• news
  • TUESDAY FEBRUARY 22 2005 2:39 AM

Teacher Yanks Chair Out From Under Student For Refusing to Stand During National Anthem

Submitted by Attack_Macaque

Edited by Sean

In an ugly display of hyperjingoistic douchebaggery, Stuart Mantel, a high school teacher and wanna-be drill sergeant in Brick, New Jersey, was recently filmed flying into an unhinged rage when one of his students failed to stand for the national anthem. The episode ended with Mantel yanking a chair out from under the student.

Indymedia.org has a copy of the film here, and it's not pretty:

The class started out that morning with Mantel yelling, "I don't want to hear a sound! Not a sound! Morning exercises will come on, you will stand, you will stand quietly, you will pay attention! Any Questions? ...Now stand up and keep your mouths shut!" Students stood up as the national anthem began playing.

In the middle of the anthem, Mantel walked over to Jay and demanded that he stand up. Jay silently refused, and Mantel yelled again, "Stand up!". Jay then said "I don't have to stand up". To which Mantel insisted "You have to stand." Jay said "No I don't". Mantel then reached over and pulled Jay's chair out from under him. Jay responded to Stuart Mantel's outrageous behavior by asking Mantel, "Are you serious?", to which Mantel yelled, "I am damn well serious."

Incredibly, Mantel remains unpunished for his abusive (and unconstitutional) actions, while the student who filmed the incident was suspended 10 days for "violating the teacher's constitutional rights."

According to the student who filmed the incident, this was not the first time that something like this had happened in Mantel's classroom, and the students decided to bring a camera into their classroom in case Mantel flew off the handle again, so they could have evidence of his behavior. When they presented their evidence to the school's principal, however, they were met with hostility:

"The teacher and school principals wanted him (Mantel) to press charges against us...they tried to blame it on us like it was premeditated, like we did it just to get him on tape, which is false. We knew he was gonna go nuts because he frequently used to," said Corey [the student who filmed the incident].

One of the hallmarks of fascism is hyperbolic patriotism, and another is compulsory patriotism. To see them both displayed in an incident like this is disturbing, but what's even more disturbing is the indifference of school administrators to behavior that is not only clearly inappropriate but also illegal. Worse yet is the possibility that episodes like this may be happening with less fanfare in classrooms all over the country.

Hat tip: PissedOffPollyana @ Daily Kos

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

 ... 13

Next

Comments
Bad_moon_Risin

Bad_moon_Risin

Hoboken, NJ
January 2005

FEB 22, 2005 12:25 PM

beaky said:
I didn't see any yanking




me either~

Dead_Ringer

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost
September 2004

FEB 22, 2005 12:29 PM

CoreOfSelf said:
2 questions for those with a legal background:

1) Is there some trouble the kid with the camera can get in for recording what goes on in the classroom without the teacher's knowledge? I remember some kid in my high school getting in trouble for tape recording part of a class and I never really understood why...?

2) Could an Assault charge be leveled against that teacher for yanking on the chair while the kid was sitting on it? Or would the teacher have had to say "If you don't stand I'll make you" or something more specific beforehand?

thanks.

[Edited on Feb 22, 2005 by CoreOfSelf]



1. this seems to speak to the orderly maintenence of public schools. i think it's crap, but that's the way it is.

2. this seems more like a battery, but possibly an assault if the teacher intended the harm, which there is probably a pretty good argument for, given the verbal exchange and the apparent fact that he has done this before. with battery, one need only intend the ACT, not the resulting harm which would be pretty simple to establish in this case. criminal assault? not likely, but possible.

edited to say whoops, subrosa and reprobate already answered...

[Edited on Feb 22, 2005 by dead_ringer]

xAtreyUx

xatreyux

Mountlake Terrace, WA
March 2003

FEB 22, 2005 12:33 PM

there use to be this crazy 5th grade teacher at my elementary school named Ms. Otomo. She use to get hella pissed and throw chairs at kids and they never fired her, my sister was even in her class and my mom pulled her out over the fact. She retired on her own years later...

bambam226

bambam226

Fort Worth, TX
December 2004

FEB 22, 2005 12:37 PM

dead_ringer said:
..... with battery, one need only intend the ACT, not the resulting harm which would be pretty simple to establish in this case.


There's such a charge as "Attempted Battery" or "Intent to Batter?" I'm really curious after reading your statement.

[Edited on Feb 22, 2005 by bambam226]

Dead_Ringer

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost
September 2004

FEB 22, 2005 12:43 PM

bambam226 said:

dead_ringer said:
..... with battery, one need only intend the ACT, not the resulting harm which would be pretty simple to establish in this case.


