TimesArgus.com - We Are Vermont

Adults enter U-32, assault student



Toolbox

By Thatcher Moats Times Argus Staff - Published: April 2, 2009

EAST MONTPELIER — An 11th-grade student at U-32 was in class Tuesday morning when the father of another student stormed through the doors and attacked her, according to police and school officials.

Peter Benedini, 39, grabbed the 16-year-old girl and pushed her up against a desk as he and the woman who accompanied him to the school — 33-year-old Shannon Papineau — yelled and swore at the girl, police said.

Benedini and Papineau are the parents of two students at U-32, according to Keith Gerritt, the school's principal.

Police said the victim in this case had a dispute with Benedini's daughter earlier in the day.

Three administrators raced to the classroom and intervened, said Gerritt. Assistant principals Stephanie Taylor and Mark Mooney, along with school dean Erik Bennett, were able to coax Benedini and Papineau into the assistant principals' office, said Gerritt.

Benedini and Papineau then left the school without further incident.

Police cited Benedini for simple assault and disorderly conduct, and Papineau was cited for disorderly conduct. They are scheduled to appear in Vermont District Court in Barre on April 23 to answer to the criminal charges.

Joseph Doucette, who is the victim's father, said Benedini's attack left marks on his daughter's neck and shoulder. The school nurse examined the student following the attack, and the student soon returned to class, Gerritt said.

State Police Trooper Daniel Trottier investigated the incident, but was not available for comment Wednesday, though state police issued a news release. Benedini and Papineau also could not be reached.

Doucette said he was "shocked" by the incident and wants administrators to make changes at the school that will help keep students safe.

"It's scary for me to think that there's nothing in place in that school that I know of to prevent someone from walking into the school and laying their hands on someone who is in a classroom," said Doucette. "I have a young daughter in elementary school, and after hearing some of this, she looks at me and says, 'Dad, do I have to go to that school?'"

U-32's policy is to have visitors sign in at the office and state their reason for being at the school, which Papineau and Benedini did not do, said Gerritt.

The entrance to the school is visible from the office through a large glass window, but no one is assigned to monitor the entrance, the principal said.

"No one saw them go in," said Gerritt. "It would be very easy to walk into the building and not be seen."

U-32 does not have a police officer assigned to the school as some local high schools do.

U-32's "crisis team" met Wednesday morning before school to review the incident, said Gerritt. The crisis team is composed of all the school administrators, a guidance councilor, the school nurse and the head of buildings and grounds, Gerritt said. No recommendations have been made about changes to school security, but Gerritt said a sub-committee of the crisis team was scheduled to meet Wednesday afternoon to take the matter up in more detail.

"There are no specific recommendations yet, but there will be some forthcoming for sure," said Gerritt.

Gerritt has drafted a letter that was sent out to all parents of U-32 students. The letter explains the incident and encourages concerned parents to contact the school.

Homeroom teachers also read a statement to students Wednesday describing the event, and a guidance councilor spoke with the students who were in the classroom where the assault took place, said Gerritt.

"This is way out of the ordinary," Gerritt added. "We're taking it very seriously."

Doucette said his daughters went to Woodbury Elementary School and he said visitors can't enter the school without being "buzzed in," a greater level of security he said is warranted.

"My biggest concern is that parents are made aware that this was easy to do, and something needs to be done as far as the security of that school," said Doucette. "This had the potential to be extremely bad."

The maximum penalty for simple assault is a year in prison and $1,000 fine. Disorderly conduct carries a potential prison term of 60 days and a maximum fine of $500.








READER COMMENTS


Mulligan - If that's your real name it suits you perfectly. Your friend is a criminal and you are a blowhard with a lot of time on his hands. And your boy will still wind up in prison where people like him belong.
-- Posted by Olde Man on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 9:49 pm EST

report this comment



As for an adult getting into a school quite so simply.. That is where the problem lies. Go to the next school board meeting, PTA meeting and do something about it instead of babbling on a message board about how bad this guy and his wife are.

The school is responsible for people getting in so easily completely unchecked!
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 1:27 pm EST

report this comment



I've read Jim's posts, he in no way is saying what peter did was okay. He is merely entering a little bit of rationality in this conversation that you all have blown this completely out of proportion. The dude went into a school, he threatened a teenager, he did not blow up the school, he did not go in with guns blazing, Jim is trying to say the punishment should fit the crime, not hang him from the neck until dead. I had an adult get in my face when I got into a fight with his daughter years ago, but it never made the papers!

The only thing Jim is trying to interject to you people is that you are all judging this man with out really knowing him at all, perhaps kitty does, she said she knows him from around town, but non the less, Jim is not saying what his old school chum did was right, he's merely saying you are all over reacting, and frankly I am obliged to concur, it tends to happen a lot on these comments. The name calling of people you dont' really know is quite childish in itself and you're all calling him childish. Wow!!
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 1:24 pm EST

report this comment



"None None and Olde Man,

..I probably share more traits with Peter than the rest of you because you are obviously pure of thought and deed."

If you say so, jimbo.

"Of course I'd be upset if this happened to my daughter. Probably violently so at first and then I'd hope it would recede. In the end, the punishment's gotta fit the crime, not fit the worst possible outcome someone can conjure up."

