Student, professor assaulted at Missouri School of Journalism

Tuesday, March 8, 2011 | 7:59 p.m. CST; updated 11:18 a.m. CST, Wednesday, March 9, 2011

COLUMBIA — Around 2 p.m. Tuesday, a student assaulted a fellow student and an assistant professor in the Futures Lab of the Reynolds Journalism Institute at MU, according to MU police.

Capt. Brian Weimer, public information officer for the MU Police Department, said the altercation began as a result of the professor confiscating the student's beverage.

Karen Mitchell, assistant professor of convergence journalism at MU, confiscated the beverage from the student in accordance with the rules of the Futures Lab, Weimer said. Mitchell was not teaching a class in the lab.

"She observed a rules violation and corrected it," Weimer said.

At that time, the student rose from his seat and pushed Mitchell into one of the surrounding tables, said David Teeghman, the other victim of the assault.

Teeghman said he immediately got up from his seat after seeing Mitchell fall to the floor.

"I saw this big, 230-pound guy pushing Karen into one of the tables," Teeghman said. "That's when I grabbed him and tried to pull her away from him. ... He grabbed me and had his hands on my neck. Luckily, there was a bunch of students to pull him away from me."

After the incident, Teeghman said he and fellow students ordered the other student out of the lab.

"At first I was absolutely shocked," Teeghman said. "But, then I was furious. I was furious that he put his hands on my teacher. I was furious he put his hands on me. Only after I calmed down I wasn't angry anymore. I was scared."

MU police arrested Jay-Dee Bush on suspicion of simple assault, a misdemeanor, Weimer said.

Although Teeghman said he thinks that Mitchell will not press charges, he said he is "seriously considering" filing charges against the man.

"Today's my birthday," Teeghman said. "And I can honestly say this is the worst birthday I've ever had."

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Ricky Gurley March 8, 2011 | 8:28 p.m.

Well, some lady who is a Professor but was not acting in her official capacity (so I have to assume was just probably another student) put her hands on this man's drink and took it off of his desk, got pushed...

Okay.... Sounds bad... But what did she honestly expect? Did she ask him to take the drink out of the lab? Did she even say to him that he should not have the drink in the lab? Or did she just walk over and take this man's drink off of his desk without saying anything to him? This article really does not answer these questions.

IF she did not say anything to him, and just walked over and took his drink, then I can kind of understand why he did what he did. Without saying anything to him, she committed theft. She intentionally deprived this man of his property; even though it was only a drink.

IF she did not say anything to him and just took his property without his consent, it is just kind of one of those things she just should not have done..

He should not have pushed her either, but I am not going to put 100% of the blame on this man just yet....

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
David Teeghman March 8, 2011 | 10:18 p.m.

I'm David Teeghman, the student in this article. All the quotes are correct, but the last one makes it sound like I'm considering pressing charges because it's my birthday. That is *not* why I'm considering charges. That is just the cherry on top that made this incident even more regrettable.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 8, 2011 | 10:35 p.m.

So David, since you were there when this incident occurred..

What capacity was Karen Miller in when she took the drink off of this student's desk? Professor or student at the time? Or was she just "hanging out" in the lab?

Did Karen Miller say anything to this student prior to taking the drink off of his desk? Or did she just walk up and take the drink off of his desk?

Was there any "friction" between these two people prior to this incident?

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Rasheed Riley March 8, 2011 | 10:47 p.m.

David it sounds to me when you say things like " Cherry on top.." that you are getting some kind of pleasure from this. Its like you are waiting for praise as if you are some kind of hero. You guys published this bogus article without even talking to the accused or the other alledged victim. Looks like you just want to prove to him that the pen is mightier than the sword.

(Report Comment)
Tony Robertson March 8, 2011 | 11:02 p.m.

As Rick James said, "Tab, is a hell of a drug."

(Report Comment)
Patrick Fallon March 8, 2011 | 11:55 p.m.

Ricky - you're joking right?

Professors, whose offices are connected to the lab, monitor the lab throughout the day, available to answer questions but also making sure no issues arise such as equipment being violated. Signs clearly state the no drink policy - most labs have tables away from the computers with drink holders also.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 9, 2011 | 12:35 a.m.

No Patrick I am not joking.

The article indicates that this lady was not in an "official capacity". What does that mean, Patrick? Are you telling me that the only reason she was not in an "official capacity" is because she stepped out of her office?

And are you saying that because these signs were up that this lady should have just walked over without saying a word and took this man's drink? You do realize that even if you are a citizen in an area with food or drink that you are not supposed to be in, and the Police have to ask you to leave or get rid of the drink they ask first, don't you?

So, I have to ask; are you joking about asking me if I am joking?

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Nathan Whitaker March 9, 2011 | 6:33 a.m.

You know, Ricky, your attitude is part of what is wrong with education in America. As mentioned, there were signs that clearly informed lab users that drinks were not allowed. The assistant professor did not need to have a discussion with this individual about whether he broke the rules, how he felt about that, or whether his self esteem might be bruised. She did her job by removing his drink (you know, the one he knew that he wasn't supposed to have there in the first place). But, as you have so clearly pointed out, he was special and the rules did not apply to him. This includes rules like "behave like a mature, responsible adult", "do not throw a temper tantrum when you don't get your way", and "do not assault people". This "student" should be expelled from the university and fully prosecuted, and you should be ashamed for attempting to justify his actions.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith March 9, 2011 | 7:47 a.m.

Well, Ricky, looks like you need to get ready to go stand in the corner. Great! You'll find others already there, and we've been looking for one more so we can play cards.

While some of the reported (here, in this newspaper) incidents at MU are definitely NOT humorous, the terminology employed when reporting them is sometimes more than a bit humorous - in its vagueness.

(Report Comment)
Jaime Mcarthur March 9, 2011 | 8:29 a.m.

