they have a lot of 13 year-olds at your high school? Do they have a lot of high schools with names like Punta Gorda Middle School?

I happen to know for a fact that teachers in that area do remove children in the same the driver attempted to as well as my sister-in-law is a teacher just south of where this occurred. To be fair, she knows nothing of the case that we don't know and thinks the driver probably overreacted (she has not seen the video), but she did comment that it would have been expected for the driver to remove the boys from the bus.
The driver didn't try to move the boys from the bus. He tried to move them to the front.

Two children were swearing and threatening each other. Where I come from this is out of control. That you think it isn't is precisely why children behave this way.
Two children sitting in their seats exchanging insults is fairly common. What middle school did you attend where nobody cussed at each other but they all came to blows?


Are you arguing with me or with everyone else? I didn't say he had a clenched hand, a kick (I said it was possible that he attempted it when he threw his leg out but I thought he was just jumping up), or that anyone was surrounded. According to you premeditation is impossible because the boy had no way of knowing the driver was coming. The tapes doesn't follow your logic (or lack of it). I said he behaved aggressively which is born out by the facts. You admit he was aggressive but you claim that being verbally aggressive does not allow you to feel threatened. This is simply not true. You apparently can't tell the difference between my name and the names of others as you attribute other people's claims to me, the kick, the clenched hand, the driver was surrounded, etc. Please take a course in reading comprehension and then return to this thread. I'm patient so again I'll wait.
Sorry, dude, but you have parroted the claims of others, thereby tarring yourself with the same brush. Try to remember which posts are yours, and read them again.

Meanwhile, you were clearly wrong about the boy beginning to move the moment the driver passed (thanks for proving that with your caps by the way), the driver choking the boy, what constitutes aggression, the law, and who said what. Again, forgive me if I rely on the logic of more reasonable people and my own eyes, before I rely on you, to decide what happened.
What point do you think you won here? The first frame shows the kid sitting and watching as the driver walks past, so you've proven nothing. Obviously there was a delay. But even if the boy rose instantaneously... what does that prove? Nothing.

Now, I can see why people at your work often resort to name-calling and yelling if you are an example of the individuals there. It is common practice to resort to such things when logic fails. You can either refrain from doing so here or I will assume you realize your logic has failed and are unwilling to admit it and, as such, I will stop wasting my explanations on you.
Thank you. You need to stop. I can afford to become a little stupider every time I'm exposed to one of these farcical explanations, but some people can't.

They have made their points and you have made yours and you all sound like prats to me.

Just to ensure we realise this thread's value. The schoolboys acted like Hitler.

'night.

They have made their points and you have made yours and you all sound like prats to me.

Just to ensure we realise this thread's value. The schoolboys acted like Hitler.

'night.
no, your thinking of the pope.
i hate people who compare things to hitler for no reason. here is their logic
hitler=bad
schoolboys=bad
schoolboys=hitler
what?

Well hmmmmm

I am not sure.

The video alone seems pretty one sided as there isn't any sound.

The two kids got pretty vulgar with the driver and pretty much told him to go f himself.

Did he over react? Could be.

However, I read about a guy in England(just got back), who exchanged words with some teens and they ended up beating him to death. So can you really simply label all situations as "children acting up?"

I would not be surprised if Florida has some new laws about youth violence. It might describe the "harshness" of the punishment.

England said they were going to review things as "children" are getting out of hand. For example, there is something called "slap happy" (if I heard that right) where you basically walk up to a stranger or another kid and slap them.

Ahh well......

what?
He was invoking Godwin's law (neglecting the corollaries, and there's probably a corollary about neglecting corollaries) in an attempt to illustrate how played out this is, and how little room there is left for fresh reasonable disagreement. He, you and I, Likewise Fail It. We will go on to have nice days.

watching the Video over and over and it does 'Look' bad for the driver, however, there is one little fact that is missing. What went on before the Bus pulled over.

The driver claims that the kid refused to calm down. Now on a school bus, that can be very dangerous. A distracted driver (one who is responsible for the safty of all studens on the bus) can cause a major accident or if the student gets hurt inside the bus, the Driver is still responsible.

Now, whether or not you respect the driver as a person, you have to respect him as the Driver of the Bus. The passenger's safty is his responsibility. Like the captain of a ship, while you're on the Bus, his word is law.

Now wether or not he overstepped his duties as the Bus Driver I leave in the courts hands, but without seeing the whole video (and determining whether or not the driver did try to calm the student down before pulling the bus over and what exactly the student was doing) we can only speculate.

But one thing is certain. Most laws pertaining the authority of the Bus Driver is that he is the Authority on the Bus, the student pushed it by not listening to him and his older brother should've just stayed put.

The parent's can appeal and fight the decision, and they can also sue the driver for.... what's that popular ailment... oh yeah... Emotinal Distress for their two boys.

People wonder what he was doing to the student in the front seat, looks like he picked something up and put it behind/to the side of the first student. he then tells the boy in the back to come up to the front.

They have made their points and you have made yours and you all sound like prats to me.

Just to ensure we realise this thread's value. The schoolboys acted like Hitler.

'night.
And how exactly are they acting like Hitler?

And how exactly are they acting like Hitler?
like i said
schoolboys=bad
hitler=bad
schoolboys=hitler

like i said
schoolboys=bad
hitler=bad
schoolboys=hitler
Yeah I saw that but figured it beared re pointing out :p

What fray? Before the driver moves to the back, there is no fray.

They make these things called dictionaries. Use them. They will help you not look silly.

Fray - A heated dispute or contest.

The driver gets involved in the fray as he is required to do. The boy appears to decide whether to become involved in the FRAY.

It's also very relevant to know what the driver is doing with that other boy in front of the bus before moving back. If, as it appears, the driver is manhandling the other boy, that would give the stepbrother sufficient cause for alarm.

So now the boy believes he IS going to be physically attacked? Make up your mind.

It's not clear at all. The bus driver could have settled on controlling moves as being non-aggressive enough that he might get away with them. His story certainly didn't support the video.

What story? Was his side of the story posted here and I missed it. You're right he could have. Could have is not good enough for a conviction.

You keep repeating that the driver saw him as a threat, but you're not making the case.

I'm making the case. You're having a difficult time seeing past your own prejudices, e.g. "he's an ignorant git".

What does this prove? That the boy was concerned for the brother's safety? Duh.

Again, changing your tune, aren't you? Or should I say changing your tune again. Let's be clear, either the boy felt the driver was physically threatening to his brother or he didn't. State your claim clearly. Because you change it to dispute various aspects of the possibility that the boy was being aggressive and could have been seen as planning a physical attack.

My claim - the driver appears to feel physically threatened by the boy and moves to control him. The boy appears to intend initially to enter the fray and attack the driver verbally but later decides to behave in a way that could be construed as physically agressive.

Now we're getting somewhere. You've admitted attacks are not always physical. I have argued that the boy intended to attack the driver verbally, but had no intention of attacking physically. The question is, why does the driver have to assume he is about to be attacked physically? Serious error of judgement, and he's not allowed to get away with physical abuse as a result. You don't just get to say, "Ooops. My bad."

