A reading of the actual complaint filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division by the parents of “James Doe” reveals a likely agenda that is not apparent in most of the news stories. It also raises some questions about what actually occurred when the 8th grade student was “burned” by the teacher using a common teaching tool called a Electro-Technic BD-10A high frequency generator.
The complaint seeks “compensatory damages and punitive damages for the egregious actions alleged herein” and then proceeds to list the allegations against science teacher John Freshwater:
· He displayed the Ten Commandments in his classroom as well as religious posters, Bible passages and several Bibles.
· He taught his own religious beliefs.
· He taught the meaning of Easter and Good Friday.
· He expressed disagreement with some items in their text book.
· He used “code words” to indicate his disagreement with points in the course work.
· He used the code word “here” in his classroom [?].
· He taught Intelligent Design in his classroom.
· “On December 6, 2007, Mr. Freshwater burned a cross into James Doe’s arm using a device manufactured by Electro-Technics Products, Inc., Model BD-10A.”
· “The area burned by the Electro-Technics device resulted in an easily identifiable cross consisting of red welts and blistering, swelling and blanching in the surrounding area.”
· “Mr. Freshwater has conducted and lead prayers in Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) meetings.”
· “Mr. Freshwater has asked students to lead prayers in FCA meetings.”
It appears obvious that James Doe’s parents are much more concerned about Mr. Freshwater’s teaching content and religious beliefs than about any “egregious” physical harm inflicted on their son. That may be because the alleged injuries are far in excess of any harm the device could impart.
The Columbus Dispatch interviewed Gerald Cuzelis and reported the following:
A shock from the device would feel like the static shock from touching a metal doorknob after walking across carpet on a dry winter day, said Gerald Cuzelis, who owns the company that makes the tool.
But touching a doorknob doesn't leave a welt.
‘We have instructions to warn people that it's not a toy,’ said Cuzelis, who owns Electro-Technic Products in Chicago. ‘If this device is directed for seconds (on the skin), that's a clear misuse of the product.’
Cuzelis said he is not aware of anyone seriously hurt with the device and said that his company has never been sued for injuries.
As an emergency physician I have seen many different kinds of burns and other injuries but have never seen a static shock produce anything remotely described by the Does and their attorneys. It is curious to me also that the photo (not referenced in the complaint, by the way, nor are any medical reports) seems to be an amateur shot, likely with a cell phone, taken in what appears to be a public restroom. Had I seen an injury such as this in the ER there would have been dozens of detailed photographs to document the extent of the trauma. Frankly, the photograph accompanying all the news stories, in my opinion, is not consistent with the alleged assault. I believe we’ll be hearing much more about this case as it proceeds through legal machinations.
1 comments:
Maybe you missed the part where the teacher admitted that he burned the child, the only question was whether it was a cross or an "X"
From the investigators report:
Mr. Freshwater did burn a cross onto the complaining family’s child’s arm using an electrostatic device not designed for that purpose. While there did not appear to be any intent by Mr. Freshwater to cause injury to any student, he was not using the device for its intended purpose. Contrary to Mr. Freshwater’s statement he simply made an “X” not a “cross,” all of the students described the marking as a “cross” and the pictures provided depict a “cross.”
But why let the facts get in the way...
Post a Comment