This is a very one-sided article. Ok, there are rules against drinks, yes. This article does not state how she approached the student to remove his drink from the lab. Emotions can rise high when individuals talk down to others, and regardless of "rules" professors are expected to act responsibly to other students. I do not believe that this student has had a right to stand up for what happened, and others that were connected with this specific professor are taking sides. Should it have escalated to this point? No. Is the student charged getting a turn to state his side of the event? No. Did it matter that is was someone's birthday? No. All i see is one individual giving all sorts of statements that we cannot deem true or false. Was there a camera in the lab? Let's see that footage and judge for ourselves what REALLy happened. Til then, I do not have an opinion. Situations can be overvoiced and misconstrued all the time.

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 9, 2011 | 8:32 a.m.

At least Ricky didn't profess it to be the student's "right" to have his drink on the table. Still, his inability to lay the blame where it belongs, on the student, makes one wonder if "diversity" has run afoul of "right v wrong" once again.

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 9, 2011 | 8:35 a.m.

Ditto, jaime m

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm March 9, 2011 | 9:06 a.m.

This kid is obviously not mature enough to be in college.

(Report Comment)
Patrick Fallon March 9, 2011 | 9:12 a.m.

Fun Facts: The student is 32.
According to The Maneater Article linked above:
“The teacher asked him to remove it, then she picked it up and started walking toward the trashcan,” MU Police Department Capt. Brian Weimer said. “The individual grabbed the teacher from behind, pushing her into a table and the table was knocked over.”

(Report Comment)
Rasheed Riley March 9, 2011 | 9:29 a.m.

Well it seems that some people are determined to make this a one sided article. I must ask why were my previous comments removed? I did not use profanity I was civil and I certanly did not do any name calling, I simply asked why is this one student the alledged victim the only person who got to tell his story? I would like to know exactly what happpened and what was said prior to the alledged assault.

(Report Comment)
Jake Sherlock March 9, 2011 | 9:44 a.m.

@Hakeem Drexler,

Your comments are being removed because we require people posting here to do so under their real names (I like the handle though -- I was a big fan of Houston's Big 3 back in the day -- Hakeem Olajuwon, Clyde Drexler and Charles Barkley). If you'd like to email back the editor who sent you a note last night, or if you'd like to email me at with your real name, we'd be happy to put your posts back up.


Jake Sherlock
Opinion editor

(Report Comment)
Jake Sherlock March 9, 2011 | 9:46 a.m.

@Jamie M,

Same for you. Let me know your last name and I'll gladly put your comments back. Our goal here is not to have a one-sided conversation, but to have everyone on the record by posting as who they are in real life.

Thanks folks,

Jake Sherlock
Opinion editor

(Report Comment)
Kelsey Kind March 9, 2011 | 9:50 a.m.

As a convergence student who works closely with both Karen and David, I have to say that this is one of the most disturbing things that I have heard of in a while.
Ricky- because I know Karen and have been told to remove my drink multiple times, I KNOW Karen asked him, probably multiple times, before she did anything. Secondly, Karen is a professor and a damn good one at that and she deserves an enormous amount of respect and no one deserves to be treated in such a matter. That goes the same for David, who is a wonderful person and talented journalist. No one should feel unsafe in their work environment. Thirdly, Karen may have been "outside her official capacity" but anyone who goes into the lab knows that the professors have offices attached to the lab and they frequently go in and out to help students. In addition, Karen is in charge of running the lab so she was indeed supposed to be there.
And to be quite honest, I do not want to hear the other person's side of the story. I don't care what he thought because there is NO REASON to ever physically harm someone.
I want to reiterate that Karen and David are both amazing people and Karen is a professor that admire as a journalist, a student and as person and I know most convergence students would agree. it is unbelievable and completely unacceptable to behave like this.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle March 9, 2011 | 11:49 a.m.

I don't know the students involved, but I do work with Karen from time to time. I have the utmost respect for her work and professionalism, and completely back her judgement and authority to enforce rules (very well known, BTW) in the Futures Lab, pretty much no matter what.

The original "not in official capacity" wording has now been changed to "not teaching a class at the time," which is still a really poor way to couch the situation. Karen works for RJI and she's responsible for the lab, whether or not she's teaching a class there at the time.

The student will be *extremely* lucky if he doesn't get expelled. I doubt the real Dr. Brooks is amused.

(Report Comment)
Mark Poepsel March 9, 2011 | 12:51 p.m.

I don't understand people who defend this guy.
If someone takes your soda, even if it's blatant soda theft in the first degree. Freaking deal with it. It's no excuse to throw people on the floor or choke people.

There are signs posted everywhere in the Futures Lab telling people not to have drinks at the computers and where they can put their drinks. If a professor wants to enforce that basic rule that keeps the computers working for all the students, it doesn't require a whole lot of talk, which can be distracting to other students trying to edit in there.

The only "excuse me" needed might be: "Excuse me, why are you moving my soda?"

Instead, reportedly, Karen got shoved, a student got choked and the guy could face an assault charge.

(Report Comment)
Chris Dunn March 9, 2011 | 1:48 p.m.

Unrelated to the above comments: I'm wondering why the day and time are the first facts presented in the lede. Are the day and time of the alleged assault really critical to the unfolding and our understanding of the story?

Since there must've been some time pressure to report this story against JSB and The Maneater, I'm just curious about whether or not this story could have been pursued a little more thoroughly and written a little more effectively.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Ingram March 9, 2011 | 5:04 p.m.

It's interesting to me how people can criticize the vague nature of this article when it happened less than 24 hours ago. I'm assuming that many people who have posted comments are J-School students due to the accurate knowledge of the rules in the Futures Lab and of Karen. Therefore, you guys should understand that the first reports of incidents such as this are often times very vague. It's important for the author not to write any misleading or false information. Also, considering the pressure the author was under to get this story out, it makes perfect sense that she left out questions to answers that many of you are asking. I'd even be willing to bet that many people at the scene during the incident don't fully comprehend exactly what happened. I'm sure more details will unfold quite soon.
As far as this Ricky character questioning the blame of the student, you do raise some interesting points. However, although your skepticism is valid, I hope that you still find it highly unlikely that Karen is at fault here. You can't assault a teacher man...
I also hope that Jay-Dee is mentally evaluated before any punishment is given to him. Of course he was wrong in doing what he did, but I find it hard to believe that any college student in such a competitive program like Mizzou's Journalism school would do something like this rationally...
Still though, this kid is probably screwed.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Ingram March 9, 2011 | 5:05 p.m.

