Based on what? You know nothing about me or what I find important or comment on.

My premise is based on the principle that people should not be punished until guilt is proven by an appropriate authority. That this guy is most likely a rapist that should spend a long time in jail does not mean we throw out the principle. Either it applies to everyone or else the system is meaningless.

did anyone say that? Most suspension get some form of due process "not a full court trial" and you consider up to a year suspension to be "mild". Let's say you were innocent of a accused crime but you were suspended for a year. Would you consider yourself to have been harmed in the legal sense?

that is a very false argument. You can defend a principle without defending what an individual may or may not have done. Under your logic, all defense lawyers are suspect and should be investigated for being criminals

It is not an ad hominem attack because you directly based your contention that I'm not a lawyer on your perceived special knowledge, therefore it directly addresses the argument not the person, but nice try. Maybe if you studied harder in school you could have become a lawyer...now that's an ad hominem. I never made…

You would need a showing that he is a threat to safety at the school or on the football field. There has been none. Being charged does not make you a threat by definition.

Please show any statement that is legally incorrect with citation since you must be a lawyer too.

"If you think that I was accusing him of child molestation, then no." obviously a reading comprehension failure here.
It is only a false equivalency if we agree on your criteria for comparison, but believe it or not you do not own the criteria. I think the safety argument is a red herring that you are pinning…

also many of these same people were up in arms yesterday about the suspension of the girl with a knife in Detroit.

Factually false. Even people charged with murder regularly get bail.

To assume that they aren't damaged by being suspended is naive at best

you are assuming guilt.

when you don't have an argument, go for the ad hominem. Stay classy!

you are the one who keeps imagining arguments that aren't there

Criminal cases are often continued, it could be a year or more before trial depending on the specific details. It certainly isn't going to happen earlier than the trial date as set.

sending someone home on day one is very different from months to a year of suspension.

it is your side condescending tone that drips through every comment that shows you are less of an adult

1) you used "child molester" not someone accused of child molestation, so yeah, false equivalency. 2) if a teacher were accused of molestation they would be suspended with pay so that they don't suffer any actual damages as the case plays out.

"So why is it then that you types ONLY come out and comment " so now you know me and what I view and/or comment about? Are there a lot of stories her on Jez about people being suspended from school for begin arrested for arson? Must be nice being psychic. I practice law defending people when there rights are violated…

but bail is almost always granted unless you can make particular showings.