Where is her mother?

*****************

This is not the first time, but it is annoying how on every interview the attorney is on camera with the interviewee.

Of course, if he or she was a decent attorney, the attorney would advise the individual to stay off television because the individual might say something incriminating.

Claypigeon on April 8, 2008 at 12:48 AM

I think I’ve got you there, Claypigeon. First your mention of American society seems to assume that all people living in America share the same view about the “American Way”. They don’t. Witness the existence of the Democrats :)

Second, the laws you mentioned above were instituted after it became necessary to do something to prevent prior activity.

As St. Paul said:- the law is made for the lawless.

True, the investigation must have reached some level of certitude of the children’s individual culpability; but that would speak to me that the school has already assessed this child’s role as minimal, and the harshness I perceived in the comments to be then not quite fully warranted. (Yes, I accept that those were my own perceptions)

I don’t claim to have special insight, we all have our perspectives hard-earned in one way or another. My own children (two young step-children, one infant) don’t speak much English yet, but I am indeed looking forwards to teaching it to them. We have three primary languages in our family, so I guess I’m not a stranger to communication struggles, and maybe that’s influenced my response.

There is a broad disparity of cultural expectations in our country regarding things both educational and moral, that I don’t think many are willing to address. I certainly would like to see schools step up to that plate, but as has been noted here, families come first in that role. I agree on the problems that our culture suffers due to the defining down of destructive behaviors and such, just hard for me to see a little girl at the receiving end of such ire.

Maquis on April 8, 2008 at 1:16 AM

Pretty strange story,

Strange? Insightful word choice.

and I’m sure the investigation will draw clearer conclusions than have been offered here,

I’m sure more investigation will follow, what with national attention being paid to it. However, conclusions seem to have already been drawn, what with the penalties and all…

and yes, eight year olds planning an assault with weapons or cream pies is way out there,

ya think?

but I don’t see this little girl as the evasive sneering criminal mastermind that some of my fellow commenters have suggested. And I imagine she is nervous and uncomfortable.

You could be right. Perhaps you are far more insightful. To me she appeared less nervous and uncomfortable and more coached and full of “self esteem”.

But goodness gracious, lots of highly negative assumptions being made here: welfare? The child’s mother is in or near a war-zone serving in the US military, welfare is not an issue here. If you want to slam Grandma for presumed welfare dependency, then give kudos to her daughter for rising above that.

Now you might be on to something here. I feel the same way regarding the mother. However, the comments weren’t about these people being on welfare, but rather what the welfare state has done to the culture. The acceptance, if not actual elevation, of the fatherless, single mom (dare I say it? Murphy Brown) household.

Oh, and some women of color have uneven skin tone that apparently begs less than gentlemanly types to sneer about five o’clock shadow, but what do you want the lady to do about it, pull a Michael Jackson?

Gotta admit, I didn’t quite get that one either.

I am far more uncomfortable reading many of the comments on this thread than I was listening to the child’s speech.

That would make sense, given your earlier comments. I was raised by parents who cared about my ability to communicate in English. Perhaps that should be expected of more people? Unless you feel that high standards shouldn’t apply to certain groups of people? I feel that people rise to the level of expectation. Or, conversely, sink…

But goodness gracious, lots of highly negative assumptions being made here: welfare? The child’s mother is in or near a war-zone serving in the US military, welfare is not an issue here. If you want to slam Grandma for presumed welfare dependency, then give kudos to her daughter for rising above that. Oh, and some women of color have uneven skin tone that apparently begs less than gentlemanly types to sneer about five o’clock shadow, but what do you want the lady to do about it, pull a Michael Jackson?

I am far more uncomfortable reading many of the comments on this thread than I was listening to the child’s speech.

-Where is the father?
-Why is the skool the one to answer up regarding what went wrong with these little angels?
-God forbid the parents get involved. That might imply they are responsible in some way.
-She knew nothing regarding the details of the plot, but then knew everything about the invisible pies?
-The facial expressions… OMG!
-And I won’t even touch the language barrier. Oh, wait…

What was up with the fawning attitude of the interviewer? She said “Thank you” enough times to satisfy someone who just saved her life. Like the little angel was being so brave to come forward with her victim tale. She was almost being treated as some kind of hero. Or Martyr. I guess she (the interviewer) was being nice just in case she would need to interview her again in the future following another attack of victimhood. Just like they do with scumbag lying politicians who they “need” for future shows. “Thank you for doing our show Sen. Scumbag, please come see us again.” “Oh, I will. I love answering your fawning softball questions. It’s not like I’m under oath or anything.”

And, what’s up with “everyone” having a lawyer on speed dial? Or, do some people just automatically have lawyers line up at their door when their children are involved in hiding a potential crime? The day I need to look out my front door and hope to see a queue of lawyers for my child is the day I know I failed as a parent.