Answers to questions*
Mah bad

(Report Comment)
Ken Geringer March 9, 2011 | 5:19 p.m.

Battery. Just keep your hands off people.
Go to jail. Pay the fine. Get some counseling. Something is wrong.

(Report Comment)
David Teeghman March 9, 2011 | 10:59 p.m.

I'd like to thank Chris Dunn for officially elevating J-School Buzz to the level of competitors with the Missourian. We've come a long way!

FYI, Here's our post today about the incident:

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 10, 2011 | 12:25 p.m.

Kelsey Kind March 9, 2011 | 9:50 a.m. "And to be quite honest, I do not want to hear the other person's side of the story."

Ahh, a refreshing look at a person being honest about their intentional and deliberate ignorance every once in a while..

The fact that anyone works with Karen does not give me the first idea of what HER actions were. The fact that anyone respects Karen, does not give me the first idea of what HER actions were. I don't care if you have worked with her for 100 years and consider her to be the Dalai Lama; it still does not answer my original questions.

And Nathan, what a lovely little post.... I suppose Karen is even more special than all of us, being that she did not have to obey the laws of the state of Missouri and you are willing to give her a pass on that; IF (Notice the word IF here) she did in fact remove this man's PROPERTY that he PURRCHASED without giving him any notice prior to doing so:

Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 570
Stealing and Related Offenses
Section 570.030

August 28, 2010

570.030. 1. A person commits the crime of stealing if he or she appropriates property or services of another with the purpose to deprive him or her thereof, either without his or her consent or by means of deceit or coercion.

Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 570
Stealing and Related Offenses
Section 570.010


(8) "Deprive" means:

(a) To withhold property from the owner permanently; or

(b) To restore property only upon payment of reward or other compensation; or

(c) To use or dispose of property in a manner that makes recovery of the property by the owner unlikely;

(12) "Property" means anything of value, whether real or personal, tangible or intangible, in possession or in action, and shall include but not be limited to the evidence of a debt actually executed but not delivered or issued as a valid instrument;

Technically speaking, looking at this case by the letter of the law under the Missouri Statutes; Karen was actually stealing this man's drink. And I see no exceptions for Colleges and Professors in the statutes...

Look the statutes up, Nathan. They are quoted right here, all I did was copy and paste them from here:

So, are you SURE you are willing to make Karen just a little more "special" than anyone else here by allowing her to break the law? Giving her a "pass" on this one?

So, no I am not going to put all of the blame on this young man. I am not going to try to imitate and mimic some of you people's deliberate ignorance, as you have so aptly demonstrated in your posts.

I am going to call it as I see it. Blame: 80% Student 20% Professor!

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 10, 2011 | 2:46 p.m.

And Nathan, IF you are a student.

Perhaps you have it all figured out, just being within 6 to 8 years fresh out of high school, and us people in our 40s, 50s, and 60s; just never really figured out how to figure it all out like you have? I mean after all, you are getting a higher education, right?

Or, perhaps you are just young, inexperienced, and not what some might call “real worldly" yet? Despite the fact that you are getting a higher education...

But I can tell you a few things here from my perception (take it for what is worth from a guy that just has not figured it all out yet). In a civil society, where people try to be polite to one another, we ask before we touch people's property. And there is a very good reason for this. Usually we don't know just what state of mind the person that we are confronting is in. I mean their mother could have just died, or they could just be a really mean person that just ate their pet dog. We should just first observe the rules of politeness and civility. Keeps us from getting pushed into tables and what not...

Now Karen could have just as easily went over to Mr. Bush and said "Mr. Bush, would you please remove your drink from this area, throw it away, or just go outside to the designated area and drink it"? I am sure he would have complied. But if he did not, she could ask him again. And if he still persisted on "breaking the rules", she would have had a good reason to call security.

Karen actually had no authority whatsoever to put her hands on that man's drink; that is the plain and simple of it. Those signs gave Karen no authority whatsoever to take that man's drink away from him. Those signs did give her AND any other student in the area the authority to ask Mr. Bush to take his drink out of the lab, but NOT to put their hands on his property.

It would seem that some of you are “rallying” for Karen Mitchell without first determining if she could have handled this situation any better. That’s intentional and deliberate ignorance in my book. Which means you are quite content with being ignorant of making any observations on whether or not Karen could have handled this situation any better because Mr. Bush did something offensive enough here to warrant being the “bad guy” in this situation with no consideration at all; from your perception.

Ultimately this will all balance out… Mr. Bush will have to go to court, will probably have to pay a fine, and perhaps have to go to an anger management class and may even have to do some community service; and perhaps he will learn that assaulting people is just not the way to handle problems.

And the next time Karen Mitchell gets ready to put her hands on someone else’s property without their consent and/or permission, she may just say to herself “hold on a minute, I could get pushed into a table for this; I better confront this person politely instead of trying to deprive him of his property”. Or maybe she won’t….

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush March 10, 2011 | 5:30 p.m.

The guy who wasn't there is calling others "ignorant."
That is hilarious!
Passing judgement from a news story. Too funny!

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 10, 2011 | 5:42 p.m.

Was this guy that pushed this lady related to you, Gregg? LOL.

Hey Gregg I asked the questions, they were avoided. One can come to certain conclusions when their questions are avoided.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 10, 2011 | 6:09 p.m.

Ricky, You been staying up late again?

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 10, 2011 | 6:35 p.m.

Hey Frank,

I should point out to you that the dates and times of my posts are printed right beside my name............

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire March 10, 2011 | 8:32 p.m.

None of this would have happened if they didn't allow drinking on campus!

(Report Comment)
Matt Brubaker March 10, 2011 | 11:05 p.m.

Ricky, while we may not be able to control how someone acts towards us, we are always 100% responsible for our reactions. In other words, the professor was 100% responsible for how she approached the student, and the student was 100% responsible for his reaction (not 80%, as some would like to claim).

