Petition to Rescind the appointment of AP at Rock Creek Valley ES

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was accused of stomping his foot on a child but acquitted in court without having to put on a defense. Not having to put on a defense is extremely rare and shows how there was no evidence it happened and the witnesses lacked credibility. This includes the video that does not show that any contact was made.

I mean… on the video he clearly kicked at the boys foot multiple times. That alone should disqualify him.

There is no evidence of this at all!

He makes three motions and even pushes the foot…it’s really clear

I've watched the video now several times and I have no earthly idea what you think you're seeing in the video. Yes, there seems to be one stomping motion, but not three. And there doesn't seem to be anything underneath his foot when he does it (nor does the kid seem to react when contact would have occurred). After the stomping motion he slides his foot, but he's sliding his foot away from the direction of the kid. I don't see anything that looks like pushing the foot.

It's 100% clear at the 1:18 mark in the video (https://www.fox5dc.com/news/video-appears-show-former-maryland-principal-stomping-foot-kindergartner-autism). You can absolutely see him make a forward motion and contact the child's foot with his. The motion is TOWARDS the child's foot and makes contact. I don't know if that is a stomp--it may not be. But it is prohibited physical contact.

I have watched the video and focused on the time mark you provided. You CANNOT see any contact. Yes he makes a motion forward but the child’s right foot is not seen at all. This prevents a conclusion that he hit his foot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's so bizarre to me that people are suggesting he's definitely innocent and that the kid "didn't react" based on a video that blurs the all the children's faces, the blurring makes it hard to see other things and both Winter and the child are partially obstructed by the news ticker on the bottom of the screen at the point when he allegedly grabs his clothes and sits him down. Really people? You cannot possibly expect us to believe you are unbiased observers with no personal interest in this case.

I wouldn't suggest it purely based on the blurred video, but I would suggest it based on the judge's ruling. If the video (which the judge would have seen without blurring and news tickers) had shown the child immediately crying, the judge would have seen that. If you're asking me to choose which is more credible, a judge's ruling or a quote from a statement of charges excerpted in the media, I'm going to go with the judge.

I don't have any interest in this case. I'm a parent at a different school from either of the schools in question, and I've never met Andrew Winter. Based on watching the video, though, I'd be fine with him being the principal at my kid's school.

[Anonymous]

I have no dog in this fight but I saw him stomp SOMETHING.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have no dog in this fight but I saw him stomp SOMETHING.

Yup, me too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's so bizarre to me that people are suggesting he's definitely innocent and that the kid "didn't react" based on a video that blurs the all the children's faces, the blurring makes it hard to see other things and both Winter and the child are partially obstructed by the news ticker on the bottom of the screen at the point when he allegedly grabs his clothes and sits him down. Really people? You cannot possibly expect us to believe you are unbiased observers with no personal interest in this case.

I wouldn't suggest it purely based on the blurred video, but I would suggest it based on the judge's ruling. If the video (which the judge would have seen without blurring and news tickers) had shown the child immediately crying, the judge would have seen that. If you're asking me to choose which is more credible, a judge's ruling or a quote from a statement of charges excerpted in the media, I'm going to go with the judge.

I don't have any interest in this case. I'm a parent at a different school from either of the schools in question, and I've never met Andrew Winter. Based on watching the video, though, I'd be fine with him being the principal at my kid's school.

GTFOOH. The judge said the prosecution didn't prove why the child was upset. Not that the child wasn't upset. It's bizarre the judge acknowledged the child was upset but claims he showed "no outward signs of pain" - in an autistic child no less, which is incredibly ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Pro tip - you can slow down the video, it clearly shows a stomping motion

[Anonymous]

Do you guys have nothing better to do? It's over...he isn't taking a school position. Stop trying to drag him. The mom is looking to sensationalize because she didn't win the case. Let's get over it. It's sad that y'all have nothing better to do with your lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you guys have nothing better to do? It's over...he isn't taking a school position. Stop trying to drag him. The mom is looking to sensationalize because she didn't win the case. Let's get over it. It's sad that y'all have nothing better to do with your lives.