If it is reasonable to feel physically threatened, and you certainly haven't shown that he didn't, then the intentions of the boy don't matter at all. The law can't say well if you could have looked in his head you wouldn't have felt threatened. It's not based on whether it's more likely that the boy was not physically threatening. It's only based on whether the busdriver could have felt physically threatened. I've admitted attacks are not always physical but the sometimes are. Sometimes is good enough to feel threatened. Moral of the story, don't approach someone while yelling and cursing at them and acting aggressively if you don't want to punched in the mouth. He could have remained in his seat and yell and cursed and the driver would have reason to try to stop him but no reason to feel threatened. Or he could have said something calmer while approaching him. The combination of the aggressive words and the aggressive approach could and often will be viewed as a possible prelude to attack.

Name one statement I have made within the last few posts which is not supported by video and audio evidence.

So only the last few posts count? Hmmm... I thought this was an entire conversation.

It's aggressive, but not physically so. The driver is in no danger of attack.

According to you. You don't know that and neither did the driver. Can you see into the boy's head?

I don't have to guess, since we have video evidence of his natural behaviors before aggressive intent and after.

So you have video evidence that if the boy wanted to physically attack the driver he would have "sprung his trap" when the driver was next to his seat or before his seat? I guess I don't see that evidence. Can you point it out? Just to be clear, your statement that I was replying to is this - "If the boy wanted a pre-meditated attack, he would have sprung it before the driver moved past him."

Sorry. I often make my arguments assuming you can read and follow the conversation. From now on, I'll try to make sure I add quotes of you or me that make the conversation clearer so you can more adequately reply. No insult intended but I don't believe you were actually attempting to say you have video evidence to support your claim of knowing how the boy would attack.

Wrong. You've had several assumptions proven wrong.

Interesting. Which one's? Feel free to use quotes. Now remember, proven, no assumptions here.

For yours that were wrong, you claimed the boy wasn't aggressive which you now admit he was. You claimed the busdriver choked him, which in fact didn't happen. You claimed the boy had no reason to feel physically threatened, which is, in fact, born out by his not appearing defensive the first but appearing defensive the second time he approached the driver. Now, you claim that the boy may have been worried for his brother's safety. You say the boy didn't get up immediately after the driver passed but show frames of video where that clearly happens. You claim the boy's stance was casual but you can see the boy's left foot is forward and his hand is on the seat and not by his side. It doesn't make it a physically agressive stance necessarily, but it certainly isn't casual.

At least my anecdotes happen in real life.

Ah, yes, we're back to I haven't seen it so it doesn't happen. We know that children never beat up adults. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!!

Bouncers are trained to deal with people who are drunk and aggressive. They are going to assume people are capable of anything because they work in an environment where people are capable of anything. Your analogy does not work.

In fact, many bouncers aren't all that trained. Many are just big. They are experienced, however. And you admit that the behaviors of the boy can be seen as physically aggressive, but according to you it only counts if the boy is in a bar. Good thing to know you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Also, when people are trained they are much more likely to be able to be comfortable in a situation and not feel threatened. It's the reason I think all bouncers should be trained to certain level and I think the law should uphold this.

The driver was not trained and is not expected to be so it is reasonable for him to react aggressively when a teenager approaches him in an aggressive manner.

Try it.

I'm going to ignore this as it doesn't address the point and it continues to show your ignorance of the law.

High school, eh? Did they have a lot of 13 year-olds at your high school? Do they have a lot of high schools with names like Punta Gorda Middle School?

The original article didn't mention the school name so admittedly I made an incorrect assumption. Ah, yes, and here I stand corrected. And so do you. Yes, many of the children at my High School were thirteen, including myself my first year. I graduated at 17 as do and did many children at my school and across the US.

None of the boys at my middle school were fifteen, that's for certain. Most children are in high school by fourteen. Hmmm... I wonder what it says about the boy if he's still in middle school at fifteen. That kid either got held back or he started school quite late.

The driver didn't try to move the boys from the bus. He tried to move them to the front.

How do you know this? Now, you can see the future? I also happened to have suggested that moving them to the front was also a possibility. We can't see the boy in the back and neither can he. If he is moving the boy to the front it will allow him to keep an eye on him.

Two children sitting in their seats exchanging insults is fairly common. What middle school did you attend where nobody cussed at each other but they all came to blows?

They don't always. But everytime it started the teacher's treated it like it might. They aren't supposed to wait till one child pokes another in the eye. You can't accept that the fact that some of them don't come to blows has no bearing. If some of them do the driver has reason to believe that this one might.

Sorry, dude, but you have parroted the claims of others, thereby tarring yourself with the same brush. Try to remember which posts are yours, and read them again.

No, I haven't. I only used one other name this whole time and I only said that he clearly disproved one of your claims. I didn't say I agreed with him on the whole. In fact, I said I don't really believe the boy kicked the driver, but I can see what looked to him like the boy did. How about you try to remember which posts are mine and read them again. Or you're free to show where I made all these claims. You won't. You can't. Because I didn't. I am Jocabia. Write that down so you can keep it straight. I'll wait.

So did everyone here who thinks the driver is wrong call everyone who doesn't stupid? Nope. Just you. I can tell the difference between one person who is unable to support his/her discussion with facts so he/she resorts to insults and the rest of the individuals who are quite capable of a reasonable (there's that word again) discussion.

What point do you think you won here? The first frame shows the kid sitting and watching as the driver walks past, so you've proven nothing. Obviously there was a delay. But even if the boy rose instantaneously... what does that prove? Nothing.

You can't see the boy rising immediately after the driver passes?!? Wow, I guess this discussion really is pointless.

Thank you. You need to stop. I can afford to become a little stupider every time I'm exposed to one of these farcical explanations, but some people can't.

There you are again. It saddens me that you don't believe in your own points well enough to simply support them without this silliness.

As for Middle School/High School. That varies by state.

When I attended, I went to High School (at 15/16) as a 10th Grader. 9th Grade was later moved from "Junior High" to "High", and 6th from Elementary to "Junior" making the Junior High schools "Middle Schools"... However, some states still have 6th-9th as Middle Schools, and 10th-12th as High Schools. So he could be a 15 year old 9th grader in Middle School.

However, after reviewing the data regarding this particular school... It serves Grades 6 through 8... Which means we are talking about a 15 year old, who can be in no higher than 8th grade. (Which puts him at least 1 year behind).

According to sheriff's reports. The altercation occured after Taylor (the driver) had to pull over because Hendershot (the younger brother) refused to put his seat belt on enforced under 1006.25-4 of Florida Statute... Refusing to follow the instructions of the driver towards his lawful duties as such (under 1003.32-c,e,j, and k1), they were also in violation of 1003.31-1a of Florida Statute. As such, the driver was executing proper conduct, in accordance with the law, under 776.012... Dickinson, however, violated 776.041-2, as well as 784.011-2 and 784.07-1d and 2).

I may remind persons in judgement, that under Florida statute 784.011, assault is classified as a crime regardless whether it is "verbal" or "physical".... Therefore, in light of present statute, argument over physicality or verbality of the acts is no longer of consequence to the arguments. Similar to the "fighting words" statutes of other states. Therefore, all persons, under jurisdictional statutes, will disregard any claims towards differentiating between "verbal" and "physical" force or assult.