I agree whole-heartedly with what Nathan posted. I am very discouraged to see people so hung up on how the professor (could have) handled this situation better, instead of focusing on the real issue at the heart of this story--entitlement. Just because an item belongs to you, does not mean you have the right to abuse the regulations that control its usage. Unfortunately, I fear this mentality has been spurred on by our society's unquestioning acceptance of personal rights.

Only when we learn to own up to our own mistakes (instead of looking for excuses), can we start to rid ourselves of this narcissistic entitlement.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 11, 2011 | 8:05 a.m.


When I read your statement I don't look at it as a disagreement with me.. I think if you apply your statement equally to the student and the Professor; you are saying that the Professor "screwed up" a little here too.........

I think you are right about entitlement... Just because you are in a position of authority does not mean that you are entitled to steal people's property..... Good point, Matt...

Perhaps you should have a long talk with Karen Mitchell about that?

Both the Professor and the student were 100% responsible for their own actions. The student should have used better judgment and self-control, and the Professor should not have prompted such an angry response by just being civil and polite. But when I look to how I personally would assign blame for this incident; I give 80% to the student and 20% to the Professor. Understand now?

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Kelsey Kind March 11, 2011 | 8:54 a.m.

I am not ignorant to the situation and you are missing a very important point here which is that she did indeed ask him politely to remove his drink and he chose not too. The futures lab contains multi-thousand dollar computers and spilling a drink on them would not only detrimental to the computer itself but the multitude of students who depend on those computers to get their deadlines met every single week.
I have to say that I am pretty offended by your comment calling me deliberately ignorant. I stated that because there is NO reason to put your hands on someone ever. Whatever his reason to do so, I do not believe it's valid. It is never appropriate to harm someone.
And yes, we are all rallying around Karen Mitchell, and that should be a sign to you that so many of us believe that she did nothing wrong.
I would like to remind you that these are actual people we are talking about and not just subjects of news. These are people with feelings, and I hope you realize how scary this situation was for everyone involved and whether or not you agree with her actions does not constitue putting the blame on her. She never harmed Mr. Bush, and he reacted to discipline physically. Please remember that this is a very traumatic experience for a lot of us and your comments can appear very unsentimental and frankly very rude.
Thank you,
Kelsey Kind

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 11, 2011 | 9:48 a.m.


I will not apologize for calling you deliberately ignorant. This statement right here says it all to me: "And to be quite honest, I do not want to hear the other person's side of the story."

That statement means that you don't care about the other side of this story. It means that you have chosen to ignore that there is any other side to this story than Karen Mitchell getting pushed (DELIBERATE IGNORANCE). Free Range, Intentional and Deliberate IGNORANCE, is what that is called!

Now as far as what Karen said to this guy prior to taking his drink; I asked that question and it seemed to be avoided. And then Mr. Teeghman made a statement on his blog contrary to the statement in the Maneater as to what Karen Mitchell said prior to removing this young man's drink from his desk:

Mr. Teeghman’s Account of what Karen Mitchell said: “Do I see a drink at the computer?!?”

The Maneater reports that Officer Weimer stated: “The teacher asked him to remove it”

And I still have no clear answer on what Karen Mitchell said to this student prior to taking it upon herself to appropriate his property without his consent…? Who do I believe, Officer Weimer or Mr. Teeghman? Their recollections of what Karen Mitchell said are quite different.

So, are you SURE that Karen Mitchell asked this student politely to remove his drink from the lab? Because Mr. Teeghman who was there, and who was also a part of this little "fiasco" states that she did not ask him to remove his drink, she made this statement: “Do I see a drink at the computer?!?” AND he even goes on to describe that Karen Mitchell made that statement with "her usual dose of bluster". But I can't find anywhere that anyone is saying that Karen Mitchell directly addressed this student prior to taking his drink off of his desk...

Yes, we do all have feelings. But that should never prohibit anyone from freely speaking their mind, Kelsey...

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 11, 2011 | 10:05 a.m.

ricky g. - "I should point out to you that the dates and times of my posts are printed right beside my name....."

Sorry, I was referring to your recent apology for a late at night post which appeared lacking in the dept. of reasoned content. I noted that the apology seemed to be lacking as well. I thought, your continued effort to
Blame the Victim, which has too often been the case in recent years, might have been the result of another of "those nights". Both my comments were made in jest.

My papers are gone with the trash this morning and can't find it around here, but didn't one story state, Karen asked student to remove the drink from lab, was told "get out of my face" then after placing the drink on Floor said, is that good enough?

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith March 11, 2011 | 10:09 a.m.

".. I don't want to hear the other person's side of the story."

There's a lot of that going around these days, Ricky. Never mind the specific topic here, it's not necessary to go beyond the confines of University of Missouri System to view the situation in full flower.

System? What system? You've got to be kidding!

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 11, 2011 | 10:21 a.m.


I think I was apologizing for spelling errors and/or possibly misreading something in a post and responding to it.. My content is always reasoned, my "Speculation Machine" is always calibrated and finely tuned, and my ability to find and pick out "key concepts" in these matters is well practiced and almost perfect! LMAO!

Yes, I did apologize for something and stated it was late and I was working (meaning I was writing a report, more than likely); if I remember correctly?

All I have seen are conflicting statements about what was said prior to this incident. But I would tend to believe Mr. Teeghman since he was there, close enough to hear it, and even involved in this incident. And Mr. Teeghman only states in his article that Karen Mitchell said: “Do I see a drink at the computer?!?”; I'd hardly call that addressing the student directly by politely asking the student to remove his drink from the lab....

Now, what people are missing here is that I DO fault the student for assaulting Karen Mitchell, and I HAVE made that clear in my posts. I am NOT trying to absolve this student of any wrongdoing. What he did was clearly wrong. But, I am trying to be fair and impartial, and make note of the fact that you just can't go around taking people's property no matter who you are or think you are. Not nice. Not acceptable. And certainly a Professor should have been a little more tactful than that...

