
Functional people don’t punch their teacher in the face because they don’t have enough to eat. He may have had low blood sugar AND a behavioral or mental issue that needs to be addressed.
At minimum I would expect a letter from the kid as to what they did was wrong and an apology from both parents and kid. I would expect an offer to pay for the glasses. I would expect the kid to be punished severely. A good example would be selling the kids ps5 to pay for the glasses and not getting him another console this year and making him spend his free time doing unpleasant chores for a month with no outings or rewards of any kind.
This is both non-violent, moral, memorable, directly exemplifies the direct connection between wrongdoing and restitution. It doesn’t assign blame to a condition as if being hungry forced him to punch his teacher in the face.






25% of the population were under 18 during the election they cannot be said to tacitly support trump.
22% of people voted directly for Harris they directly opposed trump.
This alone is 47% of the population! This alone disproves your 2/3 narrative!
30% of the pop by not voting did not cast a tacit vote for Trump. Few countries have 100% voter turnout in any free country. A sane mathematical treatment of the situation is to assume that a sufficiently large sample is representative OR to ask people.
If 48% of voters voted for Trump we assume 48% of those who were adults in 2024 are responsible or 36% or we can ask people if they support Trump and we get 39%.
Most in the US aren’t for our modern day nazis