As if getting beaten wasn't enough, you're fired!

Come to think of it, church doesn't exactly have a stellar record when it comes to tending to the needs to women.

 

I totally agree. You know those ankle bracelets they use for people out on bail, on probation, etc.? We need to come up with some similar device, kind of like a taser, that goes snugly about the scrotum. She wears a bracelet that constantly updates her position. He gets within 1000 ft of that bracelet ... ZAP!

 

Yes, the school has a duty to hundreds of children that comes before the employment status of one woman. I guess you're a big NRA guy or something, wanting armed guards in the halls and the whole bit, but the first portion of any security situation is to identify and eliminate the threat. They could do 100 things that aren't nearly as effective -- such as, for instance, eliminating outdoor recess or P.E. Or they could take the one step they know is effective, and something that actually has been in place since January.

In your hypothetical, does that 20-year-old son have a violent history toward the mom? Is he a convicted felon? Has he shown up on school grounds and caused a lockdown previously? If the answer to all of those questions is yes, as it is in this case, then absolutely they should get rid of the teacher.

 

Yeah, you got it. I'm a big NRA guy. How ever did you guess.

Plenty of domestic violence victims work in places frequented by children. Would you fire a Wal-Mart employee because her husband was stalking her? A movie theater employee?

 

That is a tougher one, but yes, I think so. Not sure because I don't know what his level of violence and threats has been toward them. But again, this has been the case since January. (Have they been in a different school since then, or are they just at home?)

No question it's an awful situation. But I just don't see how you pretend this isn't a threat. It's a very viable and not at all hypothetical threat, and I think anyone who comes up with a security plan, the first thing they're going to recommend is to remove the woman/family from the picture. So how effective is the plan if you can't enact the #1 measure?

 

Anybody acting like there's a clear villain here -- other than the ex -- is being ridiculous. The Church overseeing this school has/had to weigh a number of competing interests, and there's simply no good solution. I might have decided a bit differently -- I would have tried to find the woman employment elsewhere in the diocese such that Bent-Dick Fucker (BDF ... and thumbs up to Starman for the perfect nickname) is highly unlikely to bring other children into harm's way -- but even that is imperfect.

 

So ... where are they supposed to go to school? If the only solution is to "remove the woman/family from the picture," then why does he even need to harm them? He's succeeded in destroying their lives anyway, and he hasn't had to lay a finger on them.

 

They should be at least 2,000 miles away for their own safety.

What's your solution? Turn the school into a war zone? Metal detectors, armed guards, lock the doors under martial law, the whole bit?

 

Go back to the story and look at why the church did this -- there was a movement of parents wanting to yank their kids out of school because of this. I have enough personal experience with Catholic school to know that when it comes to actually helping someone versus the interest of howler monkeys with money, the latter win every single fucking time.

There are domestic abuse victims with violent ex-spouses who go to work every day. Is anyone seriously arguing that they should be fired for that? And you're telling me that an organization that preaches Christian compassion should blithely can somebody rather than doing what it can to help, including bringing in parents to have some sort of forum about what's going on?

The "we're protecting the kids" argument is extremely weak here, because, in this case, the ex has shown no indication he will harm someone else's children. The church is using the "it's for the kids" argument so it doesn't have to come right out and say "it's for the money."

 

Yeah ... they probably should have waited to see whether he'd actually do that. After all, at this point he's only shown that he's violent, angry and not interested in following the law. So, definitely, I think a wait-and-see-approach would have been the appropriate one. Then they'd know whether or not they should have shown this poor woman the door.

 

It astonishes me that anyone would agree this woman should be fired.