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 11, 2011 | 10:30 a.m.


I also make note that most of the people that are "rallying" around Karen Mitchell are students at MU. Probably not that much of a leap to make to "speculate" that some of them, and probably most of them may even be in Karen Mitchell's class (she is probably their Professor).

Dare they speak out against their Professor in any way? These people must really fear a bad grade or being the subject of one of their Professor's ire... LOL.

And I bet they may even believe that Karen Mitchell is happy and quite content with their little campaign to make Mr. Bush the evil villain here. Well good on them. They should do fine in the corporate world, they already seem to have "butt kissing" down to a science...

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith March 11, 2011 | 10:54 a.m.

Good point, Rick.

My post - admittedly somewhat esoteric - was more aimed at the relationships (or serious lack of any) between the four campuses of this so-called university "system:" students, faculty and alumni. But I suppose those relationships could also be related to situations WITHIN campuses.

To hell with it! I'm getting ready for the parade tomorrow (Saturday). There's a parade in Columbia? I don't think so, but there's most definitely a parade elsewhere in Missouri, the 103rd annual one. This year the weather is cooperating.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 11, 2011 | 11:14 a.m.

A rational person, when having their drink removed, would ask, "Why did you do that?" Or they might say, "Hey! That's my drink! Give it back!"

No rational person would ever push another person because of this action. Pushing someone, especially pushing someone hard enough to knock them over is an aggressive action, and someone grabbing someone's drink does not warrant such aggression. Not unless you're in the desert and dying of thirst.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 11, 2011 | 11:16 a.m.

And there's more on this story

She was acting officially, she did tell him to get rid of his drink, he refused, she then moved to remove it, he pushed her down hard enough to knock her against the table causing her and it to collapse on the ground.

This is the action of a bully.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 11, 2011 | 11:27 a.m.


Shouldn't you be off on another thread defending puppies or something?

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 11, 2011 | 11:38 a.m.

And I will direct you to this article Shelley:

In which Mr. Teeghman writes: "Mitchell’s shot across the bow was her classic line, “Do I see a drink at the computer?!?” with her usual dose of bluster. It’s an old line, one that any convergence student who’s been around for a while has heard or been subjected to a million times. This student hadn’t spent much time in the Futures Lab, though, and was new to this treatment."

Mr. Teeghman is a student that was in the lab when this incident occurred. Mr. Teeghman was involved in the altercation that took place. Mr. Teeghman wrote this statement on his blog on March 9, 2011 when this incident was still fairly fresh in his mind (one day after his article here was written). Mr. Teeghman is a witness to what happened, so he is not reporting on "hear-say".

I'll take Mr. Teeghman's word for what was said despite what the Maneater writes in its article...

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 11, 2011 | 12:11 p.m.

Ricky - Wednesday front page Tribune stated information from Capt. Brian Weimer indicated Jay-Dee Bush was charged with simple assault, a misdemeanor, and posted $500 bond. Wiemer also told of bush setting the drink on the floor and asked "is that good enough?". Weimer said "it was still in violation, so Mitchell picked it up and threw it away.",etc. etc.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 11, 2011 | 12:16 p.m.


I think you are missing an important point that I am trying to make here..

Capt. Weimer was NOT there when this incident took place.. What he is saying is "hear-say".

Mr. Teeghman WAS there when this incident took place.. What he is "saying" (has written on his blog) is an actual witness account of what happened....

Think about it...

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 11, 2011 | 1:41 p.m.

Rick - My intent was to add another valid account to the mix of accounts. The information contained in all varied little in the obvious, That the student reacted "improperly" to say the least, to a legitimate request for the removal of his prohibited "drink" from the lab.

Only you have written this long and hard, trying to put some portion of blame on the prof. "Do I see a drink at the computer?!?”; I'd hardly call that addressing the student directly by politely asking the student to remove his drink from the lab...."

In my view, "Do I see a drink at the computer?" would be a friendly way to allow a guilty party (with signs all around) the opportunity to comply without being asked. But of course I wasn't there was I?

(Report Comment)
Rasheed Riley March 11, 2011 | 1:47 p.m.

Ricky I'm glad that there are people like you who aren't afraid to speak the truth. I in no way am trying to defend violent behavior. Mr. Bush however does have the right to be heard as well. So far I don't see any statements from him. Mr. Teeghman is the only person who's made any statements, I know he wasnt the only student present. Yet he is the only person talking about it in the local media, which he apparently has a lot of influence with. Which explains the lopsidedness of these articles. It seems that since Mr. Teeghman was incapable of defending his professor or himself, he wants to take away Mr. Bush's ability to defend himself as well by creating a mob mentality among his fellow students. Whats next Dave? Are you going to gather all the townsfolk, with their pitchforks and torches and drive him out from amongst your midst? What you are doing is wrong. Its unjust and not to mention it's just really bad journalism and you know it.........

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 11, 2011 | 1:53 p.m.


You my dear sir are not putting this into proper context...

The accounts vary, and so does the substance of each account...

There is a difference in announcing a question to the class as to whether or not the Professor sees a drink at the computer, and directly but politely addressing the student that has a drink at the computer. Especially when you factor in that this student was new and was not used to the Professor's "style of confrontation", again as one of the witnesses to the incident (Mr. Teeghman) has stated: "This student hadn’t spent much time in the Futures Lab, though, and was new to this treatment."

If you are quoting Capt. Weimer, you sir don't have a valid account. How could you? Capt. Weimer was not there when the incident occurred, he is just repeating what someone else that was there told him. And we don't even know if what he is saying is completely accurate due to the possibility of a misquote, inaccurate recall on his behalf, and/or inaccurate recall on the person's behalf that told him this.

But with Mr. Teeghman, we have an account that is less than one day old. By a witness that was in earshot of what was said. By a witness that was involved in the incident. By a witness that does not have to repeat what someone else said, because he witnessed it firsthand..

There is a difference, Frank..

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 11, 2011 | 3:05 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
frank christian March 11, 2011 | 3:33 p.m.