There's such a charge as "Attempted Battery" or "Intent to Batter?" I'm really curious after reading your statement.

[Edited on Feb 22, 2005 by bambam226]



i'm pretty sure there's no such a thing as "attempted battery," because that would imply an intended result of the "unlawful touching." the thing is, in a tort situation, we don't want to hold someone strictly liable for a result that they did not necessarily intend and a result which never actually occured (if there was no measurable injury i mean). if i recall correctly, i believe this is the Vosburg rule, but it's been a while...

Snidely_Whiplash

Snidely_Whiplash

New York, NY
September 2004

FEB 22, 2005 12:51 PM

Subrosa said:

bones_708 said:
I'm not sure I get it? He yelled at the kid.......so? He doesn't have the right to tell him to stand up? Are you kidding me? They tell you when to come, when to go, when you can use the bathroom, where to sit, what to do, and they can't say stand up? The guy may suck as a teacher but that's two different issues. People want to politicize everything and I'm sure it had more to do with the kid being a little prick than anything else. I was a prick and a troublemaker but I owned it and didn't try and pretty it up as something else.



Well, I think the issue was that he was being told to stand up for the national anthem. If he was telling him to stand up because of a fire drill or a class exercise, it would be different. But there's a long string of Supreme Court cases (starting with West Virginia v. Barnette) saying that you can't force anyone to do anything (even in a public school) when it comes to patriotic or religious ceremonies in class. True, most of those cases had to do with the Pledge of Allegiance or school prayer, but we're talking about virtually the same thing with standing for the national anthem.


In what way? Saying the national anthem does not violate separation of church and state.

Dead_Ringer

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost
September 2004

FEB 22, 2005 12:54 PM

Snidely_Whiplash said:

Subrosa said:

bones_708 said:
I'm not sure I get it? He yelled at the kid.......so? He doesn't have the right to tell him to stand up? Are you kidding me? They tell you when to come, when to go, when you can use the bathroom, where to sit, what to do, and they can't say stand up? The guy may suck as a teacher but that's two different issues. People want to politicize everything and I'm sure it had more to do with the kid being a little prick than anything else. I was a prick and a troublemaker but I owned it and didn't try and pretty it up as something else.



Well, I think the issue was that he was being told to stand up for the national anthem. If he was telling him to stand up because of a fire drill or a class exercise, it would be different. But there's a long string of Supreme Court cases (starting with West Virginia v. Barnette) saying that you can't force anyone to do anything (even in a public school) when it comes to patriotic or religious ceremonies in class. True, most of those cases had to do with the Pledge of Allegiance or school prayer, but we're talking about virtually the same thing with standing for the national anthem.


In what way? Saying the national anthem does not violate separation of church and state.



no, but it is compelled speech pursuant to Barnette, which is what subrosa was talking about.

MrZablowdowski

MrZablowdowski

Edmonton, AB
December 2002

FEB 22, 2005 01:01 PM

Battery? I got the strap.
Radically, school has changed.
Corporal punishment is no longer in the rank?

Graven

Graven

Reading, MN
March 2003

FEB 22, 2005 01:02 PM

I'm scared of America even more now.

Dead_Ringer

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost
September 2004

FEB 22, 2005 01:03 PM

MrZablowdowski said:
Battery? I got the strap.
Radically, school has changed.
Corporal punishment is no longer in the rank?



they say we live in a particularly letigious society.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

FEB 22, 2005 01:12 PM

dead_ringer said:

CoreOfSelf said:
2 questions for those with a legal background:

1) Is there some trouble the kid with the camera can get in for recording what goes on in the classroom without the teacher's knowledge? I remember some kid in my high school getting in trouble for tape recording part of a class and I never really understood why...?

2) Could an Assault charge be leveled against that teacher for yanking on the chair while the kid was sitting on it? Or would the teacher have had to say "If you don't stand I'll make you" or something more specific beforehand?

thanks.

[Edited on Feb 22, 2005 by CoreOfSelf]



1. this seems to speak to the orderly maintenence of public schools. i think it's crap, but that's the way it is.

2. this seems more like a battery, but possibly an assault if the teacher intended the harm, which there is probably a pretty good argument for, given the verbal exchange and the apparent fact that he has done this before. with battery, one need only intend the ACT, not the resulting harm which would be pretty simple to establish in this case. criminal assault? not likely, but possible.

edited to say whoops, subrosa and reprobate already answered...