They said, and in the same breath they "drag" the parent.

Fyi, this was a criminal case, not a civil suit. It wasn't the mother's case. It was the city's case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pro tip - you can slow down the video, it clearly shows a stomping motion

+1 The stomping motion is clear but the video has so many blurs that it's impossible to see if he made contact with anything. I have no stake in this case either but curious about what others were talking about. He does make a stomping motion. That's not under debate. Was he killing a bug? Seems like weird timing and why was he looking around before he did it and then shaking his head?

The police saw it and thought they had enough to charge.
The judge saw it and thought no crime had been committed.
The video Fox released is really unhelpful with that much blur.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro tip - you can slow down the video, it clearly shows a stomping motion

+1 The stomping motion is clear but the video has so many blurs that it's impossible to see if he made contact with anything. I have no stake in this case either but curious about what others were talking about. He does make a stomping motion. That's not under debate. Was he killing a bug? Seems like weird timing and why was he looking around before he did it and then shaking his head?

The police saw it and thought they had enough to charge.
The judge saw it and thought no crime had been committed.
The video Fox released is really unhelpful with that much blur.

Just because it’s not a chrome does not mean he did not cross the line and should not be working with kids. It’s rare for people to be convicted of chromes against kids.

[Anonymous]

I slowed the video down to .25. There is movement with the principal's foot but there is no reaction from the kid after the principal puts his foot down. The kid doesn't grab his foot, shift, or react in any way. Slow it down and see. I think that is what the judge also indicated in her ruling.

Additionally, there was zero evidence the kid had any red marks, bruises, fracture of a toe or foot. I can't believe the guy was charged over this.

[Anonymous]

I’m a parent with a child who went to Barnsley when Winter was there. I had a bad interaction with him and generally did not like him. I signed the petition.

While I did not see conclusive evidence of stomping from the video, I still don’t think he should have been at RCV, which is in the same cluster, because time and time again people I know personally have stated problems they had with him. It’s more than just a few people—it’s too many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I slowed the video down to .25. There is movement with the principal's foot but there is no reaction from the kid after the principal puts his foot down. The kid doesn't grab his foot, shift, or react in any way. Slow it down and see. I think that is what the judge also indicated in her ruling.

Additionally, there was zero evidence the kid had any red marks, bruises, fracture of a toe or foot. I can't believe the guy was charged over this.

That's a ridiculous thing to say. The child's face is blurred and his body is mostly obstructed. You don't know if he reacted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I slowed the video down to .25. There is movement with the principal's foot but there is no reaction from the kid after the principal puts his foot down. The kid doesn't grab his foot, shift, or react in any way. Slow it down and see. I think that is what the judge also indicated in her ruling.

Additionally, there was zero evidence the kid had any red marks, bruises, fracture of a toe or foot. I can't believe the guy was charged over this.

That's a ridiculous thing to say. The child's face is blurred and his body is mostly obstructed. You don't know if he reacted.

If you slow the video down to .25 you actually can see the child sits there and doesn't react at all as if anyone stepped on his foot. It's unfortunate that the video was cut off. Perhaps the news didn't want anyone to see further that the kid doesn't react as if anyone stepped on him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I slowed the video down to .25. There is movement with the principal's foot but there is no reaction from the kid after the principal puts his foot down. The kid doesn't grab his foot, shift, or react in any way. Slow it down and see. I think that is what the judge also indicated in her ruling.

Additionally, there was zero evidence the kid had any red marks, bruises, fracture of a toe or foot. I can't believe the guy was charged over this.

That's a ridiculous thing to say. The child's face is blurred and his body is mostly obstructed. You don't know if he reacted.

If you slow the video down to .25 you actually can see the child sits there and doesn't react at all as if anyone stepped on his foot. It's unfortunate that the video was cut off. Perhaps the news didn't want anyone to see further that the kid doesn't react as if anyone stepped on him.

His face is blurred and his body is mostly obstructed the whole time. Stop lying.