In this case, the mother first gave permission to spank the child.
So, you're cool with the government usurping authority.
Was the child presented with an indictment of the crimes alleged against her?
Was her right to legal counsel protected?
Was she give a trial BY HER PEERS?
Who was there to protect the child's rights? Not the parent, obviously. Since that female didn't habla very well, just like the "principal", I'm pretty sure none of the protections the Constitution grants citizens were respected.
It's the parent's job to administer corporal punishment, which should never be applied with a TOOL.
Your problem appears to be failure to understand the difference between corporal punishment and a beating.
Nope. No difficulty in making the distinction at all.
I saw the movie "Funny Farm". Remember the scene where Chevy Chase hooks the other fisherman in the boat and trying to knock him out before pulling the hook? "Looks like you're just beating the shit outta him."
They were just beating the child.
The child could not have damaged the computer equipment if she had been PROPERLY SUPERVISED. The fault lay with the SCHOOL. It was the principal who should have been beaten with the Ugly Stick (fishing reference included).
I never hit my kids in anger. Corporal punishment was just one of the many tools in the tool box and not the most commonly or first used.
I never hit my kids.
I supervised them if they were doing things that carried some risk of harm to themselves or property. It's not complicated.
The State has no business being a parental surrogate. The ONLY correct answer to any government official who asks "Can I beat your children?" is "Let me get my shotgun, we have things to discuss."