Ricky - In your investigations, do you only report the info You deem to be accurate? Do you consider the "police report"? Isn't an eye-witness oft times a poor source of evidence? What has Teeghman stated that would indicate that the prof. was wrong in any way? I have shown that you are probably off base with "do I see a drink..." as improper.

I think you are using your expertise to try show us how truth can be lost in conversation about an incident and that is appreciated here.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 11, 2011 | 3:49 p.m.


Let’s discuss that for a minute...

You do understand that Capt. Weimer can not even testify to hear-say, don't you?

You do understand that Mr. Teeghman CAN testify to what he saw and heard when this incident took place, don't you?

Thus, without laying a foundation by calling the witness that made this statement to Capt. Weimer, he can not even testify to what he "heard someone else say".

So, which is more valid here, Capt. Weimer's recollection of a witnesses recollection of what happened or the direct recollection of a witness that was there when the incident took place? AND has already given us his own written account on his blog as to what happened less than a day after it happened?

Furthermore, let's get a little deeper into this. Do you really beleive that the reporter for the News Paper's recollection, of what Capt. Weimer's recollection, of the witnesses recollection is completely accurate?

The only thing that you have shown is that you are inclined to take the word of one side of this incident, without even hearing from the other side involved in this incident......

Because you have not heard this student's side of what happened in this incident yet, have you?

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Judy Teeghman March 11, 2011 | 4:04 p.m.

I have been following this story, in part, because I was the person to first call the University Police. Why is no one asking why a 32 year old student would respond to his drink being taken with violence? Why, then, did he respond to a student assisting the professor with MORE violence. The Professor was knocked into a table and both she and the table fell to the floor. The student was held in a choke hold until other students and professors ran to pull the man off of the student who came to the aid of a professor. Why is no one asking about campus violence? What actions has the University of Missouri taken in response to an assault on a professor and student? I am a consumer of journalism. I am not a journalist nor do I attend the school. But these are my questions -- why did this person react so violently? What steps has the university taken? If parents knew about this, wouldn't they be concerned about the safety of their children? Where is the reporting of what the University is doing to protect students? Follow up on that, please.

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 11, 2011 | 5:28 p.m.

Ricky G.- OK, please believe that we, and I, understand, each is considered innocent until proven guilty! You are beating s dead horse. Give it up. Please don't take Judy Teegham to task, above,because she didn't clearly state that she viewed the whole incident from start to finish.

(Report Comment)
Ken Geringer March 11, 2011 | 5:43 p.m.

OK, clearly time to please don't respond to ricky.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 11, 2011 | 6:31 p.m.

Does that mean I won? LMAO!

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz March 11, 2011 | 7:16 p.m.

Look out Rick, they're trying to put you in time-out!

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 11, 2011 | 9:26 p.m.


I don't know if they are trying to put me in "time-out" or if they are saying "okay, shut up already; you won the argument".

IF I won, I want some sort of prize! LOL.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Judy Teeghman March 12, 2011 | 12:14 p.m.

I am surprised that no one seems to be concerned that a student reacted in a violent fashion, certainly over-the-top, in reaction to the action of the Professor. You want Journalism to look at the various aspects of what happens in the world, don't you? What's going on with this guy that he reacted so violently? What steps has the University taken to insure the safety of their campus?

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 12, 2011 | 12:36 p.m.


Are you shocked that there is violence on campus? I mean, do you expect that something that is a part of everyday life would somehow just magically manage to be absent from a college campus?

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 12, 2011 | 2:10 p.m.

Ricky G. "IF I won, I want some sort of prize!"

That's why you ain't gittin, no prize!

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 12, 2011 | 2:29 p.m.


Thats funny!

I still am unsure if I won or not? LOL.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Walter Lane March 12, 2011 | 3:27 p.m.

I'm a little confused as to why his parents called MUPD and not him. Just found that a little odd.

(Report Comment)
Tina Daniels March 13, 2011 | 10:52 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Ricky Gurley March 13, 2011 | 11:30 a.m.

Finally, the truth comes out thanks to one bold person not afraid to tell the truth. Tina, good on you girl!

I'll bet some of the "armchair quarterbacks" that were taking the word of a few "butt kissing or even malicious students" that were afraid to speak negatively of their Professor for fear of retribution or because they wanted this student to be the evil villain here are feeling pretty dumb about right now....

It really was not that hard for me to read between the lines after I read Mr. Teeghman's blog. But that IS what I do for a living with my finely tuned, well practiced, and highy accurate "Speculation Machine", you know... I was just waiting for that ONE student with some character to step forward. And Tina Daniels now has.

Thank you, Tina. You will earn the respect of the people that count in life as long as you maintain your good, strong, and bold character.

AGAIN: 80% Student 20% Professor!

Nuff said!

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 13, 2011 | 1:20 p.m.

Rick G. - But,Tina Daniels was not present during the incident. At your insistence, this is the requirement foisted on anyone wishing to opine one way or the other. Her comments, above, are only her opinion of the prof. and are thus, hearsay. Nuff said? One more word,whatacrock!

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 13, 2011 | 2:04 p.m.

Again Frank, you are not clear on the "rules of the game".... But you can't help it, you just don't know. You are still learning.....

Tina can NOT speak to what was said or what happened when this incident occurred... She was not there, and you are absolutely correct about THAT..

But she CAN speak to Karen Mitchell's character. She can speak to whether or not Karen Mitchell has shown a propensity to disrespect, publicly embarrass, and/or humiliate the students in her class, BECAUSE Tina has WITNESSED that as she writes here: "I have personally witnessed her being downright nasty, rude, and condescending in class and in the Futures Lab."

Tina CAN dispute these types of "butt kissing phrases" from students that have Karen Mitchell as a Professor currently:

Butt Kiss Statement - "Karen is a professor and a damn good one at that and she deserves an enormous amount of respect"

And while we are talking about the concern that parents should have when sending their children to college. Shouldn't the parents also be concerned with whether or not the Professors at these colleges are going to treat their young adult children with a certain amount of decency, dignity, and respect? Shouldn't these parents be concerned about a Professor that might try to publicly humiliate or embarrass their child? Aren't these legitimate concerns for parent too?