Just how bad does it have to be for you, jimbo?

I don't know the guy and his wife and don't care to know them. As far as I'm concerned, they're a couple of lunatics who walked into a school, disrupted a classroom and attacked a student minor.

The only sympathy I have is for the poor kids who were unlucky enough to get stuck with them for parents.

Beyond that, I'm happy to let the Court deal with the matter. If that strikes you as harsh, that's your problem.

If you want the City of Long Beach to have a "Day" for them and give them the keys to the city, good for you. Knock yourself out.
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Apr 7, 2009, 7:30 pm EST

report this comment



"Interesting way to try to change the merits of your argument. Make it about screen names."

I'm pretty sure the first 3 paragraphs of my response directly addressed the silly points of your post comparing me to the offender for defending him and the scope of the charges here.

And it's not about "screen names", it's about anonymity. Instead of addressing the things I've said, you veer off and compare me to the suspect, suggest I wouldn't care if my child was assualted and then suggest I marry him. And you're accusing ME of changing the argument? I'd hide my name too Olde Man.

"The facts about the story don't change. I think you're trying to "save face" after making a ridiculous argument in defense of a voilent act and the people who committed it."

No, I called the act bizarre and inappropriate. I haven't quarreled with the citation for simple assualt or disorderly conduct. I've said that comparisons to Columbine and calls for 5 year prison terms for shoving a teenager are overwrought and I've offered a different perspective on Peter than was present in the thread before. You can resort to your cartoonish black and white notions of character now...I'll leave you to it.

"Most criminals minimize and rationalize their behavior. They don't need help rationalizing their actions, they need help taking responsibility. If you are a real friend I'd think you wouldn't minimize what happened."

I haven't seen the accused in two decades. I'm just pointing out that some of the more hyperbolic attacks on him here are over the top and that I remember some admirable qualities in him. I'm kinda busy for interventions.

"This incident had the potential to turn out much worse than it did."

We have this strange judicial system that charges and tries individuals for what they actually do rather than what gruesome events anonymous internet posters imageine might happen in some fantasy world. Sorry for that...it's just the way we do things.

"Premeditated attacks on school girls by adults merit serious punishment. This wasn't a bar fight between two college students."

Again, with all sorts of sympathy to the victim, she's not a pig-tailed 6 year old being beaten up here. She's a late-teen surrounded by friends, teachers and administrators who was shoved and screamed at by a couple with worlds worst judgment and impulse control to match it.

I'll leave any remaining words in this topic to those of you so fired up by it.
-- Posted by Jim Mulligan on Tue, Apr 7, 2009, 6:29 pm EST

report this comment



Interesting way to try to change the merits of your argument. Make it about screen names. The facts about the story don't change. I think you're trying to "save face" after making a ridiculous argument in defense of a voilent act and the people who committed it. Most criminals minimize and rationalize their behavior. They don't need help rationalizing their actions, they need help taking responsibility. If you are a real friend I'd think you wouldn't minimize what happened. This incident had the potential to turn out much worse than it did. Premeditated attacks on school girls by adults merit serious punishment. This wasn't a bar fight between two college students.
-- Posted by Olde Man on Tue, Apr 7, 2009, 5:27 pm EST

report this comment



None None and Olde Man,

As to the charges that I am no different that the accused, haven't grown up myself, use the accused as a role model (and apparently wish to marry him) and wouldn't be upset if this happened to my daughter.

I probably share more traits with Peter than the rest of you because you are obviously pure of thought and deed. I remember some things about Peter that I admired. Obvously there's plenty to reject as well.

Of course I'd be upset if this happened to my daughter. Probably violently so at first and then I'd hope it would recede. In the end, the punishment's gotta fit the crime, not fit the worst possible outcome someone can conjure up.

Maybe I haven't grown up. But I'm cerainly adult enough to put my name to my sentiments here, which is more than I can say for either of you. Honestly, what are you ashamed of?
-- Posted by Jim Mulligan on Tue, Apr 7, 2009, 12:47 pm EST

report this comment



Miss Kitty,

You're right...it's been almost 23 years. I shouldn't be involved in this dialogue I guess. After all no one asked me. But my wife (also a Barre girl) brought the article to my attention and I guess it made me a little sad.

You're entitled to your opinion about Mr. Benedini and you're obviously not alone. You may just have more delicate taste in company than I do and that probably speaks very well for you. But no one is all good or bad and I don't think he deserves to be called an animal, a low-life or vermin. What you're describing in your experience with the suspect is a drinking problem that seems to be borne out by the State's record. It doesn't excuse the record and I know what a strain it puts on families.

I've described the conduct as bizarre and inappropriate. I just think some of the judgments here are overwrought. Honestly I think some of the posters here are more upset than the teenage subject of the assault as she apparently went right back to class.
-- Posted by Jim Mulligan on Tue, Apr 7, 2009, 12:29 pm EST

report this comment



#1: Regardless of the why, it's two adults attacking a student, a minor child.
#2: The school had no security. They could've gone in with a weapon - it happened that fast. I don't think camera's would've helped.
#3: If they had been "buzzed" in, they would've had to state their purpose - they wouldn't have been allowed to roam the halls freely.

