Teacher cleared of attempting to kill a student

[ifuseekamy]

The boy is tellingly a waste of space that'll likely amount to nothing. If he had killed him it'd have been a service to society more than anything.

[Stephen]

Tbh if you were a teacher and you were being humiliated by a bunch of idiots, you'd want to hit the main idiot. He just did what most teachers only dream of doing and I bet most teachers who put up with what he had to put up with would shake his hand

[Ajthedragon]

The kid pushed him off the edge - he couldn't be held responsible for his actions. :rolleyes:

I suppose its just one of those things.

[Smits]

I'm sorry but no matter what the 14 year old boy says, you dont smash their face repeatedly with a dumbell. It's actuallt quite scary that so many people on here seem to think that kind of behaviour is acceptable. Sickening almost.

Sure, he didnt want to murder the kid (you screem die die die all the time right?) so he was cleared of that. But there is clear intent when you deliberately hit somebody with a weapon repeatedly.

So the kids were out of order, a teacher should be able to deal with that.

[Bailey]

So the kids were out of order, a teacher should be able to deal with that.

A mentally unstable teacher?

[Volumise]

he shouldn't be a teacher if he cant handle it.

[Nixt]

I'm sorry but no matter what the 14 year old boy says, you dont smash their face repeatedly with a dumbell. It's actuallt quite scary that so many people on here seem to think that kind of behaviour is acceptable. Sickening almost.

Sure, he didnt want to murder the kid (you screem die die die all the time right?) so he was cleared of that. But there is clear intent when you deliberately hit somebody with a weapon repeatedly.

So the kids were out of order, a teacher should be able to deal with that.

They jury can't have thought there was clear intent, otherwise he would have been prosecuted under s.18 OAPA rather than s.20

[HotelUser]

They jury can't have thought there was clear intent, otherwise he would have been prosecuted under s.18 OAPA rather than s.20

Of course there was clear intent, The student was being your typical obnoxious male teenager, but after knowing that the teacher would inflict physical pain upon a student as opposed to following a more standard and suitable technique of discipline doesn't sit nicely with me, and I can't see it sitting nicely with the parents, either.

[Nixt]

Of course there was clear intent, The student was being your typical obnoxious male teenager, but after knowing that the teacher would inflict physical pain upon a student as opposed to following a more standard and suitable technique of discipline doesn't sit nicely with me, and I can't see it sitting nicely with the parents, either.

He was charged with grievous bodily harm under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. If someone intends to cause grievous bodily harm, they are charged under section 18 which specifies specific intent to cause harm. He either intended to cause harm but not really serious harm, or was reckless as to causing grievous bodily harm.

[HotelUser]

He was charged with grievous bodily harm under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. If someone intends to cause grievous bodily harm, they are charged under section 18 which specifies specific intent to cause harm. He either intended to cause harm but not really serious harm, or was reckless as to causing grievous bodily harm.

Because of the condition he was in they didn't charge him with intent then I suppose.