The driver had no reason to feel threatened.

.

If he was not threatened then the boys cannot be charged w/ assault.
Assault is the preceived threat. Battery is the physical attack.

They make these things called dictionaries. Use them. They will help you not look silly.

Fray - A heated dispute or contest.

The driver gets involved in the fray as he is required to do. The boy appears to decide whether to become involved in the FRAY.
You forgot its other meaning:

A scuffle; a brawl.

Since we are talking about an event which became a brawl, your use of the word "fray" is improper, since it is at the very least misleading, and reflects the fallacy of equivocation.

If you're going to cite a dictionary and pretend it makes me look silly, then you should make sure you know how to use one first.


So now the boy believes he IS going to be physically attacked? Make up your mind.
Are you being deliberately dense, or is this just a handicap? We've already established the boy goes to the back to protect his brother. If the other boy is being manhandled (which means something very different from being abused... look it up in that precious dictionary if you're confused), then the older boy has reason to be concerned. Motive.


What story? Was his side of the story posted here and I missed it. You're right he could have. Could have is not good enough for a conviction.
I didn't realize that every part of the news story had to be posted for you.


I'm making the case. You're having a difficult time seeing past your own prejudices, e.g. "he's an ignorant git".
No, you're selectively interpreting events to support your own prejudice, "the punks got less than they deserved." At least I didn't choose sides until I'd seen the evidence.


Again, changing your tune, aren't you? Or should I say changing your tune again. Let's be clear, either the boy felt the driver was physically threatening to his brother or he didn't. State your claim clearly. Because you change it to dispute various aspects of the possibility that the boy was being aggressive and could have been seen as planning a physical attack.
Let's try this real slow, for the really slow:
Boy not fear for self. Boy fear for bro. Boy not fear bro get slapped. Boy fear bro get shoved and pushed. Boy not like that for bro.

My claim - the driver appears to feel physically threatened by the boy and moves to control him. The boy appears to intend initially to enter the fray and attack the driver verbally but later decides to behave in a way that could be construed as physically agressive.
The only dispute I have is WHEN the boy decides to be physically aggressive. He's shoved into a seat by a 250-lb man at the time.


If it is reasonable to feel physically threatened, and you certainly haven't shown that he didn't, then the intentions of the boy don't matter at all.

Ahem. Body language. I have shown that he didn't. You have utterly failed to address this point.


So only the last few posts count? Hmmm... I thought this was an entire conversation.
It was just to deliberately exclude the "grabbing by the front of the neck" mistake I admitted and you seemed reluctant to let go.

According to you. You don't know that and neither did the driver. Can you see into the boy's head?
No need. The boy was communicating his intentions nonverbally.


So you have video evidence that if the boy wanted to physically attack the driver he would have "sprung his trap" when the driver was next to his seat or before his seat? I guess I don't see that evidence. Can you point it out? Just to be clear, your statement that I was replying to is this - "If the boy wanted a pre-meditated attack, he would have sprung it before the driver moved past him."
You're talking nonsense yet again. The boy was not acting in an agitated manner before the attack. He was acting in an agitated manner after the attack. We have a clear contrast of his attitudes. If he intended to attack the driver before he went back, we would have seen no difference.

Get it?

Sorry. I often make my arguments assuming you can read and follow the conversation. From now on, I'll try to make sure I add quotes of you or me that make the conversation clearer so you can more adequately reply. No insult intended but I don't believe you were actually attempting to say you have video evidence to support your claim of knowing how the boy would attack.
Feel free to ramble on your own tangents and knock down your straw men, but don't pretend they're relevant.

Interesting. Which one's? Feel free to use quotes. Now remember, proven, no assumptions here.

For starters, we have:

"This was High School."

And now we have:

"How do you know this? Now, you can see the future? I also happened to have suggested that moving them to the front was also a possibility. We can't see the boy in the back and neither can he. If he is moving the boy to the front it will allow him to keep an eye on him."

It's a POSSIBILITY? Geeze... you think? The driver only says as much in damned near every article on the subject.

Going back, we have this:

"Also, I am curious as to whether you've ever been in a classroom when a fight or a threat of a fight broke out. It is customary to remove the children involved from the other children. This is exactly what the driver attempted to do."

When, in fact, the driver is not doing anything of the sort.

"It's not casual. He appear nervous and as if he's not sure what he is going to do. In the seat he appears to be deciding whether to get involved or not. I saw his motions as if several times he had decided to get up and confront the driver and decided against it."

Wrong.

"Again, he is responsible for removing potential threats from the bus. He attempted to do so with no force whatsoever. The boy refused. Grabbing the boy and removing him is standard practice and you would witness it in any grade school."

Which is comical when you consider that you later decided the boys were in high school.

"The driver called the boy up to the front most likely to take him away from the other children at which point he called for the deputy. This suggests that he felt the boy was making the environment unsafe."

False conclusion. He can call the deputy for a whole host of reasons.

"The boy appeared to be barely able to contain himself until the driver passed him."

Fidgeting is apparently "barely able to control himself." I'll remember that the next time someone taps a pencil in a meeting.

I could continue, but you get the idea.


For yours that were wrong, you claimed the boy wasn't aggressive which you now admit he was.
Equivocation. There is a difference between being physically aggressive and being interventionist. I'll use that dictionary you don't know how to use to illustrate the difference:

Aggressive:
1: Characterized by aggression: aggressive behavior.
3: Assertive, bold, and energetic: an aggressive sales campaign.

And amplifying definition 1 (which isn't very helpful... I hate it when they use the root word to explain a derivative), aggression: The act of initiating hostilities or invasion.

The boy was assertive prior to the attack, in accordance with definition 3 of aggressive. He was not displaying action characteristic of impending attack, in accordance with definition 1. The driver, on the other hand...

You claimed the busdriver choked him, which in fact didn't happen.
And I admitted my error. Get over yourself.
You claimed the boy had no reason to feel physically threatened, which is, in fact, born out by his not appearing defensive the first but appearing defensive the second time he approached the driver. Now, you claim that the boy may have been worried for his brother's safety. You say the boy didn't get up immediately after the driver passed but show frames of video where that clearly happens. You claim the boy's stance was casual but you can see the boy's left foot is forward and his hand is on the seat and not by his side. It doesn't make it a physically agressive stance necessarily, but it certainly isn't casual.
Explained ad nauseum. Now you're entering a defense that the boy's hand on the seat and leg-forward stance are aggressive in nature? As I said before, the boy's hands are on the seats all the way through the video, and you have no explanation for why this one bit should be aggressive when the others aren't. As for one leg forward... so? It is not in itself aggressive. The straight-legged stance gives you the lie. His hand is open. His other hand is indeed hanging straight at his side.

Now take a look at his hips. He's got his weight shifted to his back leg. It's a very awkward position, and one it would be difficult to attack from.


Ah, yes, we're back to I haven't seen it so it doesn't happen. We know that children never beat up adults. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!!
95-pound people don't knock down much larger adults with a single punch. It only happens in the movies. Sorry about your luck.