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 13, 2011 | 2:20 p.m.

Ricky Gurley, you claim to have a knowledge of law, but your use of this knowledge is inconsistent.

You applaud Tina's statement, probably because you've affixed yourself to a position in this argument and she seemingly supports it.

But doesn't good investigation require that you question Tina's motives for making her statement?

You can't take anything Tina is saying as fact, because all we have is her opinion, and we don't know what motivated her to write her comment. The tone does imply a level of personal acrimony towards the professor.

Judy's point earlier is a good one: regardless of verbal context, a student pushing a professor down, hard enough to knock her into a table and send it, and her, crashing to the ground is a person who is not acting reasonably, or legally. We know the police didn't deem it legal, because he was arrested for his action.

Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that anyone would find his actions to be 'reasonable'.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 13, 2011 | 2:29 p.m.

Now, having said the above, I do find that Mr. Weimer does seem to have an inordinate interest in seeing his name in print--in addition to having a flare for the overly dramatic.

I would think that he has some maturing of his own to do.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 13, 2011 | 2:32 p.m.

Sorry, meant Mr. Teeghman.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 13, 2011 | 2:43 p.m.


Almost EVERYTHING here is either opinion or perception.. Even the people that witnessed what occurred won't have a completely accurate recollection of what happened. The incident was more than likely chaotic. People were having a "spike" in adrenalin. Their minds were reacting to the situation instead of paying close attention to the details of the situation. Every competent Investigator knows this.

But there are certain key points that I observe that you apparently don't. But that is because you don't make your living from observing these key points and because you are not "practiced" at it. So, I don't fault you for making ASSumptions about how I perceive this incident. You are a "Newspaper Article Novice Investigator"; which is fine since it is a wonderful way to pass the time on a Sunday afternoon.

For me, the statement that Mr. Teeghman made about Karen's "usual dose of bluster" was a "first indicator" to me that Karen was at least probably a bit "unorthodox" in how she handles "rules enforcement" with students. When I couple that with the consideration that most of the people commenting in Karen's favor are students at MU, and are more than likely students of Karen's; I start to see the formation of a slightly different picture than what this article gives, and what these student's accounts are. For you, the "untrained eye"; there is no way you could observe this or put this together.

Now, I am not an attorney. But I have testified in enough cases, assisted enough attorneys with cases, gathered enough evidence that was admitted into court, questioned enough witnesses and got their statements admitted into court, been deposed enough, and have worked enough criminal defense cases to have a better than "layman's understanding of the law". Have you?

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 13, 2011 | 2:49 p.m.

RG - It is clear to most, I believe, that you can twist your immense knowledge of things, legal to suit your purpose of the moment and claim victory with the Opinion of the last one to agree with your stance. Not very interesting conversation. I'm done.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 13, 2011 | 2:52 p.m.

Hey Frank,

It is real hard to argue with well laid out logic. I think you are a extremely wise man. Because you certainly know when it is time to quit. Some people go an entire lifetime and never learn when it is time to quit......

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Jake Sherlock March 13, 2011 | 3:02 p.m.

Tina Daniels post has been removed pending verification of her identity. She has been emailed, but just in case you don't see it, please contact me at for identity verification. Thanks.

Jake Sherlock
Opinion editor.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 13, 2011 | 3:13 p.m.


You know... In this ONE particular case, perhaps you should allow people to post anonymously.

What if some of the people that want to post here ARE student's of Karen Mitchell's and are afraid that speaking their honest opinion on this thread may cause them some "discomfort" at school? Perhaps we might get a more "honest read" on what happened if you do allow people to post anonymously this one time? Perhaps some of the students at MU that MAY have been the subject of Karen Mitchell's "usual dose of bluster" might want to speak up about that without fear of retribution or reprisal at school?

Unless someone might be afraid that doing that in this ONE particular case could give this story an alternative view that might not be so flattering to a Professor at MU, that is..........

I know, I know... But before you answer with that "the rules are the rules are the rules" thingy that you are about to, that is also very boring.. Why don't you ask Tom Warhover to read this post, or copy it and send it to him? Get his opinion on it... Just a thought..

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
hank ottinger March 13, 2011 | 5:49 p.m.

Mr. Gurley, in his typically enthusiastic manner, writes, "Finally, the truth comes out thanks to one bold person not afraid to tell the truth. Tina, good on you girl!"
And Mr. Sherlock, wisely in my opinion, seeks to verify Ms. Daniels' identity. Ms. Daniels was clearly stating an opinion, all well and good. But anyone who's been involved in evaluations of teachers, bosses, and the like, must know that there's always one or two students, employees, or workers who, for any number of reasons, regard the professor or the boss in a negative way, to put it mildly. It's just human nature, I suppose, that 95% of the students/workers may regard the prof or boss positively, but because of some quirk, some crossways occurrence, some slight, there'll be one who goes ballistic. One should not grant the one much credibility; if they're a dozen or more, that's a different deck of cards.
As an unsolicited aside, Mr. Gurley's posts could be improved by less reliance on capital letters and quotation marks.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 13, 2011 | 6:17 p.m.

Mr. Ottinger,

I should point out to you that we are not evaluating teachers at school here..

I mean, if this were a few students filling out a questionnaire anonymously or even signing their name to a survey about their teacher that only their teacher's supervisor would see that would be one thing... But that is not what is happening here, is it? The whole world gets to see what the student is going to write about the teacher here, right? So, If the student writes something that is (WATCH THESE QUOTES NOW) "less than flattering" about their teacher, that might cause the teacher a lot of embarrassment here. Two completely difference scenarios, don't you think?

Can you name the dozen students that are speaking up for Karen Mitchell in this article, Mr. Ottinger? I have only seen about 2 maybe 3 at the most. Most of what I see people saying here is that what Mr. Bush did was wrong, not that Karen Mitchell was "teacher of the decade".

There are situations where anonymity is called for. Anytime transparency discourages people that have legitimate complaints from coming forward, you have one of those situations.

