T...those damn teachers again!!!

[Designer]

Timmy,...your repeated posting of Deliberate IGNORANCE of what YOU SAID only ruins further your credibility. Why do you keep doing so?

I have posted solid proof you are ignoring the words OF YOURS...YOUR WORDS as to THE REASON it is not going to trial (highlighted in red).
Your repeating your IGNORANCE of YOUR WORDS will not EVER erase,..nor diminish... THAT PROOF.

All anyone with knowledge of educational laws needs to see is the "SPECIAL NEEDS" description to understand that this is not going to trial ...... who is protected from any liability due to the law's. Those are the fact's and the issue.

Here's EVEN MORE evidence pertaining to this issue of THE FACT that HE WAS GOING TO TRIAL,.... and the Laws DID NOT protect him because of his "special needs" ....as you claimed.... (YOUR WORDS highlighted in italics above) ;

Student in Matanzas High School viral video beating ruled competent to stand trial
Frank Fernandez The Daytona Beach News-Journal

A judge ruled Friday that 17-year-old Brendan J. Depa, whose beating of a teacher's aide at Matanzas High School was captured in a viral video, is mentally competent and the legal case against him can proceed.
Depa was charged with aggravated battery on a school board employee, a first-degree felony punishable by up to 30 years in prison, in an attack on a paraprofessional. The News-Journal is naming Depa because he was charged as an adult.

Circuit Judge Terence Perkins found Depa competent after a 3 1/2-hour-long hearing on Friday.

Student had previous chargesStudent charged in Matanzas High School attack had 3 previous battery charges
Perkins said the question was whether what has been diagnosed as an autism spectrum disorder makes Depa “incompetent to proceed under the fairly low standard of competency."

Perkins said that among the things he was looking at was whether or not Depa understood the nature of the legal process, whether he understands he is charged with a crime, and that he can be punished by the court.

Perkins cited a report from a psychologist who testified for the defense. Her report stated that Depa understood that the job of a defense attorney is to prove him not guilty. The judge said he didn’t know of a better definition of the attorney’s primary task.

Perkins then went on reading from the report: “(Depa) says 'But that’s not going to work. They have video evidence against me.’ "
Perkins then stated: "That shows in my mind a depth of understanding not only the nature of the charge and the consequence of that but who is doing what and where.”

Perkins also cited another part in the report in which the defense expert talked to Depa about him being charged with a first-degree felony. Perkins read that Depa said, “If I wasn’t Black, it would be a second-degree and if I was female, it would be third.”
Psychologist says Depa competent.
Roger Davis, a psychologist appointed by the court, did a competency evaluation on Depa and met with him on May 4. He spent an hour and 24 minutes with Depa and reviewed medication, medical and other records. Davis testified that he believed Depa was competent and the legal case against him could proceed.

[Tbeck]

Thanks Designer you did a GREAT job highlighting the RELEVANT points I have attempted to explain to you.
So since you DON'T get it, let me break it down in BABY steps;

SPECIAL NEEDS = manifestation of inappropriate behavior. In this instance violent outbursts.
NOT going to trial= a PLEA of NO CONTEST. Why? BECAUSE educational law states he can't defend himself because his actions are a "manifestation of his disability."

This kid had 3 priors, all violent, all plead NO CONTEST, and all of them resulted in anger management training.

NEVER GOING to trial= law protects SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.

YOU can KEEP trying to argue with me, but YOU will STILL be WRONG and I will STILL be CORRECT. The fact that you KEEP HIGHLIGHTING my EARLIEST correct assertion just makes you APPEAR STUPID! But I knew that.

[Designer]

Nope,....so sorry timmy. All this is just more of your verbal gymnastics you are so practiced at,..twisting the FACTS presented to TRY TO support your False Claims.

That plea is something ANYONE can cop...has NOTHING to do with him being "special needs".

The Plea is an EVASION of FACING THE TRIAL that CERTAINLY WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.....Why?...Because THE JUDGE RULED he was COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL...Thus his.. "special needs"... DID NOT protect him from THE LAW. (your desperation is overlooking THAT FACT,...timmy boi) .