Since you like anecdotes so much, I'll share one with you. I was being bullied by a much larger kid, trying to avoid the fight, when he decided to sucker-punch me from behind to the temple. At that point I finally realized that avoidance was not an option, so I fought back. And lost, naturally. When the boy finally got bored and moved on, I finished walking back to my friend's house... and collapsed just outside the front door.

The kid who threw that punch knew self-defense (the only damned thing he knew) and was twice your size. I was maybe 120 pounds at the time. Yet it took my skinny ass about 15 minutes to pass out from a much harder punch than the one you delivered to a much larger man.

I've only seen one one-punch fight in my entire life, and that was delivered by Stu Grimson. He punched people for a living, so he was highly experienced, and even he looked astonished when it happened. Of course, he was also about three times your size.

In fact, many bouncers aren't all that trained. Many are just big.
Yawn. Equivocation yet again. Here's what your dictionary has to say:

1. To coach in or accustom to a mode of behavior or performance.
2. To make proficient with specialized instruction and practice.

And because you seem to do it so much, equivocation:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#equivocation

And you admit that the behaviors of the boy can be seen as physically aggressive
I admit no such thing, and have argued passionately the converse. Which conversation are you in?

I'm going to ignore this as it doesn't address the point and it continues to show your ignorance of the law.
No, it's an invitation for you to demonstrate your own. Please do.

The original article didn't mention the school name so admittedly I made an incorrect assumption. Ah, yes, and here I stand corrected. And so do you. Yes, many of the children at my High School were thirteen, including myself my first year. I graduated at 17 as do and did many children at my school and across the US.
I graduated at age 17, and didn't set foot in high school until my 15th birthday. Thirteen is the age at which one is expected to start 8th grade. Very few high schools start at 8th grade. I don't know any.


How do you know this? Now, you can see the future? I also happened to have suggested that moving them to the front was also a possibility. We can't see the boy in the back and neither can he. If he is moving the boy to the front it will allow him to keep an eye on him.
Yawn. http://www.sun-herald.com/NewsArchive2/052505/tp1ch6.htm?date=052505&story=tp1ch6.htm
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/2233742984

Those are just the first two hits.

Anyway, this is getting tiresome. Does anyone have anything intelligent to say?

As for Middle School/High School. That varies by state.

When I attended, I went to High School (at 15/16) as a 10th Grader. 9th Grade was later moved from "Junior High" to "High", and 6th from Elementary to "Junior" making the Junior High schools "Middle Schools"... However, some states still have 6th-9th as Middle Schools, and 10th-12th as High Schools. So he could be a 15 year old 9th grader in Middle School.

I was curious, so I looked it up, and Punta Gorda is a typical 6th-8th middle school. You would expect a 15 year-old to be in 9th grade... but we really can't draw any conclusions based on what information we have available. He could have been held back for any number of reasons not relating to behavior, and I knew a few kids who, for whatever reason, didn't start kindergarten until they were 6.

You forgot its other meaning:

A scuffle; a brawl.

Since we are talking about an event which became a brawl, your use of the word "fray" is improper, since it is at the very least misleading, and reflects the fallacy of equivocation.

If you're going to cite a dictionary and pretend it makes me look silly, then you should make sure you know how to use one first.


Are you being deliberately dense, or is this just a handicap? We've already established the boy goes to the back to protect his brother. If the other boy is being manhandled (which means something very different from being abused... look it up in that precious dictionary if you're confused), then the older boy has reason to be concerned. Motive.


I didn't realize that every part of the news story had to be posted for you.


No, you're selectively interpreting events to support your own prejudice, "the punks got less than they deserved." At least I didn't choose sides until I'd seen the evidence.


Let's try this real slow, for the really slow:
Boy not fear for self. Boy fear for bro. Boy not fear bro get slapped. Boy fear bro get shoved and pushed. Boy not like that for bro.

The only dispute I have is WHEN the boy decides to be physically aggressive. He's shoved into a seat by a 250-lb man at the time.



Ahem. Body language. I have shown that he didn't. You have utterly failed to address this point.


It was just to deliberately exclude the "grabbing by the front of the neck" mistake I admitted and you seemed reluctant to let go.

No need. The boy was communicating his intentions nonverbally.


You're talking nonsense yet again. The boy was not acting in an agitated manner before the attack. He was acting in an agitated manner after the attack. We have a clear contrast of his attitudes. If he intended to attack the driver before he went back, we would have seen no difference.

Get it?

Feel free to ramble on your own tangents and knock down your straw men, but don't pretend they're relevant.


For starters, we have:

"This was High School."

And now we have:

"How do you know this? Now, you can see the future? I also happened to have suggested that moving them to the front was also a possibility. We can't see the boy in the back and neither can he. If he is moving the boy to the front it will allow him to keep an eye on him."

It's a POSSIBILITY? Geeze... you think? The driver only says as much in damned near every article on the subject.

Going back, we have this:

"Also, I am curious as to whether you've ever been in a classroom when a fight or a threat of a fight broke out. It is customary to remove the children involved from the other children. This is exactly what the driver attempted to do."

When, in fact, the driver is not doing anything of the sort.

"It's not casual. He appear nervous and as if he's not sure what he is going to do. In the seat he appears to be deciding whether to get involved or not. I saw his motions as if several times he had decided to get up and confront the driver and decided against it."

Wrong.

"Again, he is responsible for removing potential threats from the bus. He attempted to do so with no force whatsoever. The boy refused. Grabbing the boy and removing him is standard practice and you would witness it in any grade school."

Which is comical when you consider that you later decided the boys were in high school.

"The driver called the boy up to the front most likely to take him away from the other children at which point he called for the deputy. This suggests that he felt the boy was making the environment unsafe."

False conclusion. He can call the deputy for a whole host of reasons.

"The boy appeared to be barely able to contain himself until the driver passed him."

Fidgeting is apparently "barely able to control himself." I'll remember that the next time someone taps a pencil in a meeting.

I could continue, but you get the idea.


Equivocation. There is a difference between being physically aggressive and being interventionist. I'll use that dictionary you don't know how to use to illustrate the difference:

Aggressive:
1: Characterized by aggression: aggressive behavior.
3: Assertive, bold, and energetic: an aggressive sales campaign.

And amplifying definition 1 (which isn't very helpful... I hate it when they use the root word to explain a derivative), aggression: The act of initiating hostilities or invasion.

The boy was assertive prior to the attack, in accordance with definition 3 of aggressive. He was not displaying action characteristic of impending attack, in accordance with definition 1. The driver, on the other hand...


And I admitted my error. Get over yourself.

Explained ad nauseum. Now you're entering a defense that the boy's hand on the seat and leg-forward stance are aggressive in nature? As I said before, the boy's hands are on the seats all the way through the video, and you have no explanation for why this one bit should be aggressive when the others aren't. As for one leg forward... so? It is not in itself aggressive. The straight-legged stance gives you the lie. His hand is open. His other hand is indeed hanging straight at his side.

Now take a look at his hips. He's got his weight shifted to his back leg. It's a very awkward position, and one it would be difficult to attack from.


95-pound people don't knock down much larger adults with a single punch. It only happens in the movies. Sorry about your luck.