[Edited on Feb 22, 2005 by dead_ringer]



Your answer was better. At least on an exam it would be.

DisasterMagnet

DisasterMagnet

San Jose, CA
January 2004

FEB 22, 2005 01:13 PM

dead_ringer said:

CoreOfSelf said:
2 questions for those with a legal background:

1) Is there some trouble the kid with the camera can get in for recording what goes on in the classroom without the teacher's knowledge? I remember some kid in my high school getting in trouble for tape recording part of a class and I never really understood why...?

2) Could an Assault charge be leveled against that teacher for yanking on the chair while the kid was sitting on it? Or would the teacher have had to say "If you don't stand I'll make you" or something more specific beforehand?

thanks.

[Edited on Feb 22, 2005 by CoreOfSelf]



1. this seems to speak to the orderly maintenence of public schools. i think it's crap, but that's the way it is.

2. this seems more like a battery, but possibly an assault if the teacher intended the harm, which there is probably a pretty good argument for, given the verbal exchange and the apparent fact that he has done this before. with battery, one need only intend the ACT, not the resulting harm which would be pretty simple to establish in this case. criminal assault? not likely, but possible.

edited to say whoops, subrosa and reprobate already answered...

[Edited on Feb 22, 2005 by dead_ringer]



No it's cool. Thanks to everyone who replied.

I wasn't terribly clear with question #1: what I'm wondering is how exactly the teacher's Constitutional rights were violated? I can understand if the school had a policy against recording what goes on in the class without prior approval or whatever. I was just wondering if there any kind of Federal Laws this violated.

And I thought Battery was for intended harm and Assault was for intended act? And that "Assault" had to be preceded by a verbal threat of some nature?

I know these questions are tangental to the discussion, but I want to be clear on all of the legal questions raised by this incident.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

FEB 22, 2005 01:13 PM

dead_ringer said:

MrZablowdowski said:
Battery? I got the strap.
Radically, school has changed.
Corporal punishment is no longer in the rank?



they say we live in a particularly letigious society.



And thank god for that! Yay for litigiousness-ousity!

Koenigsegg

Koenigsegg

I'm lost
July 2004

FEB 22, 2005 01:14 PM

hey! it's me! here is what i have to say about this!

-i do agree with the point about compulsory patriotism being ugly. but anybody who would really liken this to fascism should sit down, put their head between their legs and take several deep breaths. calm down. shhhhhhhhhhhhh.

-before i saw the video, i imagined this guy kicking the chair out from under the kid while he was still seated in it, and the kid hitting the ground. but that is clearly NOT what happened. the kid was on his feet when the teacher kicked the chair. what is the big deal? i had a football coach in high school who would routinely throw his clipboard at those of us who exhibited disciplinary problems, and you didn't hear any of us blubbering about it.

-videotaping the guy without his consent = stupid. even if they do try to prosecute this guy (for what, i have no earthly idea), the footage will never be allowed to be introduced as evidence.

-maybe, just maybe, those kids were royal pains in the asses. i mean, that class didn't look like the gifted class. i remember how much of a pill i was back then, and now i could understand how a teacher who had to engender the laughs and misbehavior of a bunch of 17 year olds for 7 hours a day would slowly begin to lose their mind.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

FEB 22, 2005 01:22 PM

CoreOfSelf said:


No it's cool. Thanks to everyone who replied.

I wasn't terribly clear with question #1: what I'm wondering is how exactly the teacher's Constitutional rights were violated? I can understand if the school had a policy against recording what goes on in the class without prior approval or whatever. I was just wondering if there any kind of Federal Laws this violated.

And I thought Battery was for intended harm and Assault was for intended act? And that "Assault" had to be preceded by a verbal threat of some nature?

I know these questions are tangental to the discussion, but I want to be clear on all of the legal questions raised by this incident.



1. I don't know, actually.

2. Assault does not have to be verbal for it to be assault. All that has to happen is for the person to be put in the immediate apprehension of harm. Like, if you point a gun at someone, but you don't say "I'm going to shoot you", it's still assault. Battery (if I'm not mistaken) is for intentional touching that results in actual harm. That's why I thought that the case would be better for assault. You could make the case that there was an intentional touching, but there was very little harm for it to be made out as battery.

Pretty sure this is right, yes? I'm a year plus away from my Torts class, in which I had the worst prof in modern history, so if it's not I apologize.

[Edited on Feb 22, 2005 by Subrosa]

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

 ... 13

Next

featured interviews