Because she’s a teenager. Oppositional defiance is a characteristic of the species. If you don’t think you did this when you were a teenager, you’re probably misremembering. It’s a normal part of growing up, unless you were the most abject type of spineless coward.
She did not create a situation that called for physical… anything. Any good teacher or parent has been in this situation and handled it better. Violence is the first resort of the stupid and incompetent; as Einstein said, it may be quick, but it’s not ever creative.
If you can’t maintain your authority in the presence of passive resistance, you are unfit to teach teenagers. It’s a requirement of the job to deal with immature behavior. If you can’t think of any middle road between asking nicely and initiating violence, you simply shouldn’t be anywhere near a teaching environment. Good teachers don’t ever need to start fights.
That is simply not true; nor does it apply to this situation, where there was no physical defiance - merely passive noncompliance - until the police officer chose to initiate violence in an extremely dangerous and incompetent fashion.
He put his weapons in reach of a person he was trying to get a chokehold on! That’s not ever a behavior you should be defending, regardless of how authoritarian or reactionary your philosophy is.
Well, at least you understand why it was done, I guess. The goal is to teach people to think exactly the way that you do - that authority must be allowed to trample anything it likes, regardless of the consequences or alternatives, merely to sustain itself, and that we must all condone this by our acquiescence. That lesson seems to be the focus of our school system in the USA now.
Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. – John Stuart Mill
