▲ 374 ▼ School employee dies after being kicked in the chest by 14-year-old student (www.independent.co.uk) submitted 10 months ago by throws_lemy@reddthat.com to c/news@lemmy.world 67 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 child) It was strange to me the article had nothing about why the girl needed to be physically restrained. It clearly says why, whether or not you agree it was necessary. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child) Stating she wasn't allowed to leave is not a reason, why she wasn't allowed to leave would be the reason. But trying to leave a house is not basis at all for restraining a person, even if you are told not to. Sounds like a power-trip to me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheMinister@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago (1 child) If it’s a school for troubled kids, it could very well be to protect the student during the hours they’re supposed to be there, and to protect people outside from them. Letting a raging and troubled person out into the world does not seem healthy or safe. Seems logical to me. They were doing their jobs: protecting the students and other people from the students. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* My guess is the grounds around a "residential therapeutic school" are owned by the school. That would generally be pretty standard for that kind of place. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child) Stating she wasn't allowed to leave is not a reason, why she wasn't allowed to leave would be the reason. But trying to leave a house is not basis at all for restraining a person, even if you are told not to. Sounds like a power-trip to me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheMinister@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago (1 child) If it’s a school for troubled kids, it could very well be to protect the student during the hours they’re supposed to be there, and to protect people outside from them. Letting a raging and troubled person out into the world does not seem healthy or safe. Seems logical to me. They were doing their jobs: protecting the students and other people from the students. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* My guess is the grounds around a "residential therapeutic school" are owned by the school. That would generally be pretty standard for that kind of place. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheMinister@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago (1 child) If it’s a school for troubled kids, it could very well be to protect the student during the hours they’re supposed to be there, and to protect people outside from them. Letting a raging and troubled person out into the world does not seem healthy or safe. Seems logical to me. They were doing their jobs: protecting the students and other people from the students. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* My guess is the grounds around a "residential therapeutic school" are owned by the school. That would generally be pretty standard for that kind of place. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* My guess is the grounds around a "residential therapeutic school" are owned by the school. That would generally be pretty standard for that kind of place. permalink fedilink source parent