Adults attacking a juvenile over an IPOD? Was it stolen at school? (contact the administration) - Did it happen outside of school hours (contact the parent). I think it's very scarey that this happened. I think something should be done about them walking into an educational environment and instilling fear, not only with their victim but with other students and staff.
-- Posted by Lora Gaudreault on Tue, Apr 7, 2009, 11:37 am EST

report this comment



Evidently, so did Jim.
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Apr 7, 2009, 11:21 am EST

report this comment



olde man - I am not defending the guy, but the teen age girl was his daughter. And give Jim a break, he's been gone a long time. Things don't stay are they were. People change, they grow up or they choose not too. Pete chose not to.
-- Posted by miss kitty on Tue, Apr 7, 2009, 9:54 am EST

report this comment



Well Mulligan - Your boy just picked up ANOTHER charge of DLS. The free press story this time stated he tried to get some high school girl to sit behind the wheel for him. That didn't work. Your friend has more of a record than driving. According to the paper he is a convicted thief and a liar. Add to this assaulting a school girl. This is the vermin you defend? You don't sound any different. Your home boy is going to jail. That's OK, you can still use him as your role model. C'mon back to Vermont, you can marry the guy. If someone did this to your daughter you wouldn't think it was a big deal. Sadly, you really wouldn't.
-- Posted by Olde Man on Mon, Apr 6, 2009, 11:16 pm EST

report this comment



Jim , you have been gone a long time.I don't think Pete's family has anything to do with anymore, at least most of them.They gave up long ago! He got yet another DLS over the weekend after all this happened. Personally I can't stand the guy! I saw him in action way to many times while attending BYSA basketball games! His poor son was so ashamed at his dad's behavior that he wanted to quit the team! If you sat within 10 feet of him he reeked of alcohol so bad it made you sick, and these were all day games.
-- Posted by miss kitty on Mon, Apr 6, 2009, 11:02 pm EST

report this comment



"What planet are you from ?? "

Olde Man,

Long Beach, California on the planet Earth where you can look me up. Can we look up the name Man, Olde anywhere?

The vast majority of the prior infractions are either DUI or DLS, which is, especially in a more or less rural area, a bit of a vicious cycle (unless Greater Berlin has added subway stations since I last visited). And you have no idea what the exact nature of the violations were nor any basis to suggest it's "getting more out of control". And maybe Vermont and California are different but you don't go to prison for terms of less than a year. You go to the county jail. Where you're surrounded mostly by other harmless ***** ups with dependency problems.

You're swept up in the drama of an event that you didn't witness that caused the victim negligible discomfort and that the police and district attorney obviously think is something less than the crime of the century.
-- Posted by Jim Mulligan on Mon, Apr 6, 2009, 8:24 pm EST

report this comment



Captain America,

I think you may be overestimating the degree to which the consequences of these actions influence the thinking of the perpetrators. I doubt the individuals involved were aware of the particulars of the statutes they would be charged under as they strode into the school.

That said, I think we just disagree. Honestly, in every one of these cases the police and prosecutors have some lattitude in terms of what they charge people with. I'm sure they're imperfect, but unlike you and I...they were there in the aftermath and spoke with the people involved.

Again, I'm full of sympathy for the alleged victim in this case but the article says she returned to "the class" which leads me to believe the aftermath, immediate investigation and nurses visit constituted some very short period of time and she resumed her studies immediately after the incident.

At some point, you just have to trust that the police and prosecutors have weighed the totality of the circumstances in arriving at the charges.

Look...you may have a more severe perspective on law and order than I do, that's okay. But there are people in this thread invoking Columbine for god's sake. I mean...I know the drama's sort of intoxicating for some, but Columbine??? Really???
-- Posted by Jim Mulligan on Mon, Apr 6, 2009, 8:08 pm EST

report this comment



"Pete's not an 'animal' or a 'low-life'"

What planet are you from ?? He's got a long rap sheet and he is getting more out of control. His latest beef with the law is: assault on a school girl. He's probably going to prison. The inmates will LOVE this guy.

.
-- Posted by Olde Man on Mon, Apr 6, 2009, 6:57 pm EST

report this comment



"None None - I think 99% that posted here agree with your points. There was only one person who posted that was going on about an alleged theft. I disagree that "everything else is irrelevant" however. It's very relevant if the attackers had help with planning the attack. It's relevant to examine school security protocols to see if things can be made more safe."
-- Posted by Olde Man on Sun, Apr 5, 2009, 5:45 pm EST.

Perhaps I didn't make myself sufficiently clear, Old Man.

Your points relate to the underlying facts of the matter as we know them based on this account. That makes them relevant.

What isn't relevant are allegations of theft on the part of the student minor who was assaulted by the two adults in question as they are merely allegations at this point and still in dispute.

However, there is no dispute surrounding the fact that the assault took place on the student minor by the adults in question.

I take great exception to the ridiculous notion that this exercise in frontier justice on the part of the adults is somehow mitigated by the alleged actions of the student who found herself assaulted by two adults. Even if true, it doesn't.

There is no justification for the actions of the adults under any circumstances in this case and they should be dealt with firmly by the Courts.