Ugg…

Oh, That makes the story all better

By default, America is a society and if you are born here you are indeed a part of it unless you choose to reject it. Also, the existence of sub-societies or groups does not exclude the existence of a larger one. (I.e. American society) The general public via organizations such as law enforcement and the legal systems creates, enforces and lives by rules established to shape the society in which they wish to live.
I reject your premise that laws are the result of prior actions and therefore not the responsibility of those who should have prevented a crime in the first place. There are many laws that make those who fail to avert a crime culpable. (Examples: causing an accident and leaving the scene, child neglect, those obligated to prevent a crime etc.)
Getting back to the point, this issue is about a major shift in American society from an internal locus of control to an external locus of control.
I’ll give you the last word… ;-)

The unplanned results, of the good intentions of welfare.

BTW, um, did anyone else notice that little girl’s horrendous English? She might’ve just been nervous, but I couldn’t listen to it.

Claypigeon on April 7, 2008 at 11:30 PM

As defined, no nation can be one society. All are made up of disparate groups, each vying for dominance over the others. As for laws to protect against wrongdoing, they are the result of a prior action – not to take the place of those who should have prevented it in the first place.

Many people like to think of themselves as belonging to some group or other, and in leu of a specific group, they use the term “society” to include all others into their idea as to what should be main-stream. This is presumptuous. However, all people have the right to not be subjected to the failures of others – hence The Law.

This is especially true with the absence of a strong male figure in their lives.

Hear hear.

My father would have kicked my a$$ if I did something like this. What did her grandmother do? Hired a lawyer. Pathetic.

Perhaps they were going to put the knife and paper weight in the pie. You know, like in jail.

There is no such thing as “society”. We are each responsible for our own life and actions. No group (society) has any natural right to impose itself on others.
In the case of a minor, responsibility rests solely with its guardians – period!

Sorry but that’s nonsense.

so·ci·e·ty:
An organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.

That’s like saying these things do not exist. Dime-store philosophy aside, your theory or statement only works if you are on an island. The fact is that when a parent fails, WE (our society) have the right to impose rules on others in the form of laws to protect ourselves. BTW, don’t misrepresent my position. I am saying that her guardians are squarely to blame but when they make the decision to fail their child, We (our society) does not have to merely accept it.

It seems like an interesting question to me, and this question might also give us insight into other important and controversial stories in the news recently.

INC on April 7, 2008 at 10:18 PM

Claypigeon on April 7, 2008 at 10:50 PM

There is no such thing as “society”. We are each responsible for our own life and actions. No group (society) has any natural right to impose itself on others.
In the case of a minor, responsibility rests solely with its guardians – period!

First Tmanni says that she didn’t have any idea of what the other kids were going to do to the teacher. Then she says that the kids had no intention of hurting the teacher and were just going to throw pies at her…..she starts giving details about how the knife was just there so they could cut the tape, etc….

So, which is it? Did she not know anything? Or did she know the details, but it was just about throwing pies? Or she knew the details and it was about stabbing the teacher?

Also, everyone kept saying it was just about throwing pies at the teacher (though, it doesn’t look like the cops retrieved any pies in what they siezed from the kids). And yet, the lawyer later says, “What I want to know is what the teacher did to get 9 kids angry enough to hurt her.”

Aside from the fact that they are pulling the old “blame the victim” idiocy….what’s the truth? Did the kids just want to throw some pies or were they angry enough to hurt the teacher?

We should do nothing then… We’ll just lock them up as we go.

*Wait* we do that now. We’ve done nothing and we’re all out of ideas.

The real culprit? Your words set the girl up as a victim of society’s influence. Society has an influence, but the name of the game is taking responsibility for what you do. The school sounds as if they’re trying to drive that point home.

The little girl choose to do as she did.

Her mom/grandmother chose to make the decisions they did.

Society has a role, but society is made up of individuals. The individuals closest to this girl are the ones who bear the heaviest responsibility.

Obviously you missed the point. Her parents and guardians are primarily guilty, but it does not stop there. To say society’s role in this does not matter is 100% wrong. Our society tolerates, accepts and even condones things like abortion, drug crimes, gangs, deviant behavior etc. (See Jerry Springer) And let’s not mention the fact that we conservatives are so impotent when it comes to standing up to douchebags like Shartpton, Jackson and the like for FEAR of being called a racist or worse. We call them out on forums and blogs but we do nothing about the havoc they have caused. To our shame, the fact is that we do accept these things in our society. Personal responsibility starts with the parents for sure however when the parent fails, (like in this girls’ case) having a society that allows this kind of thing to happen has to share some of the blame for doing nothing or not enough to prevent it.

Mom is deployed, child is living with grandmother, where is the father?

Just A Grunt on April 7, 2008 at 10:14 PM

Good question. You just have seen a real life consequence of a fatherless family.