Since you like anecdotes so much, I'll share one with you. I was being bullied by a much larger kid, trying to avoid the fight, when he decided to sucker-punch me from behind to the temple. At that point I finally realized that avoidance was not an option, so I fought back. And lost, naturally. When the boy finally got bored and moved on, I finished walking back to my friend's house... and collapsed just outside the front door.

The kid who threw that punch knew self-defense (the only damned thing he knew) and was twice your size. I was maybe 120 pounds at the time. Yet it took my skinny ass about 15 minutes to pass out from a much harder punch than the one you delivered to a much larger man.

I've only seen one one-punch fight in my entire life, and that was delivered by Stu Grimson. He punched people for a living, so he was highly experienced, and even he looked astonished when it happened. Of course, he was also about three times your size.


Yawn. Equivocation yet again. Here's what your dictionary has to say:

1. To coach in or accustom to a mode of behavior or performance.
2. To make proficient with specialized instruction and practice.

And because you seem to do it so much, equivocation:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#equivocation


I admit no such thing, and have argued passionately the converse. Which conversation are you in?


No, it's an invitation for you to demonstrate your own. Please do.


I graduated at age 17, and didn't set foot in high school until my 15th birthday. Thirteen is the age at which one is expected to start 8th grade. Very few high schools start at 8th grade. I don't know any.


Yawn. http://www.sun-herald.com/NewsArchive2/052505/tp1ch6.htm?date=052505&story=tp1ch6.htm
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/2233742984

Those are just the first two hits.

Anyway, this is getting tiresome. Does anyone have anything intelligent to say?

You're right it is tiresome. According to you the proper definition of a word used in the proper way is improper because you didn't understand it. I think that's enough evidence for me that the discussion is pointless.

Ok guys,

If you are going to quote long posts and give a short response; please snip out some of the detail.

Now back to our regularily scheduled programming.

You're right it is tiresome. According to you the proper definition of a word used in the proper way is improper because you didn't understand it. I think that's enough evidence for me that the discussion is pointless.
Wrong. You're taking words that have more than one meaning and applying whatever meaning happens to be convenient to you at the time, which includes distorting the meaning of my posts based on changing which meaning is present. The fallacy of equivocation. Didn't you read the link?

Wrong. You're taking words that have more than one meaning and applying whatever meaning happens to be convenient to you at the time, which includes distorting the meaning of my posts based on changing which meaning is present. The fallacy of equivocation. Didn't you read the link?

I'm familiar with equivocation. I wasn't using it. I used the word like one uses person instead of male or female because you are talking about either. I didn't want to have a debate with you about whether there was a melee about to occur or an argument so I used a word that signifies both. You are the only one who used the word wrong.

Also I was inspecific on aggression because in the eyes of the law the fact that he was aggressive was enough. You claimed he was totally unaggressive including verbally and then you admitted he was verbally aggressive. That's not equivocation. That's you not paying attention. You should read your own links.

Wrong. You're taking words that have more than one meaning and applying whatever meaning happens to be convenient to you at the time, which includes distorting the meaning of my posts based on changing which meaning is present. The fallacy of equivocation. Didn't you read the link?

I did not change the meaning of any word you used for the record and most words have multiple meanings. The only one who changed the meaning of a word is you - FRAY. I used it in a way that could have meant either a physical or verbal confrontation and you decided I must have meant it as physical and confronted me on it. The only one guilty of equivocation is you. ;)

Also I was inspecific on aggression because in the eyes of the law the fact that he was aggressive was enough. You claimed he was totally unaggressive including verbally and then you admitted he was verbally aggressive. That's not equivocation. That's you not paying attention. You should read your own links.

I forgot that I have to put these in monosyllabic terms, but I don't think I can cover this one quite that simply. I'll just have to do my best.

By law, if you look like you will attack, that is aggressive, and against the law. Being assertive meets a very different definition of the word aggressive, but is not against the law. The boy was assertive. He was not about to attack. Got it?

I did not change the meaning of any word you used for the record and most words have multiple meanings. The only one who changed the meaning of a word is you - FRAY. I used it in a way that could have meant either a physical or verbal confrontation and you decided I must have meant it as physical and confronted me on it. The only one guilty of equivocation is you.

Once again... you chose the word "fray" and applied it to a situation which included a physical contest. The word actually has two meanings, but because of the context it was easily misinterpreted. According to the link on equivocation I gave you (but you still haven't read), you have committed the fallacy, and would do better to choose terms that are clearer in the future.

I'm familiar with equivocation. I wasn't using it. I used the word like one uses person instead of male or female because you are talking about either. I didn't want to have a debate with you about whether there was a melee about to occur or an argument so I used a word that signifies both. You are the only one who used the word wrong.
So you deliberately chose the unclear word, then attacked me for calling you on it. Very nice.

I forgot that I have to put these in monosyllabic terms, but I don't think I can cover this one quite that simply. I'll just have to do my best.

By law, if you look like you will attack, that is aggressive, and against the law. Being assertive meets a very different definition of the word aggressive, but is not against the law. The boy was assertive. He was not about to attack. Got it?



Once again... you chose the word "fray" and applied it to a situation which included a physical contest. The word actually has two meanings, but because of the context it was easily misinterpreted. According to the link on equivocation I gave you (but you still haven't read), you have committed the fallacy, and would do better to choose terms that are clearer in the future.
Ok, I will explain slowly since you wanted to make this about language. Fray can be a physical OR verbal altercation. I chose it because neither of us can be sure if the boy was choosing a physical or only verbal response. I chose a word where whether it was verbal or physical wouldn't matter because the word is appropriate in both cases. You apparently didn't realize it could also be a verbal altercation because you claimed I had used the word wrong. This makes you the only one who committed a fallacy. I used it exactly how it was intended.

Ex: You and I are debating something about Tekania. We get caught up in whether Tekania is male or female, so I might just refer to him/her as a person so as to avoid that argument altogether when I'm trying to make a point that doesn't relate to his/her sex. You can't yell at me and tell me Tekania isn't a person because you think a person is only male.

I used fray because we were talking about a confrontation or altercation (could have used either of those words as well) and I didn't wish to specify whether it was verbal or physical. Why? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER. This is a stupid argument and you can't get over the fact that you didn't realize that a fray can be verbal. Yes, YOU DIDN'T. Because otherwise you would have just accused me of equivocation instead of saying there was no fray. I can't help it if your vocabulary is limited. Not my problem.

As far as the law is concerned if you are aggressive towards a person and that person COULD take it as physical aggression they are permitted to defend themselves. The intent of the aggressive person doesn't matter.

This driver will not be convicted. I'll bet you on that one. And in my opinion, no one should be charged. The driver will be sanctioned by the school and bus company (and will likely be permitted to move to another job). The boys will be sanctioned by the school and their parents. It will be very difficult to convict anyone is this matter for the same reasons we're debating and there is no reason to.

Remember, I originally jumped on you not because I think the boys got what they deserved or because I think that you're an idiot for thinking the driver is wrong. I think everyone could have handled the situation better. I jumped on you because the supporters of the driver aren't stupid. There is plenty of evidence to support the driver's position and reaction and just because you refuse to see it doesn't make it not exist. The only thing unreasonable about your arguments is that you're so sure you know better than anyone else what happened. There is only one person who knows what the older boy was thinking. That's the older boy. There is only one person who knows what the driver was thinking. Guess who that is. This discussion is pointless because you refuse to see my position and I never disagreed with anything about your position other than how adamant you are. Now it's degraded to an argument about words because you're embarrassed because you misunderstood a word. Thank you, but I'd rather skip it if it's all the same to everyone here.

