What do you think about this?

[GracieMae]

A few years ago the principal of our junior high school was convicted of domestic violance and fired from the school system.

He was replaced by another principal who left after 2 years. The principal with the domestic violance conviction was then rehired.

I am appauled by this. Why would anyone with a domestic violance conviction be placed in a position such as principal of a school? :confused: What kind of message does this send to the children?

No way should he have been rehired, especially within 3 years of his conviction.

[Beck]

Ouch, that is a tuff one for me. A lot of it really depends on just exactly what happened.

Why you say? Because I have seen men abused too. IF his wife/SO/whatever was abusive to him and he defended himself and hurt her in return, then I feel he should be able to go "back to work".

IF it was the "typical" domestic violence, I'm still kind of torn. Just because he has been convicted of DV, that doesn't mean he is necessarily an awful person. With domestic abuse/violence I feel its because there is so much one to one interaction that can/does cause DV. Being in charge of a school does not give him that constant one on one with a partner, COW or student. So chances are pretty slim for him to abuse either a COW, or student.

Make sense?

[kingclick]

If he could prove that he got help for his issue. I see no problem with it.

[Lucid]

I'm not sure what the two have to do with each other. I think its horrid that he beat his wife or whatever he did that meritted the conviction. But that does not mean in my mind that he can't do his job well. Unless he is going to work bragging about it or something . I'm assuming he served his time for the crime.

[GracieMae]

My view is this. We teach our children not to use violance. It's common knowledge he has this conviction. He has been violent and most of the children know it as well as many details of the incident.

It seems to me it sends the message that violance is acceptable.

[Minnie_Beebe]

These people have to go through background checks. If they're clean, then they're "okay".

Domestic Violence abusers are very hard to reform, and most abusers who beat the spouse will eventually or already be beating the children.

School board needs to look into this. In some cases, they're the only ones besides the superintendant who can fire the principal.

[RogueAngel]

Ouch, that is a tuff one for me. A lot of it really depends on just exactly what happened.

Why you say? Because I have seen men abused too. IF his wife/SO/whatever was abusive to him and he defended himself and hurt her in return, then I feel he should be able to go "back to work".

I agree with this portion of BeccaLynn's post. Have to be very careful here. I would want to know as much as possible of the situation before deciding. False reports and reports in the heat of the moment that may not *necessarily* be the way things went happen alot. I bailed alot of people out of jail for this ... some were guilty, some were defending themselves against an attack from their female SO and some just weren't doing anything but because of the laws, SOMEONE had to go to jail because a call was issued.

[GracieMae]

He attacked his wife with a golf club.

[RogueAngel]

Ok but why, did she attack him? Or did he suddenly have a burst of anger and loose it over something small?

[Minnie_Beebe]

^ Makes no difference to me. If she attacked first, then he should've done the right thing, backed off, and called the police on her.

Men are stronger physically and they shouldn't be trying to pull some bar fight gag on their wives.

[GracieMae]

He was violent on more than one occasion from what I've heard. He lost it and attacked her. She was covered in bruises. He had no marks on him.

[RogueAngel]

Is subjective to me, it depends, were they outside where he could have walked away. Was he backed into a corner with her scratching his face with her nails? I don't know the whole story so I don't want to say one way or another if I feel he should have his job back or not. I've seen MANY women whip the snot out of their man.

[Minnie_Beebe]

Then he has no business being around children.

[RogueAngel]

Ok, then yep, they need to get rid of him. Sorry but if you have this kind of problem you don't belong around children.

[Beck]

^ Makes no difference to me. If she attacked first, then he should've done the right thing, backed off, and called the police on her.

So, until he can back off, he is just suppose to let her beat him? I disagree. Personally, before he hits her, I feel he should try to subdue her. If that doesn't work then do what needs to be done to defend yourself.

I had a friend that wouldn't strike his wife either. He wore more than one bruise from her abuse.

It shouldn't come to physical blows .. but if it does, defend yourself.

[Minnie_Beebe]

While he is "defending himself" he could actually kill her - especially with a golf club. He needs to remove himself from the situation and get her locked up.

[RogueAngel]

Same would go for her. She could kill him. It's a no win situation but if you gonna smack someone and back them into the corner, whoever the victim is has the right to defend themselves. IMHO of course.

[DiznieB]

*apoligies if I am repeating anyone else, I have not read all of the posts*

These days, he could have literally done nothing and had a crazy wife cry foul. All she needs is a red mark or bruise to prove her case. Or maybe he was trying to protect himself from HER and made a mark in doing so. Whatever the case, that is his private life. We don't know the full story. I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt first.

[Michele]

We teach our children that violence is wrong but what do we teach them when people have gotten themselves help after doing something wrong? That there is no forgiveness? So if our children do something horrible, like beat up their friends (badly), they should be thrown away and never given an opportunity to get help and change for the better?

Do I like the idea of something with an abusive past overseeing our children? No way. However as KL said, if there is proof that the man paid his dues and has gotten help, he should not be stopped from working there.

[Epicurus]

I thought that if you had a conviction, irregardless of whether or not you served time, you could not work with children?

Collette

[Minnie_Beebe]

^ My thought as well.

[GracieMae]

He was reinstared. It caused quite a stir. There was more to it as to why he was reinstated which was also crap. He threatened to file a discrimination suit against the school board claiming his race had something to do with his not being rehired.

IMO his race had nothing to do with it. It was all about his actions.

[GracieMae]

*apoligies if I am repeating anyone else, I have not read all of the posts*

These days, he could have literally done nothing and had a crazy wife cry foul. All she needs is a red mark or bruise to prove her case. Or maybe he was trying to protect himself from HER and made a mark in doing so. Whatever the case, that is his private life. We don't know the full story. I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt first.

With all due respect this line of thinking is exactally why so many woman don't report domestic violence. Yes, men are abused too. Yes, they are sometimes unjustly accused. There is never any excuse for abusing anyone.

[GracieMae]

Michele, I agree with what you said up to a point. I'm more cautious of having someone with violance in their past in charge of my children than someone with no violance in their past.

I liked this man as principal. I don't have a child in the junior high right now but it's a concern for me still. Is he a good principal? If he was reinstated he must be. Am I concerned by his past? Only the violance.

Edited to add his wife isn't in charge of a large group of children. He is.