Crossing Guard Gets even with Teen Tormentor
By: Keith
What would you do if you had a job where you had contact with the same people every day, and one of those people called you a variety of ugly names every time they saw you for the duration of a year? Say you’re off duty one day and you see that person sitting on a curb. Would you have something to say to them? Would you be angry? Would it matter if it was a teenager who had been doing the harassing? NBC has reported on an incident where a crossing guard decided he’d had enough, and when he saw the kid he let him have it. The kid, for his part, got a bump on his head out of the encounter, nothing more. This isn’t such an easy debate because, on one side, this kid sounds like he had it coming and that his parents need remedial parenting lessons. On the other hand, the crossing guard has a police record and might not be a good example of an adult simply setting a kid straight. He may really have overreacted. The facts of the case help us to decide whose side we’re on. Unfortunately, so do headlines and editorial opinions.
Editorial Flair:
It’s funny how a simple headline can change the mood of an article. NBC chose to run their article with the title Cops: Crossing Guard Beats Teen Who Called Him “Fatso”. Notice that the only part of their headline that is a quote is “fatso” (and that’s from the boy). The rest is editorial. The cops did not say “Crossing Guard Beats Teen… .” NBC said that (although the cops probably did say something very similar, it wasn’t quoted in the headline). But NBC wants you to think they’re only reporting the news, not that they are also guiding your opinion. My headline, Crossing Guard Gets even with Teen Tormentor gives you my opinion. I’m not trying to hide it behind a non-quote and a colon. Your assumption that I think the crossing guard was at least partially justified is correct.
As a parent it is my responsibility to teach my kids respect. Calling someone a name in the heat of an argument or flippantly in passing is an error in judgment but not an indictment on the parents or teen in question. However, calling someone names day after day in an attempt to taunt them is definitely, in my opinion, deserving of an ass whooping. The body of this article paints a different picture than the title. Judging solely on the facts presented, and even considering this man’s history, I side with him, the crossing guard. There could, of course, be something that was left unreported, something we aren’t privy to. The boy could be mentally damaged or the taunting could have been mutual. Perhaps the guy stalked the kid and waited to pounce, and maybe he intended more harm than actually happened. However, in the absence of more information, I’d say the kid got off easy.
A Pattern of Disrespect:
The teen in question had been calling the man names for the entire school year, not on one isolated occasion. NBC has decided that we don’t need a quote from the crossing guard; we don’t get his side of the story, just the boy’s. Also, fat-man and fatso are the names the boy himself reported he had been calling the guy. What other names do you suppose were used that the boy didn’t want to admit to? If this kid had been harassing the crossing guard all year, he could surely muster more creativity than “fatso” and “fat man”. He should be ashamed of himself if that’s all he, a 14 year old boy, can think of. If you’re impressing your friends or some girl, you’d do better than “fatso”, right? Teenaged boys spent a disproportionate quantity of brainpower on witty insults. Fatso barely registers.
As a parent and former teenager I know two things. Teenagers who want to be can be exceptionally cruel and disrespectful. I also know that this crossing guard could very well have been in the wrong because I don’t have enough facts to draw a complete picture. It all boils down to whom you choose to give the benefit of the doubt. NBC thinks the teen deserves that benefit. I believe the crossing guard does. Our opinions are obvious by the titles of our respective articles (even though theirs is admittedly more sneaky).
Related posts:



Adults have no recourse against punks. The creep obviously felt free for the entire year to throw taunts and may now think twice. Good for the crossing guard!
If the boy was my kid he would have gotten an @$$ whoopin’ at home too. lol There are a few adults I’d like to smack around too because they’ve got diarrhea of the mouth and don’t have sense enough to turn their filter on. You disrespect me you better hope I don’t pull out my fists.
I wonder how many substitute teachers and frequent patrons of buffets are silently suffering, yet rejoicing when they read this story. It’s like when Landon Donovan scores a goal for the USA– you feel like you scored a goal, too!
.-= Dennis Yu´s last blog ..Facebook Pages vs Groups– what’s the difference =-.
As a “fatso” and as someone who taught at some of toughest Minneapolis public schools and was occasionally called names… violence should never be an option with our youth. If this crossing guard was putting up with name calling on the job, going after the kid off the job shows poor judgement, and lack of professionalism. The name calling should have been dealt with on the job.
You are correct as far as the NBC headline… but which one will make more money?
I’m teaching my 5-year-old and 3-year-old boys that if they call people names they had better be prepared to have the shit kicked out of them.
Since I don’t trust their judgement, I have them both in karate.
As well, if I EVER heard them call someone “fatso”, the NBC headline will read; “Toronto Daddy Beats the Crap our of Disrespectful children”.
Thanks for posting this. I had not seen it.
the article you linked to shows a peacock logo, not an eye.
The only other article I could find had the headline, “Cops: Cross guard beats taunting teen”
I guess I’m going to be in the minority here, but the teen is 14 (no size given), and the guard is 60 y.o., 6’4″, 200 #.
The guard, according to police in the other article, ” went after the kid,
kicking him, knocking him to the ground and putting his foot on the teen’s throat and chest.”
If the allegations are true (witnesses were present), I see two facts:
1. A taunting kid-not illegal.
2. An illegal assault-not justified.
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/97457729.html
Doo Dilly: Did I confuse the news outlets? ooops!
I’m fixing it now! Thanks for noticing.