Ok, I will explain slowly since you wanted to make this about language. Fray can be a physical OR verbal altercation. I chose it because neither of us can be sure if the boy was choosing a physical or only verbal response. I chose a word where whether it was verbal or physical wouldn't matter because the word is appropriate in both cases. You apparently didn't realize it could also be a verbal altercation because you claimed I had used the word wrong. This makes you the only one who committed a fallacy. I used it exactly how it was intended.
You intended to be deliberately vague in your choice of language as to whether you meant a physical or verbal response. Ergo, you equivocated. You prove yourself wrong with every word you write on the subject.

Ex: You and I are debating something about Tekania. We get caught up in whether Tekania is male or female, so I might just refer to him/her as a person so as to avoid that argument altogether when I'm trying to make a point that doesn't relate to his/her sex. You can't yell at me and tell me Tekania isn't a person because you think a person is only male.

I used fray because we were talking about a confrontation or altercation (could have used either of those words as well) and I didn't wish to specify whether it was verbal or physical. Why? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER. This is a stupid argument and you can't get over the fact that you didn't realize that a fray can be verbal. Yes, YOU DIDN'T. Because otherwise you would have just accused me of equivocation instead of saying there was no fray. I can't help it if your vocabulary is limited. Not my problem.

Except, of course, that it does matter. False analogy. You say that the boy was trying to make up his mind as to whether to join the fray. That has two meanings. Either the boy is trying to figure out if he has something to say on the matter (which is a stupid point, btw... if he has something to say, he can just say it), or he is trying to figure out if he wants to attack the driver physically. You don't seem to have any problem with the fact that your statement could mean both... and you deliberately intended it to mean both, by your own words. Equivocation.

As far as the law is concerned if you are aggressive towards a person and that person COULD take it as physical aggression they are permitted to defend themselves. The intent of the aggressive person doesn't matter.
Thereby giving any power-tripping moron a solid defense. Except, there is no reason to expect the driver is about to be attacked.

This driver will not be convicted. I'll bet you on that one. And in my opinion, no one should be charged. The driver will be sanctioned by the school and bus company (and will likely be permitted to move to another job). The boys will be sanctioned by the school and their parents. It will be very difficult to convict anyone is this matter for the same reasons we're debating and there is no reason to.
The driver could possibly go free if his jury is made up of people as prejudiced as you are.

Now it's degraded to an argument about words because you're embarrassed because you misunderstood a word. Thank you, but I'd rather skip it if it's all the same to everyone here.
If you had the integrity to admit your mistake and move on, we would not be in this situation. Your arguments to support your fallacy are just laughable. I've pointed out a whole host of errors of judgement you've exhibited in this thread, and the only one you could acknowledge was the high school comment.

I did not misunderstand a word, you misused it. And it was not one word, but more than one. This is a pattern for you, and reasoned debate is simply not possible when one side insists on committing the same fallacies over and over.

You intended to be deliberately vague in your choice of language as to whether you meant a physical or verbal response. Ergo, you equivocated. You prove yourself wrong with every word you write on the subject.


Except, of course, that it does matter. False analogy. You say that the boy was trying to make up his mind as to whether to join the fray. That has two meanings. Either the boy is trying to figure out if he has something to say on the matter (which is a stupid point, btw... if he has something to say, he can just say it), or he is trying to figure out if he wants to attack the driver physically. You don't seem to have any problem with the fact that your statement could mean both... and you deliberately intended it to mean both, by your own words. Equivocation.

Thereby giving any power-tripping moron a solid defense. Except, there is no reason to expect the driver is about to be attacked.

The driver could possibly go free if his jury is made up of people as prejudiced as you are.

If you had the integrity to admit your mistake and move on, we would not be in this situation. Your arguments to support your fallacy are just laughable. I've pointed out a whole host of errors of judgement you've exhibited in this thread, and the only one you could acknowledge was the high school comment.

I did not misunderstand a word, you misused it. And it was not one word, but more than one. This is a pattern for you, and reasoned debate is simply not possible when one side insists on committing the same fallacies over and over.

Let's see - Which of us resorted to name-calling and insults to prove their point? Which of us was CLUELESS as to the meaning of FRAY and now wants to pretend they weren't? Which of us doesn't understand that freedom of speech doesn't exist on a bus ("which is a stupid point, btw... if he has something to say, he can just say it")? Which of us is so insecure in their point that have to resort to all of this silliness? I'd say I agree this man will go free if he can get a jury of people like me. People who don't prejudge the evidence or pretend to see into the mind of free-thinking individuals. People who are willing to listen to how the law works and not make it up. People who don't decide on sight that the man is 'an ignorant git'. If giving him the benefit of the doubt (as the law does) and not making a judgement as to his intelligence while knowing nothing about him makes me prejudiced then hang that sign on me right now.

You admit I used the word properly except your upset because you embarrassed yourself by not knowing the meaning of it. Equivocation happens all the time. The fallacy of equivocation only exists if I tricked you or my language did. I didn't and it didn't. You didn't get confused as to which definition I meant. You didn't know that it could refer to a non-physical altercation and you reacted to the only definition you knew. I intended to avoid the subject expecting you to know the meaning of the word. That's not the fallacy of equivocation. That's an error in judgement when I gave you too much credit. You're welcome to keep compounding the error by taking the thread further and further off point if you like.

By the way, joining the fray is hardly "having something to say on the matter". It's not, "pardon me, but is this really necessary?" It's more, "HEY, A****LE!" or whatever the boy said. Now who's trying to use equivocal language to make it sound like something other than it was?

By the way, since you didn't like my first example, how about this? "The man is responsible for the car accident." Now this could mean "the man caused the car accident" or "the man has to pay for the car accident". If I wanted to be clear and wanted to say one or the other I should use the clearer way of saying it and not use "resposible". However if I would like to mean both I should use responsible. It's called speaking concisely and you can learn about it in "On Writing Well" by William Zisner (a book about writing nonfiction, ie writing a thesis and supporting it.) or you could read "The Elements of Style" by William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White. Or you could just rely on your little web page and a couple of blurbs to teach how to write a reasoned response. It's working for you so well so far. /sarcasm

The kids are Children. The driver is an adult. Are we not told by adults EVERY DAY to control our anger(I am anyway). I've always thought that adults were hypocritical,but this is too much. That driver should be thrown in a mental institution for the rest of his F***'n life! And how do children get charged with a felony for cursing?! Now,they should be punished,but BY THE SCHOOL,or at least by the parents.
:mp5:

Let's see - Which of us resorted to name-calling and insults to prove their point? Which of us was CLUELESS as to the meaning of FRAY and now wants to pretend they weren't? Which of us doesn't understand that freedom of speech doesn't exist on a bus ("which is a stupid point, btw... if he has something to say, he can just say it")? Which of us is so insecure in their point that have to resort to all of this silliness? I'd say I agree this man will go free if he can get a jury of people like me. People who don't prejudge the evidence or pretend to see into the mind of free-thinking individuals. People who are willing to listen to how the law works and not make it up. People who don't decide on sight that the man is 'an ignorant git'. If giving him the benefit of the doubt (as the law does) and not making a judgement as to his intelligence while knowing nothing about him makes me prejudiced then hang that sign on me right now.