Here's THE FACTS you are In Denial of;
A judge ruled Friday that 17-year-old Brendan J. Depa, whose beating of a teacher's aide at Matanzas High School was captured in a viral video, is mentally competent and the legal case against him can proceed.
Depa was charged with aggravated battery on a school board employee, a first-degree felony punishable by up to 30 years in prison, in an attack on a paraprofessional. The News-Journal is naming Depa because he was charged as an adult.

Circuit Judge Terence Perkins found Depa competent after a 3 1/2-hour-long hearing on Friday.

The Judge CERTAINLY knows if this, so-called..."educational law"...would protect a "special needs" person from going to Trial.....yet,...He ruled him competent TO STAND TRIAL.


OUCH!...that's going to leave a mark!


Best you go out hunting again.....lick your wounds out in nature.

[Tbeck]

Designer, AGAIN your IGNORANCE of the law and our legal system are on DISPLAY.
BEING mentally capable of standing trial, just means he's not crazy, or incapable of understanding. It doesn't mean he's not handicapped, OR that special circumstances exist within the law in order to try and/or sentence him.

So instead of continuing with your ignorant attempts to save face when EVERYONE can see the postings here for themselves, MAYBE, just MAYBE when you don't understand and haven't the knowledge about something, you should ask????
Oh wait, then YOU couldn't continue ARGUING about something when YOU have ALREADY been proven WRONG.

[hillsy v2]

Thanks for taking over, T.

[Designer]

Wiggle wiggle wiggle! Yet ANOTHER dodge!

Timmy,..AS I ASKED YOU,....where's these....."education laws"....you said will ..."protect special needs students"...from ..."any liability due the laws"....that would have precluded the DA from bringing charges,... and that the judge would have needed to consider BEFORE his proclamation of him being fit to stand trial and face possible liability?

All anyone with knowledge... of educational laws ...needs to see is the "SPECIAL NEEDS" description ...to understand that this is not going to trial ...... who is protected from any liability.... due to the law's.

Your words,...not mine.



Stand and Deliver....or STFU.

[Herb]

special needs covers a lot of ground. I have a granddaughter that was classed as "special needs" because of a speech impediment, a person that has a reading issue like dyslexia (as my son), and many other issues that might effect their ability to learn as a regular student can.

The issue with the court is, are they able to understand right and wrong, the law and can they assist in their defense.

A person that can understand those 3 things is capable of standing trial.

I don't think that a plea of "no contest" should be allowed in a case of violence or threat of violence. They should be actually convicted of the crime. Either plea guilty or go to trial.

[Herb]

This shit is nothing new just now they have actually put the permission in writting. My son went to Portland schools in the 1980's and if a white and a minority got in trouble the white always got the worst punishment. And I can give examples based on personal experience.

https://video.spreely.com/watch/portlan ... z5WyE.html

[Tbeck]

Designer, to answer your question is SIMPLE on the liability issue. The victim in this instance can't sue for her injuries, nor can any judge order compensation for the victim in any form. Nobody said that the kid can't be charged criminally BUT special circumstances within the law limit what the judge can do on sentencing. So while your average Joe might get 30 year's, this perp is going to get a slap on the wrist. The law protects him because his actions are a manifestation of his condition, AKA he has no control over how he reacts, and he doesn't have an off switch.
Look up the word liability. This kid can't be held responsible for his actions because they are not voluntary. The laws clearly state for a crime to have been committed the accused must be aware that the act is a crime and voluntarily commits the act. In this instance the perp knew his actions were criminal, BUT he had no means by which he could stop himself from doing it. It's an automatic reaction he can't control.

As a side.... Should this kid be freely walking around and attending a public school when he could very well hurt or kill someone when he gets upset and can't control his actions? I had several of these kid's when I was teaching and most are exceptionally large students, not all but most. The last one was 6'8" tall, 280lbs and built like a brick wall. He had NO off switch and when he went off it was ugly. The one before that was a 5'6" female who in 4th grade picked up a desk and repeatedly hit a teacher with it.
I believe these students should be required to attend a school specifically designed for these students, but the law disagrees.