I do appreciate the writing tips too, Mr. Ottinger.. But if it is all the same to you, I'll write as I always have. That writing defines me. Think of it as my own personal "signature". This way, you'll always know it's me and not an "IMPOSTOR". LOL.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
hank ottinger March 13, 2011 | 7:07 p.m.

Yeah, LOL, Mr. Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 16, 2011 | 8:02 a.m.

For those of you that may have a complaint about Karen Mitchell since the Columbia Missourian is going to add some pressure that may prohibit you from making a complaint here by making you tell who you are on this forum; you can always go to and post anonymously.

I'll be watching that site to see if anyone has any complaints about Karen Mitchell; just out of interest.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Paul Gilzow March 25, 2011 | 11:57 a.m.

Ricky, the security tape of the incident is now available and should answer most of your questions and debunk most of your statements:

It's pretty oblivious that she pointed out the sign stating no drinks (if you've been in the lab you know what's in the area that she is pointing to), they discuss things for some time BEFORE she removes his drink.

From the tapes there is no question as to whether or not he assaulted her. Yes, he could sue her for theft of his soda, but I doubt that case would go anywhere.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire March 25, 2011 | 12:32 p.m.

Send it to IRAQ!!!

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 25, 2011 | 12:43 p.m.


I don't even have to look at the security tape to already say that it won't debunk the first statement that I made..

I never made any statements that could be debunked to begin with; unless you call statements that begin with the word "IF", questions asked, quotes from the Missouri Statutes, and assigning 80% blame to the student and 20% to the teacher "debunkable"???

None the less, I WILL certainly look at the video tape.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 25, 2011 | 12:52 p.m.

Are you watching the same tape I am watching Paul?

I'd LOVE to assist the student on this case...

The teacher was visibly irritated and her expressions were very animated. She was rude, the student was on the cell phone. She took the drink, the student tried to get it back, she attempted to "elbow" the student, and the student pushed her, she took off her jacket and went after him like she was ready to fight!

Thank goodness for the tape. It only further proves what I suspected all along....

GOD, I hope I get the call from the attorney on this case to assist with this student's defense. I could not personally take it now, because I have commented here. But I could assign one of my Investigators to it.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire March 25, 2011 | 1:34 p.m.

Tape? What tape. Oh THAT?

What are you going to believe. A tape that is subject to all sorts of mechanical errors or the word of the people who were there? You know how cameras can make mistakes sometimes. Give it a rest already. Haven't you ever heard of a citizens confiscation?

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 25, 2011 | 2:07 p.m.

Not you Paul Allaire! I was addressing Paul Gilzow.

Now your punishment for not paying closer attention is.....


Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Judy Teeghman March 28, 2011 | 1:47 a.m.

"Now, I am not an attorney. But I have testified in enough cases, assisted enough attorneys with cases... have worked enough criminal defense cases to have a better than 'layman's understanding of the law. Have you? Ricky Gurley."

Yes, thank you for asking, my comments are partially based on 25 years of working on legal cases. Mr./Ms Gurley, you asked me if I was shocked that there is violence on school campus. I see you are intent on diversionary tactics rather than dealing with the facts of the matter here. I find many of your points to have little relation to this incident. I believe people should follow the law whether that be civil law or law of civil society. In the standard among humans, it is typically not acceptable to physically attack someone because they remove your drink nor is it acceptable that a person attack someone who comes to the aid of another. I consider such behavior to be a "red flag" to the university administration as well as students. I considered it essential that the MU Police be notified of this potentially dangerous situation. In recent U.S. history, there have been indications of simmering anger that were left unaddressed. For the safety of the Mizzou campus, I felt it best the police be notified. I am hopeful that the the University and its representatives take the necessary steps to do take every measure to protect students and staff.

By the way, is this your means to get free advertising for criminal/civil investigations?

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 28, 2011 | 8:23 a.m.

Well Judy Teeghman; it appears that I may have to be careful what I say now.. Let's just say that things have changed a little; after having met with Mr. Bush... ;o)

My "advertisement" as you have put it just may have paid off, Judy... But so you'll know, I do have a webpage that I use to advertise my company with.

But I have one question for you... Aren't you just a little bit biased here? I mean you are the mother of one of the witnesses, possibly even one of the "victims"; right? I don't even think Karen Mitchell wants to press charges from what I understand. I think it might be your son that is named as the "victim" in the case. But I could be wrong. Right now I can't even seem to find the case on CaseNet.

I should also remind you Judy Teeghman that my "diversionary tactics" were in direct response to your post. So, if my response was diversionary then your post was diversionary also.

Looking a little closer; I should also remind you that your son did not seem too concerned over this incident, YOU DID; because he (your son) did not call the Police you called the Police

I hope that the University and its representatives take the necessary steps and every measure to protect students FROM staff! And I hope that the University and its representatives won't allow theirseiselves to be unreasonably influenced by "pampering parents".

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
John Lyman March 29, 2011 | 2:23 p.m.
(Report Comment)
keelan bush April 15, 2011 | 10:40 a.m.

After reviwing this tape of the professor and student brawl,in my opinion I clearly think as those with a sensible and undrstanding mind should be able to see in this video, is that the professor was wrong. She gave a warning to the student in which it seems like he understood in her request to remove his drink, but out of haste with not giving him enough time in reasoning with the student, she took it upon herself to remove a drink that wasn't hers,if the student wasn't in compliance to remove it himself she could of politely asked him farther to leave the computer area in which she didn't. As you can see she caused all the chaos when she clearly tried to deprive him of his drink. In his attempt to retrieve it, a blind man can see that she caused the initial contact when she pushed him first. If anybody should be pressing charges it should be the student who was harrased by the professor over a petty drink and if anyone should be standing infront of a commitee to be judged on thier behavior it should be the professor not the student! Now as far as the student who got choked, he brought that on himself and should have no say so in this situation even though it was his birthday. People should mind thier own business and not get involved if it dont pertain to them. Especially with a 230lb black man.OH!!!! well he'll know next time!!

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.