You admit I used the word properly except your upset because you embarrassed yourself by not knowing the meaning of it. Equivocation happens all the time. The fallacy of equivocation only exists if I tricked you or my language did. I didn't and it didn't. You didn't get confused as to which definition I meant. You didn't know that it could refer to a non-physical altercation and you reacted to the only definition you knew. I intended to avoid the subject expecting you to know the meaning of the word. That's not the fallacy of equivocation. That's an error in judgement when I gave you too much credit. You're welcome to keep compounding the error by taking the thread further and further off point if you like.

By the way, joining the fray is hardly "having something to say on the matter". It's not, "pardon me, but is this really necessary?" It's more, "HEY, A****LE!" or whatever the boy said. Now who's trying to use equivocal language to make it sound like something other than it was?

By the way, since you didn't like my first example, how about this? "The man is responsible for the car accident." Now this could mean "the man caused the car accident" or "the man has to pay for the car accident". If I wanted to be clear and wanted to say one or the other I should use the clearer way of saying it and not use "resposible". However if I would like to mean both I should use responsible. It's called speaking concisely and you can learn about it in "On Writing Well" by William Zisner (a book about writing nonfiction, ie writing a thesis and supporting it.) or you could read "The Elements of Style" by William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White. Or you could just rely on your little web page and a couple of blurbs to teach how to write a reasoned response. It's working for you so well so far. /sarcasm

Yawn.

The kids are Children. The driver is an adult. Are we not told by adults EVERY DAY to control our anger(I am anyway). I've always thought that adults were hypocritical,but this is too much. That driver should be thrown in a mental institution for the rest of his F***'n life! And how do children get charged with a felony for cursing?! Now,they should be punished,but BY THE SCHOOL,or at least by the parents.
:mp5:

They attacked the driver of a vehicle being used for mass transportation. This is now a felony. Essentially, the boys are terrorists... albeit it probably unintentional.

Yawn.

Well-reasoned and thought out response. It is on par with all of your other responses.

Link! http://www.tampabays10.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=14260

Just watch the video. I can't believe that the American judicial system is so ****ed up that those kids could be charged with felony assault. That fatass piece of **** excuse for a human being should be the one charged with felony assault. Just another example of how our school system can get away with murder.

I swear to God, I would have beat that mother****er to within an inch of his life if he had assaulted my brother; then my dad would have shot the mother****er later.

It ***ing pisses me off. What the *** is the court's problem?

Many people in this thread are basically saying that it's okay for adults to attack kids when the kids are unruly. They are saying that the bus driver was justified in hitting and grabbing the kids by the neck, but they weren't justified in hitting back? What kind of logic is that?

Yawn.
Why did you not just say “I have nothing worth wile to add”

For once, if I had children and some nut like that would slap them, I'd beat the shit out of him. He has absolutely no right to use violence against them. Who does he think he is? If he doesn't know of any other way to solve it then he isn't qualified for the job anyway.

Also, it's pretty irritating that both sides obviously only know one way to deal with such things. Then again... it's in America, who's really surprised.

For once, if I had children and some nut like that would slap them, I'd beat the shit out of him. He has absolutely no right to use violence against them. Who does he think he is? If he doesn't know of any other way to solve it then he isn't qualified for the job anyway.

Also, it's pretty irritating that both sides obviously only know one way to deal with such things. Then again... it's in America, who's really surprised.
I would probably not take his actions lightly but if I had kids like that they would NOT like me to find out they were acting like that

Many people in this thread are basically saying that it's okay for adults to attack kids when the kids are unruly. They are saying that the bus driver was justified in hitting and grabbing the kids by the neck, but they weren't justified in hitting back? What kind of logic is that?

We are saying that it's not as simple as to say it is just the busdriver's fault because he is the adult. He has a right to feel safe and so do the other children. That is why the rules on the bus exist. These boys broke the law before the busdriver did anything. Did the busdriver overreact? It's hard to say because there's a lot you can't tell on the tape, but I would guess he probably did. However, while the busdriver may have been in the wrong, the boys very clearly were.

I would probably not take his actions lightly but if I had kids like that they would NOT like me to find out they were acting like that

Exactly. However, since no one was hurt, I don't think it's necessary for anyone to end up in jail, even if this were my kids. I'd like to see all of the charges dropped here. Let's face it, there is going to be a very public hearing at the school relating to this incident. The boys will likely be punished in a way commensurate with their actions. The bus driver likely has no chance of ever driving a bus again regardless of the justifications for his actions. I don't see how justice is served by dragging the incident into court and I doubt there is any chance that any convictions will result even if it sees court.

Why did you not just say “I have nothing worth wile to add”

What I said was "This is all the same tired nonsense you have trotted out over and over yet failed to prove. Moreover, if you insist on pinning responsibility on others for your own glaring fallacies, then you are clearly not qualified to continue in reasoned debate. Going in circles is boring, and I have more constructive things to do with my time than to teach those who cannot be taught."

I just said it succinctly.

What I said was "This is all the same tired nonsense you have trotted out over and over yet failed to prove. Moreover, if you insist on pinning responsibility on others for your own glaring fallacies, then you are clearly not qualified to continue in reasoned debate. Going in circles is boring, and I have more constructive things to do with my time than to teach those who cannot be taught."

I just said it succinctly.
Oh? The same tired stuff “I” have trotted out? I think you are getting posters confused I was pointing out your response to Jacobia

And amazing I was starting to think the same thing “Going in circles is boring, and I have more constructive things to do with my time than to teach those who cannot be taught."”

Oh? The same tired stuff “I” have trotted out? I think you are getting posters confused I was pointing out your response to Jacobia

And amazing I was starting to think the same thing “Going in circles is boring, and I have more constructive things to do with my time than to teach those who cannot be taught."”

Yes, he can't tell the difference between you and I and Tekania and basically anyone who calls him on any of the crap he says without really knowing what he's talking about. His claim is that if you remotely agree with someone else then you deserve to be "painted with the same brush". It's his lazy way of not having to actually address individual points.

Many people in this thread are basically saying that it's okay for adults to attack kids when the kids are unruly. They are saying that the bus driver was justified in hitting and grabbing the kids by the neck, but they weren't justified in hitting back? What kind of logic is that?

There is a difference between unruly and riotous. These boys were an ongoing discipline problem that was causing a dangerous situation. Throwing stuff at the driver, shouting obscenities and moving about the bus while it was in motion.

When the driver told one to put on their seatbelts they refused. When he went back to address him the other came up behind him. Read again - he came up behind the driver! WTF was he thinking!

If a hostile person comes up behind you you have every right to lash out and defend yourself. And don't give me any crap about 'aww, he's just a kid'. The brat is 13 and have you seen the welt on the drivers head he gave him?