Beyond this case, I agree that security measures at U-32 have to be reevaluated and stepped up as needed.
-- Posted by None None on Mon, Apr 6, 2009, 6:46 pm EST

report this comment



"I don't know the mother. But Pete's not an "animal" or a "low-life" at all from my memory or now from what friends and family have told me in the wake of this wacky drama. I like Pete and I hope he emerges from this a little better."

Sir, while I understand your personal connection and knowledge of the individual involved, it does not change the fact that punishment should serve as a deterrent. If the penalty involved for such an infraction had not been so minimal, he may have not chosen to so readily disobey the law.

It's just an observation.
-- Posted by Captain America on Mon, Apr 6, 2009, 6:13 pm EST

report this comment



"When the parent of a current student enters the school building it's not "unauthorized".
-- Posted by Captain Obvious on Mon, Apr 6, 2009, 1:17 pm EST

Really? Just which part of the following is obviously eluding you, Captain?

"U-32's policy is to have visitors sign in at the office and state their reason for being at the school, which Papineau and Benedini did not do, said Gerritt...."

Is it really your contention that the fact that the adults in question who entered the school, violated the stated policy and assaulted the student minor in question are off the hook and somehow mitigated because they have kids who go to the school?

Good luck making that case.
-- Posted by None None on Mon, Apr 6, 2009, 5:52 pm EST

report this comment



Well, I've known Pete since we were small kids. Well, I guess as I've been gone many years now so "knew" him is more accurate. And it looks like he's had his share of trouble, but I remember Pete as a good-hearted guy who'd give his friend the shirt off his back and his parents and sisters as nice, hard-working people.

Pete might also be prone to reacting emotionally. But here in Southern California a large percentage of fathers wouldn't even recognize their kids much less care enough to pull this admittedly bizarre and inappropriate stunt in the face of accusations that their child stole something.

Felonies and 5 years? C'mon, I've got a lot of sympathy for the victim and her folks but she returned to class. The couple wins hands down the award for worst approach to handling their teenage daughter's feuds but treat with what actually happened here not with speculation of what could have happened.

I don't know the mother. But Pete's not an "animal" or a "low-life" at all from my memory or now from what friends and family have told me in the wake of this wacky drama. I like Pete and I hope he emerges from this a little better.
-- Posted by Jim Mulligan on Mon, Apr 6, 2009, 3:29 pm EST

report this comment



What I can't understand about this situation is the amount of blame being heaped on the school and the victim. Short of making our schools prisons, I'm not sure we'll ever make them completely secure.

In my humble opinion, a higher penalty for this type of behavior is necessary. Lock these individuals up for the maximum of one year, and fine them the maximum amount. It's rather distressing to think that a person can enter one of our hallowed institutions and assault a child and be charged with the same crime as someone who attacks you on the street or the mall. Perhaps you should contact your legislator to have them enact stiffer penalties, consequences, or new laws as a deterrence, and ultimately a protection.
-- Posted by Captain America on Mon, Apr 6, 2009, 3:08 pm EST

report this comment



When the parent of a current student enters the school building it's not "unauthorized".
-- Posted by Captain Obvious on Mon, Apr 6, 2009, 1:17 pm EST

report this comment



The "part" concerning claims of theft by a minor student are an allegation, jest. The unauthorized entry of U-32 by two adults and assault on that minor student by those two adults are established facts. Big difference.

Established facts carry more weight than unproven allegations.

That said, feel free to offer your "inside information" in testimony on behalf of those two adults when the matter comes before the Court and see how much weight it carries with the Judge. As a rule, they're not big on court jesters.

Based on what you've said, you weren't there at the time of the unauthorized entry of U-32 by the adults and the resulting assault on the student minor by those adults or at the time of the alleged theft by that student minor your "inside information" concerns.

Good luck. You're going to need it.
-- Posted by None None on Mon, Apr 6, 2009, 12:56 pm EST

report this comment



Whatever. I never said it was right for two adults to assualt a minor child. I think it was wrong. Stealing is also wrong but around this blog everyone would rather forget that part. That is all I have to say on this subject. Goodbye.
-- Posted by Jest Answering on Mon, Apr 6, 2009, 12:21 pm EST

report this comment



Just - I seriously doubt that that the fact that one child accused the other of staling with have any relevance on the charges brought against these two low lifes! I can see the judge now, "Oh you thought the student stole from your daughter, then its ok you assulted her" Get real!
I hope as they investegate the case they add more charges!! This guy belong in jail!
-- Posted by miss kitty on Mon, Apr 6, 2009, 9:30 am EST

report this comment



None, none should refrain from calling others names on this blog.
-- Posted by Jest Answering on Mon, Apr 6, 2009, 7:15 am EST

report this comment



If this goes to trial everything about this case will be relevant. Stealing included it is against the law, everyone passes this off as nothing. This would not have escalated to the point of assualt on a child in the school, if the families had taken this whole mess seriously and took care of it before it got to this point. Own words posted here that this was going on a long time. It should have been taken care of a long time ago.
-- Posted by Jest Answering on Mon, Apr 6, 2009, 7:13 am EST

report this comment



None None - I think 99% that posted here agree with your points. There was only one person who posted that was going on about an alleged theft. I disagree that "everything else is irrelevant" however. It's very relevant if the attackers had help with planning the attack. It's relevant to examine school security protocols to see if things can be made more safe.
-- Posted by Olde Man on Sun, Apr 5, 2009, 5:45 pm EST

report this comment



The only established facts here are that two adults entered U-32 without authorization and assaulted a minor student.

That is unacceptable under any circumstances. Any attempts to rationalize or justify their behavior by calling into question the character of the victim with unproven allegations based on claims of "inside information" are as idiotic as they are irrelevant.

The fact remains that two adults entered U-32 without authorization and assaulted a minor student. Everything else is irrelevant.
-- Posted by None None on Sun, Apr 5, 2009, 1:57 pm EST

report this comment



PJ - I think we agree on the important points.

It is my understanding however, that police could have arrested the couple instead of issuing a citation. Bail is strictly up to the judge. I heard on the news that one teen is being held without bail in Chittenden county for spray painting graffiti. This is because of his record of previous convictions and the belief that he would continue. I'm not 100% sure, but I think, that the court could consider the lengthy criminal history and imposed bail. I'm not a lawyer however and don't claim any expertise in judicial procedure.

I did NOT know the response time from law enforcement took that long. 15 - 20 minutes is unacceptable. Perhaps U-32 could contract with Montpelier PD for this. Montpelier is very close and they have an outstanding, professional police force.

Certainly it's time for a review of security procedures. Also, this incident merits a thorough look at all events leading up to the incident and a review by Child Protective Services. Some people should never have custody of children.
-- Posted by Olde Man on Sun, Apr 5, 2009, 12:46 pm EST

report this comment



Olde Man...I just have to respond to your post one more time. You talk about concerns about a lack of "due process" and then in the next paragraph state that you think the police should have just swooped in and held these people without bail. You have a limited understanding of how Vermont law works. Under no circumstances would these people have been held for any significant amount of time for this offense. You can be held on bail for being a risk of flight or being a significant threat to the public. Smacking a kid around isn't going to stand that test...though it should.

In addition the preferred outcome you talk about would have required a timely response from law enforcement. U32 is covered by the State Police who maybe coming from as far away as Middlesex if the school was lucky. It would not be uncommon to have a 15-20 minute response time. The administration already knows this and to still have nothing in place for a more secured environment is even more shocking.

I'm not talking about frisking students at the door. I'm talking about restricting the movements of the unwelcome and unwanted predators that currently have free access to that school and many others.
-- Posted by P J on Sun, Apr 5, 2009, 7:05 am EST

report this comment



I worked at U-32 and at Twinfield some as a sub, special educator and para-educator to at-risk youth. I have to say, even in the late 90's when I worked there, I always was amazed at how easily accessible the buildings were. Obviously these perps came through the front door, and no one was watching, but there were probably a number of other ways they could have walked in.

Always struck me, but I'm glad something will be done about it now without a greater tragedy than what's occurred.
-- Posted by Ed DuFresne on Sun, Apr 5, 2009, 4:39 am EST

report this comment



I was amazed at how long this guy's conviction record is complete with several offenses like assault and driving under a suspended license that are repeats. Something is wrong with this guy's anger management and that these things are habitual. I wonder if out of prison or someplace where he can be watched constantly is not a better place for him to be other than to be out in society. This guy has some real problems.

I am sure that this attack was so sudden that school officials did not have much time to react until the assault was underway. But it is difficult to tell teenagers to behave in a responsible way when adults do not.
-- Posted by Watercloset on Sun, Apr 5, 2009, 1:47 am EST

report this comment



To PJ: I understand your concern for safety. I went to school a long time ago admittedly but I don't support making schools into a "fortress" as you recommend. The "price" I speak of is not the economic one. There is always a balance between security and freedoms. After 9/11 the country went into a strict security mind set. Congress quickly passed the "patriot act" and it seemed like a great idea at the time. Due process was also dealt a blow in the name of security. You know the rest of the story.

I'm suggesting a thoughtful review of whatever security procedures are in place. Balance this with the students having an open campus atmosphere. The first thing I would do is ask the students themselves for recommendations. The safety and security issue should be decided by students, parents and staff. The massacre at Columbine makes me think that having police officers in schools is only common sense. But I'm old enough to vividly remember the massacre at Kent State too.

It is reported in the Times Argus that the two miscreants that attacked this student have extensive criminal backgrounds. I think the police erred by not taking them to jail and asking the States Attorney to seek no bail status. They are a dangerous. The police also need to investigate how much help they had in planning their attack. It seems like they knew where to look in advance.

.
-- Posted by Olde Man on Sat, Apr 4, 2009, 2:36 pm EST

report this comment



I'm kinda left wondering what place IPOD's have at U-32. It's not a place to be entertained, after all, it's a High School. Maybe I'm "old school" (a way overused term)
but I went to school to learn something then I got the heck out and went to college..
We didn't need "security" or lock down...
Nowadays, I think the parents are more messed up than the students, if that's possible...
-- Posted by patriotemt on Sat, Apr 4, 2009, 11:33 am EST

report this comment



As a parent who had two kids graduate from U32 I propose that all parents petition our state representatives for a state law that mandates that anyone that enters a school in the state and is found guilty of committing an aggressive crime on any person on the premises should face a MANDATORY 5 yr jail term on top of whatever they get for committing the offence.

It is unacceptable that our kids have to live at risk of someone entering their place of learning and assaulting them.
-- Posted by Dylanesq on Sat, Apr 4, 2009, 11:14 am EST

report this comment



these are the type of people that have to ruin it for everyone...they seek drama in their lives, neither side sound real bright. Too bad they would have to change our open feel at the school. Morons
-- Posted by (Anonymous) on Sat, Apr 4, 2009, 6:49 am EST

report this comment



I think most people are in agreement that this should never have happened and that schools need to step up to ensure our childrens safety.

Olde Man...police in schools and locking the place up from the outside is for the safety of kids and to protect them from outside threats. What "price" are you talking about?

I'd be surprised if U32 doesn't get their butt sued off for this anyway. After all the school and workplace violence we have witnessed in the last few years to have no protocols in place for minimizing the chances of something like this happening is totally irresponsible.

On a side note, the State needs to get it together as well. Pass legislation that entering a school without any lawful reason with the intent to commit a crime should be a felony.

All this talk about schools becoming prisons. Let's try thinking the other way. Our schools should be like a fortress where our kids can feel reasonably safe while they attempt to get an education.
-- Posted by P J on Sat, Apr 4, 2009, 4:04 am EST

report this comment



...As far the parents who entered the school and attacked the schoolgirl, my gut suspision is this is'nt thier first brush with the law and thus,the law should come down on them hard. This is the exact time to make a statement to all,"this is not tollerable".....
-- Posted by paul mascitti on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 4:59 pm EST

report this comment



What I find truly sad, is that I grew up on Gallison Hill Road, and went to preschool there when I was little. My brother ended up going to high-school (transfered from MHS) and I took a class there as well. I would go up and play on the field on the weekends. There was always a happy and friendly atmosphere. Reading this breaks my heart, because I know that someday I probably won't be able to take my children to see that wonderful area that I had fun at so many times. In just a matter of a few years (not even 10), it's turned around so fast, that I don't even know how to accept it. And I think the only people to blame of this incident are the parents. If they were true adults, and true parents, they would have handled ANY situation, no matter what it was, better, and not tried to cause a fight, that even the girls were not doing. It seems that the girls were, and are, more grown up than the adults (not against you of course Ms. Doucette). Everyone should be thankful, just as Stacey said, that the girls are ok. It could have been MUCH worse.
-- Posted by Amanda Facchiano on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 3:57 pm EST

report this comment



Wow, I can't believe Jest Answering...do you have kids. I am the mother of the victim in this incident and my child did no WRONG. WCAX made a mistake in the story and I will set it straight for all now. My daughter(the victim) accussed the other student of having the missing IPOD because she her-self and a few others saw the other student involved with the IPOD. And the whole disagreement between my daughter and Mr. Benedini's isn't really about the so called "stolen" IPOD. It has been going on between our two girls for a while sense my daughter came back to U-32 from MMU. Neither one of these girls know much about the other but somewhere along the line the other student started talking trash about my daughter(the victim). My daughter confronted her on this and asked why she is calling her names and what her problem was. Maybe my daughter(the victim) could have handled that part of the situation differently but she is not the one who was being accused of stealing the IPOD nor did she in the first place. Even so, it still gives NO RIGHT to any grown person to come into our schools unannounced and not noticed, go directly to her room because their daughter knew where mine was and walk into the room and assault her. LIKE HELL! What about the poor teacher? She got shoved by the mother and that is when my daughter stood her ground. I am very proud of my daughter for handling this situation with calmness. It is sad to see that most people are concerned with a stupid item than the safety of our children. Yes, a proper investigation should be done in regards to the missing item, but be real now. I also know that stealing is an issue at U-32 and that to should be addressed, but not before the school board makes changes in the school to protect our kids. This incidnet could of turned out real bad, instead of writing you to defend my daughter's honor I could very well be planning her funeral. That is my biggest fear of not knowing what is next for her. We all have made mistakes in our younger days, but there is still no excuse not ONE for the outragged father and loose cannon mother to attack my daughter. All we're saying as parents is that change is needed in the safety precautions of our kids that go to school to be safe. Our kids are not safe so it seems.
-- Posted by Stacy Doucette on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 3:31 pm EST

report this comment



.

I hope the school doesn't overreact to this incident. Having police in schools and locked doors is a policy decision I do not concur with. Safety, but at what price?

The two invading adults have gotten off easy thus far. Misdemeanor citations for an obviously premeditated act seems light. The previous posts note that the invading adults knew exactly where to find the student they attacked. This suggests that they had help in locating their target. This is disturbing.

The charges do not reflect the seriousness of the event. This is more than the cream pie at a parade. One hopes that the police will be thorough and look at what led up to this. If there are criminal convictions there should be a stiff incarcerative outcome. Further, the two adults that invaded the school should not retain custody of their own kids. The actions here, are those of hard core criminals.

.
-- Posted by Olde Man on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 2:42 pm EST

report this comment



The two adults charged for assault and the so called "victim" of the assualt should be charged with stealing...there was a reason this all took place but the police should have been called first to investigate.
-- Posted by Jest Answering on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 1:46 pm EST

report this comment



FYI just for your information I have some inside information the "so called victim" has been known to steal in the past from her own grandmother and others....don't lay it on the other student. She is not altogether innocent...what happened to the days when you could give a kid a spanking...she needs one.
-- Posted by Jest Answering on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 1:40 pm EST

report this comment



What about assaulting a minor? The girl is only 16.
-- Posted by Wouldn't you like to know on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 1:15 pm EST

report this comment



In this day and age of texting, Twitter and what have you, information can be transmitted from the school - or anyplace - instantaneously. Consider that.
-- Posted by Louisa Alcott on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 12:20 pm EST

report this comment



The student shoud be charged for telling her parents where the victem would be.
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 12:19 pm EST

report this comment



Thomas McArdle, I was thinking the same thing. It was obviously thought out ahead of time and someone told them where this girl would be at that time.
-- Posted by JT Paroni on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 12:08 pm EST

report this comment



An inside job? How would anybody know where a particular student is at any given time of the day? These people didn't check in to the office first but somehow managed to go directly to the class room where the victim was. Seems rather odd to me.
-- Posted by Thomas McArdle on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 11:50 am EST

report this comment



Wow. Seems to me several of you are on the border of slander and libel. Are You Kidding? should be taken to task for the false accusation that U-32 teachers smoke pot during the day - and with their students. What kind of baseless accusation is this? Most of the teachers at U-32 are fabulous, enthused and committed to their students. At times it's a thankless job with more damnation than reward - as proved by Are You Kidding's comments. What keeps them there is their belief in the potential of our youth and the empowerment of education. And, no, I'm not a teacher.

BTW - It was a U-32 TEACHER who stood between that child and her attackers. Somehow this was left out of the story. That woman should be highlighted as a hero since it was she - not the administrators - who put herself in the path of danger.

But I guess it's easy to make wild accusations when you can be anonymous, huh?
-- Posted by Louisa Alcott on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 9:13 am EST

report this comment



I agree with everyone that this was a very disrespectfull act but it always seems to come down to blame. I see no one to blame except for these people that should know better. The doors of a school should be opened if it is a nice day. I remember that when We would have the doors open it was something that helped keep you attentive. I would like to see both get the max and show people what happens when they invade our schools.
-- Posted by Steven DeForge on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 7:51 am EST

report this comment



What saddens me as I read this, is the fact that we have come to this point of needing security in the schools. I remember school doors being left wide open during warm weather to allow fresh air to circulate.
-- Posted by JT Paroni on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, 5:53 am EST

report this comment



This blame for this incident can be placed squarely on U-32 administration. Up until 2 years ago, there were TWO security personnel at U-32. Tim and Eric were both security there. Then the school (to save $$) let Tim go, and kept only Eric. So their security staff has been running at 50% for 2 years now. Then stuff like this happens.

Mark Mooney can't be expected to patrol the campus. He's got tons of issues in the middle school. And Stephanie can't patrol campus. She can't even tell the difference between a suspicious trespasser and somone who taught there for 30 years!

Eric is doing his best, but U-32 needs a second security person. I believe getting a 50% is an F! That's the grade I give to the school administrators for providing insufficient security for our kids! It's time Ginny and the School Board members took some action!

Here's your solution: (1) Get a 2nd security person to help Eric. (2) Get a buzzer for the middle school entrance so people need permission to enter. Right now that doorway is vulnerable. (3) Place a security person at the front door. This isn't rocket science; you just can't be cheap!
-- Posted by James Joyce on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 10:24 pm EST

report this comment



No one is saying that stealing someone's property is ok, but what those two did was way out of line. No one knows what happened to cause the parents to do this but it does not change the fact that what they did was wrong-period. They were trouble in high school and obviously neither one of them has changed!
-- Posted by miss kitty on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 5:32 pm EST

report this comment



U32 doesnt want a police officer at the school Maybe the teachers and students would have to stop smoking pot and popping oxycontin pills there. Perhaps the thieves would be arrested. Yes the wallets, and clothes and IPODS..
It would nice to start arrsting the thiefs and drug users,,,just have a couple of extra teacher subs to replace the ones that smoke pot during the day. How does the adminstration not know that the teachers that go into the woods during the day smoke pot?? and the kids know all about it & go with them,
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 5:31 pm EST

report this comment



Security at our schools should be more pro-active.
-- Posted by Charles Keeler on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 2:54 pm EST

report this comment



Sure stealing something is no big deal...that is why the school does nothing about it...I have had three children go thru that school, stolen jackets, new stolen boots..and no one cares...well it costs money. I might of felt like confronting the little thiefs but I didn't. Yes..no big deal stealing is ok...that is why everyone is paying higher prices than most States because of the stealing...this must be what you all want.
-- Posted by Jest Answering on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 2:31 pm EST

report this comment



Has anyone given thought to why we have things like iPods and other things that have nothing to do with education at school? When my daughter was in public school she wanted to bring her iPod to school with her and my question to her was "when are you going to be listening to it?" Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but in my day we weren't allowed to have things like expensive sunglasses, discmans (I'm showing my age) or anything that could get stolen or had no use during classes. I'm not condoning the adults' behavior, obviously it is deserving punishment. But, why tempt fate? I hate to sound like a fuddy duddy, but school is actually for learning.
-- Posted by Pandora box on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 2:04 pm EST

report this comment



I have personal experience with U32. I have walked into that school a thousand times and have NEVER been stoped or questioned. I've called and told them that my child was to be picked up by someone else and never did any thing in the way of confirming I was even a parent. My child left the property during school and I was never noitifed, my child got detention but I never knew until much later. My child was caught trying to purchase drugs and didn't get in any trouble.

The blame is not all on the school, clearly these two have a few screws loose to think that they could do something like this and get away with it. However, on the news this morning, Gerritt said he didn't know what else they could do to make the school more secure. There are MANY things they could do. U32 has been notorious in their lack of rules and regulations as well as enforcemnt. So people are suppose to sign in when they come into the school, all there is, is a sign on the way telling you to sign in. No one monitors the doors or pays any attention.

Had there been something like camera's outside, I'm sure you could have told by the looks on their faces that something wasn't quite right.
-- Posted by Anonymous None on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 1:15 pm EST

report this comment



I agree John!
-- Posted by miss kitty on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 12:22 pm EST

report this comment



How about throwing a felony unlawful trespass charge or unlawful restraint charge on them.
-- Posted by John Lamson on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 12:15 pm EST

report this comment



You seem to have more info than most people, my teenage daughter told me it was over an apparent stolen I pod. My daughters I pod was stolen last year at school , but they come in very limited color's so it was impossible to find out who took it. She is much more careful with her new one. I do know that if my son or daughter came home with something I did not buy for them I would be asking questions!
Even if the girl that was attacked was involved there is still NO excuse for the parents behavior. I feel sorry for their daughter , she has to live everyday at school with everyone knowing how her parents act!
-- Posted by miss kitty on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 11:13 am EST

report this comment



The person or persons who stole the IPOD should also go to jail.
-- Posted by Jest Answering on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 10:57 am EST

report this comment



This was not done right, but they should investigate the stolen property, seems like everyone is forgetting about that. Yes it was wrong of the adults...but who stole the IPOD?
-- Posted by Jest Answering on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 10:55 am EST

report this comment



Hey Mel,

One word - Columbine.

Look at what happened in Essex not too long ago.

Until people relearn the three R's (respect, responsibility and rhetoric) we will continue to have to do this to protect ourselves and our children.

Take care and and have a good day.

Average Joe
-- Posted by Joe Friday on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 10:24 am EST

report this comment



People who have had any contact with these two in the past know that they both have a history of violence. Start a fight and ask questions later, sounds like they missed the fights and drama that they caused while they were in high school. Some people never grow up!
-- Posted by miss kitty on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 10:14 am EST

report this comment



Maybe U-32 should have a police officer at the door as well. I know there is one at Spaulding. This is really awful, I feel bad for that student. I also feel bad for the student who is a child of these parents. I always felt safe when my child was at St. Monicas, but they don't have classes beyond the 8th grade. I hope whatever the outcome of this situation, that everyone is able to learn something from it. I wish I could say that the public school system is safe, but it isn't. Something needs to be done.
-- Posted by How do I heart thee on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 9:49 am EST

report this comment



How do you keep parents out of the school? This was a very unique and isolated incident, so I would hate to see the U-32 community overreact. No school should feel like a jail, with doors and windows locked and students treated more like criminals than those at a minimum security facility.
-- Posted by Mel Parker on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 9:46 am EST

report this comment



You are required to be buzzed in by a receptionist at Spaulding as well. U32 needs to get it together and provide a bit more protection for these children.
-- Posted by Christina Mason on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 9:22 am EST

report this comment



Heather, even with the tighest security parents of current students are regularly let into the building - how could anyone predict they'd be coming in to settle their kid's grudges?!
-- Posted by Captain Obvious on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 9:07 am EST

report this comment



Twinfield is just as bad, I'm afraid to say. Anyone and their brother could walk right in and into a classroom at any point. That school has all of their exits unlocked and it's wide open with nothing at all stopping strangers from entering the kindegarten wing or any other for that matter. There should be something in place. And people wonder why I homeschool.
-- Posted by Pandora box on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 9:02 am EST

report this comment



this guy only faces a 1,000 dollar fine and possible year in jail? for attacking a 16 year old girl in school. HOW ABOUT 5 YEARS IN IN JAIL AND A 10,000 DOLLAR FINE!!!!!!!
-- Posted by its me again margrette on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 8:25 am EST

report this comment



Not the sharpest pencils in the box are they?
-- Posted by vtblues on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 7:24 am EST

report this comment



I think this is more an issue of school needs to be prepared. No one monitors the door? I know that Central Vermont Catholic School St. Monica Campus (in Barre) uses a camera system. ALL doors are locked. The only way in, during school hours, is using a key or buzzing the office and being seen on the camera. I think all schools should work with this system, rather than keeping a front door open near the office. U-32 proved that that doesn't work.
-- Posted by Heather B. on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 7:18 am EST

report this comment



what the hell brought all of it and shouldn't the adults be mature for that matter??
-- Posted by Alicia Buck on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, 5:26 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout