Are we to blame

[pstarr]

Folks, anybody can sue or be sued by anybody else...... the operative inquiry is whether they can win.


He hit it on the head. Our training for beginning students is fairly gruelling and it helps weed out those who just want to learn enough to go out and hurt someone-

 

[Tez3]

I don't think the instructor can or should be held responsible. Otherwise I could run down some pedestrians with my car and blame my high school drivers ed teacher.

When people complain about women drivers my reply is always 'well they were obviously taught by a man then'!
We have a problem (well actually I don't know if 'we' do really) that a child who used to train with us is using things he's learnt to beat up and bully other children in the playground. it seems the school is too timid to talk to the parents, the mother is known to violent herself yet the onus seems to be on us because he has had a few lessons. he hasn't turned up to training for months!

 

[Grenadier]

The teacher should not be held responsible for the student's actions, for the most part. As instructors, we give the students knowledge, and as someone else stated, the tools. How those students choose to use such knowledge and tools are their own cognitive choices. It's no different than teaching someone how to operate firearms, drive vehicles, or drink alcohol.

After all, Robert Trias is no more responsible for the emergence of John Keehan and the "Count Dante dojo wars," than the Jack Daniels Distillery was for the incident at Chappaquidick. It all came down to the choice of the offending individual.

There are some exceptions, though. For example, if the teacher knew that his student had felony records, dealt drugs, etc., and kept him as a student, then that shows reckless irresponsibility on the teacher's part.

 

[Infinite]

Legally this would break down to reasonable discisions.

If the instructor within reason had known that this student was going to abuse his instruction THEN the instructor is partly at fault.

IF the instructor could reasonably assume the person was of average moral character he is then not responsible.

So my question is ... did the student ever display / say / indicate that he was here to beat people up?

LOTS of people join a dojo learn some moves and then go out and try their hand at the street. All it really does is make everyone sad when it happens.

Choices are owned by the people who make them. If you can say, "Well I would have made that choice again knowing them what I knew then." I'd say morally ethically and emotionally in the clear.

What is worse teaching no one because someone might use it for ill or teaching those that need it and hope they will make the right choices?

I love moral imperitives

 

[shrek]

Legally this would break down to reasonable discisions.

If the instructor within reason had known that this student was going to abuse his instruction THEN the instructor is partly at fault.

IF the instructor could reasonably assume the person was of average moral character he is then not responsible.

So my question is ... did the student ever display / say / indicate that he was here to beat people up?

LOTS of people join a dojo learn some moves and then go out and try their hand at the street. All it really does is make everyone sad when it happens.

Choices are owned by the people who make them. If you can say, "Well I would have made that choice again knowing them what I knew then." I'd say morally ethically and emotionally in the clear.

What is worse teaching no one because someone might use it for ill or teaching those that need it and hope they will make the right choices?

I love moral imperitives

In this litigeous society it behooves the instructor to keep records on each student with commentary on the student's behavior in class. It's called CYA. If you have discontinued a student or they have discontinued themselves it helps to have the information written down just in case.

 

[Grenadier]

If the instructor within reason had known that this student was going to abuse his instruction THEN the instructor is partly at fault.

IF the instructor could reasonably assume the person was of average moral character he is then not responsible.

What is worse teaching no one because someone might use it for ill or teaching those that need it and hope they will make the right choices?

I love moral imperitives

Exactly. We can only go on teaching under the presumption that any particular student is basically a good person, until he proves (or has proven) otherwise.

 

[evenflow1121]

legally, I dont think so, but you may want to check that out depending on what state you live in, some states have some really funny laws. Now morally, I would say no, well there are always certain exceptions, there are a few crazy nutjobs out there that do teach their students ala Sensei John Kreese, but overall I would say no. In fact probability would probably say that if you teach a lot of students you may get a dumbass here and there that may actually do something stupid and in contrast to what you teach.