There is a difference between unruly and riotous. These boys were an ongoing discipline problem that was causing a dangerous situation. Throwing stuff at the driver, shouting obscenities and moving about the bus while it was in motion.

When the driver told one to put on their seatbelts they refused. When he went back to address him the other came up behind him. Read again - he came up behind the driver! WTF was he thinking!

If a hostile person comes up behind you you have every right to lash out and defend yourself. And don't give me any crap about 'aww, he's just a kid'. The brat is 13 and have you seen the welt on the drivers head he gave him?
One of the tenants of self defense is NEVER have your back to a potential threat … someone comes up behind you in a tense situation IRREGARDLESS of their stance they are a potential threat … they are in a blind spot where you possibly can not react to in time…

Not making an overall judgment on it but that was an idiotic move of the kid in a tense situation

wow...kids these days have no respect for authority at all...instead they laugh at them when theyre back is turned. kids NEED to be BEATEN to LEARN RESPECT. it is OKAY to BEAT a CHILD if he/she is DISRESPECTFUL. why do think we have such ***hole teens these days? because they were never taught repect when respect should have been taught

Oh? The same tired stuff “I” have trotted out? I think you are getting posters confused I was pointing out your response to Jacobia

And amazing I was starting to think the same thing “Going in circles is boring, and I have more constructive things to do with my time than to teach those who cannot be taught."”
You're not very bright, are you? I can't believe I have to explain this, but I guess by now I should know not to expect any better in this particular conversation.

You made a comment about my comment to JOCABIA. I then offered a translation of my comment to JOCABIA. If you cannot tell the difference between yourself and Jocabia, then that is your own problem.

You're not very bright, are you? I can't believe I have to explain this, but I guess by now I should know not to expect any better in this particular conversation.

You made a comment about my comment to JOCABIA. I then offered a translation of my comment to JOCABIA. If you cannot tell the difference between yourself and Jocabia, then that is your own problem.
I apologize for misreading the statement but not really an excuse for trying to insult my intelligence

You're not very bright, are you? I can't believe I have to explain this, but I guess by now I should know not to expect any better in this particular conversation.
Cabinia, if it's quality explanations and good reading you're looking for, try the link below my signature. Pay special attention to the section on flaming. There may be a quiz later.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
Forum and Game Rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

The fact that children respect adults at all when they see what a mess the world is, is a testament to the ongoing stupidity of the human race.

The only cure is to actually enlighten the children from an early age.

There is a difference between unruly and riotous. These boys were an ongoing discipline problem that was causing a dangerous situation. Throwing stuff at the driver, shouting obscenities and moving about the bus while it was in motion.

When the driver told one to put on their seatbelts they refused. When he went back to address him the other came up behind him. Read again - he came up behind the driver! WTF was he thinking!

If a hostile person comes up behind you you have every right to lash out and defend yourself. And don't give me any crap about 'aww, he's just a kid'. The brat is 13 and have you seen the welt on the drivers head he gave him?The video does not show them throwing anything. The kid was behind him? So what? The kid did not attack the bus driver-- the bus driver hit him first.

The video does not show them throwing anything. .
only the part you saw.

The kid was behind him? So what? .
Big what. As in, WTF waws he doing there? This is a bus and he had only one plase to be, with his ass in a seat. His hostile intentions were obvious.

The kid did not attack the bus driver-- the bus driver hit him first.
The bus driver didn't strike him. He attempted to subdue him. His methods were not perfect, but then, he is a busdriver, not a cop. Different training. Self defence is acceptable when the person feels an imminent threat, which was clearly evident. The kid had no business pursuing the driver like that.

The kid probably got up because he was worried about what the bus driver was going to do to his brother. I would have too if some hulk was moving toward my brother with obviously hostile intentions. And the bus driver did too strike him. Look at the video-- his fist clearly makes contact with the little kid's face, then he grabs him by the neck-- through all of that, the kid didn't even hit back.

The kid probably got up because he was worried about what the bus driver was going to do to his brother. I would have too if some hulk was moving toward my brother with obviously hostile intentions. And the bus driver did too strike him. Look at the video-- his fist clearly makes contact with the little kid's face, then he grabs him by the neck-- through all of that, the kid didn't even hit back.

Go live in your little fantasy world then. Generate a situation like that on a schoolbus and see what happens to YOU. Or better yet, act like a responsible adult and accept that crap happens sometimes.

The video does not show them throwing anything. The kid was behind him? So what? The kid did not attack the bus driver-- the bus driver hit him first.
I may not agree with the bus driver pushing it this far but if some one aproached me from behind in a tense situation they are being put down and QUICK
(already been stabed from behind once) that will not happen again

The kid probably got up because he was worried about what the bus driver was going to do to his brother. I would have too if some hulk was moving toward my brother with obviously hostile intentions. And the bus driver did too strike him. Look at the video-- his fist clearly makes contact with the little kid's face, then he grabs him by the neck-- through all of that, the kid didn't even hit back.
The kid did hit back when he and the driver were wrestling in the back seat.

The kid probably got up because he was worried about what the bus driver was going to do to his brother. I would have too if some hulk was moving toward my brother with obviously hostile intentions. And the bus driver did too strike him. Look at the video-- his fist clearly makes contact with the little kid's face, then he grabs him by the neck-- through all of that, the kid didn't even hit back.

His fist? Watch it again. His hand was open and he appeared to be attempting to grab the kid. He never hit the kid in the face at all. His hand connected with the side and back of his head just behind the ear.

For those that said the kid was a victim who didn't fight back, look again. You can clearly see him fighting back, and not even stepping down after the altercation was done.

Personally, I would rather see these kids get some serious disciplinary action, and the bus driver should lose his job, but not in that "bad driver" sense. More in that, "It's time to find a less stressful job for you" sense.

He should face fines, they should face serious discipline. All in all, no one won - but the little bastards got what they deserved.

1. The kids were up, moving around the bus, throwing things, and the like. Florida School Buses have seat belts, under both the Educational Standards, and Road Safety regulations in state laws require the kids to remaing seated with their seat belts on while the Bus is in motion. It is the responsibility of the Driver to enforce these standards while on his route.
2. When lawfully ordered (by the Bus Driver), to remain seated, and put their seat belts on, the kids refused.
3. The Driver ordered the kid in the front to "Put his damn seat-belt on..." when the kids refused... The driver put it on himself.
4. When ordering the older brother to stay seated, and put his seat belt on, he sat (but did not put his belt on).
5. When ordering the younger brother to put his seat belt on, the younger responded "Fuck you!" to the driver... The driver then called the Sheriff's office; and told the younger brother to come to the front of the bus, which resulted in another "Fuck you"...
6. The driver goes to the rear of the bus, to get the kid.... The older brother, (already being defiant) approaches the bus driver from the rear. And says "Hey Fucker!"...

My conclusion...

The kids are defiant ass wipes.... These two little defiant brats are lucky that I'm not thier parent.... They'd be spending the rest of the pubescent life at a military school.

They attacked the driver of a vehicle being used for mass transportation. This is now a felony. Essentially, the boys are terrorists... albeit it probably unintentional.
When did swearing become a felony? If it is and no one told me, I should be locked up for years and years. :p :mp5: