Since when is disrupting class an arrestable offense?

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2015 13:22:54 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 29, 2015 13:16:09 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

Some of us do what we were taught and some of us understand  what we were taught was wrong and don't.

Somewhere along the line you were taught to question and learn new behaviors.

Yep. Great big world out there. Very few live in a  bubble, unless at some level they choose the bubble.

[Gardening Grandma]

Oct 29, 2015 12:36:41 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Oct 29, 2015 12:19:23 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

Yes × 1000!!!!
This is why I hate when people say we shouldn't subsidize extended ma(pa)ternity leave or have nationally free preschool. You don't want to pay for other people's reproductive choices. Guess what? You ARE paying for them!

I see my comment went over your head.  I think that we already subsidize other people's reproductive choices enough.  What we need to do is have more of the cost of raising kids fall into the laps of those that choose to have them.  We not only should not subsidize materity leave and pre-school; but we should END welfare.

The kid is an orphan. You want her just dumped on the street? 

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 29, 2015 12:40:36 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 29, 2015 11:45:05 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

False analogy. In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.  onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htm

We do what we are taught.

Some of us can make the distinction between a police officer flipping a teenage girl over in her chair to arrest her and a parent taking a beer bottle to a baby's face, and those that can't are doomed to fail at parenting anyway.

I still hold a modicum of faith in people's ability to discriminate between discipline and grievous injury.

[billisonboard]

Oct 29, 2015 13:51:47 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 29, 2015 12:40:36 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

We do what we are taught.

Some of us can make the distinction between a police officer flipping a teenage girl over in her chair to arrest her and a parent taking a beer bottle to a baby's face, and those that can't are doomed to fail at parenting anyway.

I still hold a modicum of faith in people's ability to discriminate between discipline and grievous injury.

That teenage girl who is flipped on her head by an authority figure will grow to be the parent who has authority over a person who will be defiant. In that moment, it would be nice if she were able to think back to a time that she was worked through her defiance without violence.

[MJ2.0]

Oct 29, 2015 13:49:53 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Oct 29, 2015 12:36:41 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I see my comment went over your head.  I think that we already subsidize other people's reproductive choices enough.  What we need to do is have more of the cost of raising kids fall into the laps of those that choose to have them.  We not only should not subsidize materity leave and pre-school; but we should END welfare.

The kid is an orphan. You want her just dumped on the street? 

MORE WORKHOUSES!

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oct 29, 2015 13:51:47 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 29, 2015 12:40:36 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

We do what we are taught.

Some of us can make the distinction between a police officer flipping a teenage girl over in her chair to arrest her and a parent taking a beer bottle to a baby's face, and those that can't are doomed to fail at parenting anyway.

I still hold a modicum of faith in people's ability to discriminate between discipline and grievous injury.

Exactly.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oct 29, 2015 14:13:48 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

Oct 29, 2015 13:49:53 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

The kid is an orphan. You want her just dumped on the street? 

MORE WORKHOUSES!

It's very difficult to have a discussion with people that insist on the discussion of false choices.  Our current system which subsidizes the decision by irresponsible people to be irresponsible with a human being's life, and orphans being "dumped on the street" or sent to "WORKHOUSES!" are not the only choices available to us as a society.  When you can't look around and see what doesn't work, and not recognize that you're entire way of thinking has been co-opted by the government welfare state's monopoly on charity and good works, and think: you know, there might be some other solutions?  Then what really is the point?

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 29, 2015 14:00:46 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 29, 2015 13:51:47 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Some of us can make the distinction between a police officer flipping a teenage girl over in her chair to arrest her and a parent taking a beer bottle to a baby's face, and those that can't are doomed to fail at parenting anyway.

I still hold a modicum of faith in people's ability to discriminate between discipline and grievous injury.

That teenage girl who is flipped on her head by an authority figure will grow to be the parent who has authority over a person who will be defiant. In that moment, it would be nice if she were able to think back to a time that she was worked through her defiance without violence.

I don't know what the kid is doing, but if mom thinks "smashing a bottle on my kid's face will work because a police officer once flipped me in my chair", she's an idiot.

Yes there are idiots out there, but I'm sick of living in a society where authorities have to act as though everyone is one.

We might as well ban violent sports like football, because I have no doubt there are a good many injuries caused when idiot parents decide tackling their 3-year-olds is OK. Or let's make "punch buggy" an arrestable offense because there are undoubtedly a few idiot parents who "punch buggy" their 3-year-old across the room every year.

Look at it this way: If the police officer had decided to wait the girl out rather than take her down, I won't blame him if she turns out to be that one idiot parent who, instead of pulling her screaming infant out of the movie theater, decides the best course of action is to patiently let the kid howl all the way through the movie because that's how a police officer handled her situation in days of yore. If she doesn't have the sense to discriminate between the two situations, that's not his problem.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oct 29, 2015 9:57:29 GMT -5 grumpyhermit said:

Oct 29, 2015 9:47:22 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

To me, its the opposite.  Histrionics incites violence. Rational thinking avoids violence - it's doesn't excuse it. Don't get me wrong.  I have NO problem with law enforcement using reasonable force - whatever that may be - if there is a possibility that they, others or even the perpetrator could be hurt.  No problem whatsoever.  I just don't think this was the case here.  If that child had a weapon of some sort - even a pencil - go for it.  Take her down with whatever force you need to in order to neutralize the threat.  I just don't think that was the case here. 

I may have felt differently if I was there.  I don't know.  I would really like to see what happened before, but I doubt we ever will.  For all I know, she might have said something like, "Touch me and I'll stab you in the eye with my pencil."

PS: I wouldn't really threaten to hit you.  I hate violence.

If she was such a threat - why didn't they clear the room?

Obviously we don't have the whole story, but from that video she was just sitting their being a stubborn pain in the ass and refusing to move. The cop escalated it to a physical confrontation. Teens are going to be asshats - it comes with being a teen. The adult, the one with the training, is the one we should be holding to a higher standard to ensure situations don't get out of hand.

Refuse to put away your phone? Cop escalates it and slams a kid to the ground - excuses made. Refuse to get out of your car? Cop escalates it and ends up killing a kid - excuses made.

I hope those defending this type of over the top reaction from cops in non-threatening situations enjoy living in the police state you all seem to want so badly.

On the point of clearing the room (and the whole video is out, and the minor was violent with the police officer, and her behavior is definitely the start, the middle, and the end of this situation), I agree completely. I think that schools need to re-evaluate what best practices are in these situations.  I think clearing the classroom is step one in the event of an unruly, and uncooperative student refusing to leave the room. If the student won't leave, everyone else should.  If she'd hurt someone, I would say that the school would have liability exposure.  Same goes for faux bomb boy.  If the thing had detonated AFTER they believed it to be a bomb, but they didn't evacuate the school? Not good.  

Bottom line- some distance needs to be put between disruptive and unruly students and the rest of the student body.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oct 29, 2015 14:40:41 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 29, 2015 14:00:46 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

That teenage girl who is flipped on her head by an authority figure will grow to be the parent who has authority over a person who will be defiant. In that moment, it would be nice if she were able to think back to a time that she was worked through her defiance without violence.

I don't know what the kid is doing, but if mom thinks "smashing a bottle on my kid's face will work because a police officer once flipped me in my chair", she's an idiot.

Yes there are idiots out there, but I'm sick of living in a society where authorities have to act as though everyone is one.

At this stage of the decline of Western Civilization, you're an idiot if you don't.

We might as well ban violent sports like football, because I have no doubt there are a good many injuries caused when idiot parents decide tackling their 3-year-olds is OK. Or let's make "punch buggy" an arrestable offense because there are undoubtedly a few idiot parents who "punch buggy" their 3-year-old across the room every year.

Careful what you suggest: ymam.proboards.com/thread/41440/liberal-assault-on-nfl

Look at it this way: If the police officer had decided to wait the girl out rather than take her down, I won't blame him if she turns out to be that one idiot parent who, instead of pulling their screaming infant out of the movie theater, decides the best course of action is to patiently let the kid howl all the way through the movie because that's how a police officer handled her situation in days of yore. If she doesn't have the sense to discriminate between the two situations, that's not his problem.

LOL! Classic.  You know me- I am a HUGE -- YUGE -- fan of illustrating absurdity using the absurd.  When you're ordered to leave a space, and you do not own that space, and you have no legal right to be there- you leave.  When you have been notified that you have been placed under arrest-- right, wrong, or indifferent-- that's it. You get up and go quietly and you tell it to the judge.  If you don't, am I the only one here that thinks you might get tuned up by the police in the process of resisting arrest?

[Gardening Grandma]

Oct 29, 2015 14:35:23 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Oct 29, 2015 14:13:48 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

MORE WORKHOUSES!

It's very difficult to have a discussion with people that insist on the discussion of false choices.  Our current system which subsidizes the decision by irresponsible people to be irresponsible with a human being's life, and orphans being "dumped on the street" or sent to "WORKHOUSES!" are not the only choices available to us as a society.  When you can't look around and see what doesn't work, and not recognize that you're entire way of thinking has been co-opted by the government welfare state's monopoly on charity and good works, and think: you know, there might be some other solutions?  Then what really is the point?

Look Paul,
You called for an end to welfare.  The kid is underage, orphaned and living in a foster home.  If welfare is cut off, what, exactly do you propose - not only for this one child, but other children who are also orphans or who have been removed from abusive homes?  I'd really like to hear a positive suggestion other than "End welfare"

[billisonboard]

Oct 29, 2015 14:40:41 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...

Look at it this way: If the police officer had decided to wait the girl out rather than take her down, I won't blame him if she turns out to be that one idiot parent who, instead of pulling her screaming infant out of the movie theater, decides the best course of action is to patiently let the kid howl all the way through the movie because that's how a police officer handled her situation in days of yore. If she doesn't have the sense to discriminate between the two situations, that's not his problem.

Well, maybe. But if he happens to have been reassigned to the homicide division, ....

And I understand why one would be more concerned with a kid howling in a theatre than one being battered in the privacy of their own home. But still ...

[MJ2.0]

Oct 29, 2015 14:47:20 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Oct 29, 2015 14:35:23 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

It's very difficult to have a discussion with people that insist on the discussion of false choices.  Our current system which subsidizes the decision by irresponsible people to be irresponsible with a human being's life, and orphans being "dumped on the street" or sent to "WORKHOUSES!" are not the only choices available to us as a society.  When you can't look around and see what doesn't work, and not recognize that you're entire way of thinking has been co-opted by the government welfare state's monopoly on charity and good works, and think: you know, there might be some other solutions?  Then what really is the point?

Look Paul,
You called for an end to welfare.  The kid is underage, orphaned and living in a foster home.  If welfare is cut off, what, exactly do you propose - not only for this one child, but other children who are also orphans or who have been removed from abusive homes?  I'd really like to hear a positive suggestion other than "End welfare"

This. Do you think people will magically get their shit together if you eliminate welfare?

[MJ2.0]

Oct 29, 2015 14:35:23 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Oct 29, 2015 14:13:48 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

MORE WORKHOUSES!

It's very difficult to have a discussion with people that insist on the discussion of false choices.  Our current system which subsidizes the decision by irresponsible people to be irresponsible with a human being's life, and orphans being "dumped on the street" or sent to "WORKHOUSES!" are not the only choices available to us as a society.  When you can't look around and see what doesn't work, and not recognize that you're entire way of thinking has been co-opted by the government welfare state's monopoly on charity and good works, and think: you know, there might be some other solutions?  Then what really is the point?

Btw I agree that the government's answer doesn't really work that well. But what is the alternative? We're so good at saying what's broken, but we suck at figuring out how to fix it.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 29, 2015 14:48:55 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 29, 2015 14:40:41 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...

Look at it this way: If the police officer had decided to wait the girl out rather than take her down, I won't blame him if she turns out to be that one idiot parent who, instead of pulling her screaming infant out of the movie theater, decides the best course of action is to patiently let the kid howl all the way through the movie because that's how a police officer handled her situation in days of yore. If she doesn't have the sense to discriminate between the two situations, that's not his problem.

Well, maybe. But if he happens to have been reassigned to the homicide division, ....

And I understand why one would be more concerned with a kid howling in a theatre than one being battered in the privacy of their own home. But still ...

...you're right, Virgil, we shouldn't set law enforcement policy based on whether it might inspire some idiot to gravely injure her kid ten years down the road.

Finally we agree.

[fishy999]

Oct 29, 2015 12:43:37 GMT -5 copperboxes said:

Maybe my perspective is skewed by experiences grappling, but I don't see reckless force to the student?  I don't think it's a ideal way to handle the situation, but the force doesn't seem dangerous to me.

The officer had two hands on the student at all times, one on her pant leg, the other on her arm.  Given the mass/strength ratios involved, that's a hell of a lot of control.  He lifted/rotated.  The she and the desk rotated position on a pivot point (back chair feet), then he pulled up and sideways once she was on her back and disoriented.  

It was controlled by the grips in an up/lift aspect at all times.  No slam down action (gravity multiplied) or even uncontrolled free fall.  He had her lower and upper body in a grip each. I wouldn't say zero, but given the control resulting from the grip directions/placements and masses involved, I'd say very near zero odds of head damage.  

To me the actions looked very intentionally softened and controlled to prevent injury.  

Just my perspective from someone who has grappled with much smaller people and much larger people as part of team practice.  I could toss around guys lighter than me by a percentage like practice dummies and could move them relatively very gently.  They just couldn't fight my mass and muscle effectively.  The heavyweights could toss me around like a ragdoll.  As best as I can describe it, it was like being caught up in an ocean wave.  Once grapple holds got established, I could fight it, but pretty much I was going to be spun where they wanted me to go.


For clarity, again, I definitely don't think it was an ideal way to handle a teenager being bullheaded.  

But I didn't see lethal force, reckless force or even damaging force being used from my perspective.  Just controlled force, in a situation that is usually extremely protective of students.  I guess it just puzzles me why this police officer was fired, given other situations where true lethal force was used.
 
Just my take.

He got fired not because he took her out of the desk- but because he threw her- which at that point he had no hands on her. It is clear in the video both his hands are visible as he has to walk forward to where he had tossed her.

[copperboxes]

Oct 29, 2015 19:51:18 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Oct 29, 2015 12:43:37 GMT -5 copperboxes said:

For clarity, again, I definitely don't think it was an ideal way to handle a teenager being bullheaded.  

But I didn't see lethal force, reckless force or even damaging force being used from my perspective.  Just controlled force, in a situation that is usually extremely protective of students.  I guess it just puzzles me why this police officer was fired, given other situations where true lethal force was used.
 
Just my take.

He got fired not because he took her out of the desk- but because he threw her- which at that point he had no hands on her. It is clear in the video both his hands are visible as he has to walk forward to where he had tossed her.

I watched the video again, I didn't see that?  I saw her get pulled out of the desk, and then they both move to a spot on the floor where another student is mostly blocking the camera.

My computer internet connection has been choppy though.  Could you give a time in the video where it's shown and I'll look again?  Apologies if I missed it.

[fishy999]

8 Seconds-  there are 2 videos, one doesn't show the toss.

[copperboxes]

Ah, different video from the original post?

Yeah.  That is no bueno, even if she's already on the floor and can't take falling damage anymore 



The cops were called a couple times for my high school, but it was usually for dire concerns (pipe bombs in one case) or because nothing else was working and the kids involved were escalating further and further each week, like the boys who would harass activities bus drivers.  I don't know what would've happened if those three on my activities bus had refused to get off when the police told them to.  They started crying when the 4th driver in as many weeks pulled over and told them she was calling the police.  It was a long night to get home, mom thought the bus had broken down.  

I think that perspective honestly might be shading my views some.  It wasn't a bad school, it just covered a very wide area of small towns and rural locations.  Pretty much all white bread, we just had a contingent in the mix that didn't want to be in school at all.

[GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl]

In the school district in the town I used to live in it was an established practice to remove the teacher and the rest of the students from the classroom if a student was being disruptive.

It was done for safety, but also because they found disruptive students tended to quiet down faster if they didn't have an audience.

In this case, I don't think the punishment fit the crime.  I don't know what led to the body throwing, but a cell phone out on a desk, while disrespectful, should never have escalated to that point.  The teacher clearly doesn't have sufficient classroom management skills. Given the girl's recent losses, a better move would have been to call in a guidance counselor or the school social worker or the school psychologist and had them talk to the girl and help her to sort things out.  

I would like to know if the girl has a history of being a troublemaker in school.  It would sadden me to know this was out-of-character for her and merely a symptom of her emotional pain.  She has now learned that none of the adults at school gives a crap.  That's really sad.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oct 29, 2015 14:47:20 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Oct 29, 2015 14:35:23 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

It's very difficult to have a discussion with people that insist on the discussion of false choices.  Our current system which subsidizes the decision by irresponsible people to be irresponsible with a human being's life, and orphans being "dumped on the street" or sent to "WORKHOUSES!" are not the only choices available to us as a society.  When you can't look around and see what doesn't work, and not recognize that you're entire way of thinking has been co-opted by the government welfare state's monopoly on charity and good works, and think: you know, there might be some other solutions?  Then what really is the point?

Look Paul,
You called for an end to welfare.  The kid is underage, orphaned and living in a foster home.  If welfare is cut off, what, exactly do you propose - not only for this one child, but other children who are also orphans or who have been removed from abusive homes?  I'd really like to hear a positive suggestion other than "End welfare"

Well, look- welfare is subsidizing the dissolution of the family.  We have heard from the attorney representing the as-yet-unnamed girl that she recently lost both of her parents-- but we don't know exactly what that means.  What I am calling for is not an end for looking out for one another, but reforming HOW we do it.  In addition to income-- welfare should be asset-tested; AND just like you have to look for a job in order to get unemployment benefits, you should have to look for private charity to get welfare.  How many PRIVATE sources have you sought help from, which ones, etc.  Government should be a LAST resort.  And we need to be very careful not to subsidize a welfare lifestyle, and careful that we do not CREATE dependency.  AND, yes- at some point, you're done.

[Deleted]

Oct 28, 2015 8:27:31 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Oct 27, 2015 21:04:22 GMT -5 swamp said:

  It is not illegal to film the cops, unless you are stopping them from doing their job. 

But aren't schools allowed to have their own rules?

Like they can allow the cops to search your locker without a warrant, which would never happen outside of school?

Maybe the school had a rule against filming other students or taking pictures with your phone while at school - I know our local high school has a rule that phones have to be in their lockers during the day. The girl who got thrown around apparently initially got in trouble by having her phone on her desk.

Although I don't get how that could lead to an arrest - suspension maybe.

It's not "your" locker, in a school. In a school that locker belongs to the school, you are just allowed to put your stuff in it.

[Deleted]

Oct 28, 2015 10:35:57 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

One point: This event took place in an educational setting. What lesson did the police officer teach the students in the class on how to deal with someone who does not do what you ask them to do?

Wrong question.

What lesson did the police officer teach the students in the class on consequences of refusing a legitimate request from authority?

[billisonboard]

Oct 29, 2015 21:58:06 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 28, 2015 10:35:57 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

One point: This event took place in an educational setting. What lesson did the police officer teach the students in the class on how to deal with someone who does not do what you ask them to do?

Wrong question.

What lesson did the police officer teach the students in the class on consequences of refusing a legitimate request from authority?

They will use unreasonable force on you. It is important to get video evidence.

[fishy999]

Oct 29, 2015 21:58:06 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 28, 2015 10:35:57 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

One point: This event took place in an educational setting. What lesson did the police officer teach the students in the class on how to deal with someone who does not do what you ask them to do?

Wrong question.

What lesson did the police officer teach the students in the class on consequences of refusing a legitimate request from authority?

That if you lose your self-control on the job you can be fired.

[Gardening Grandma]

Oct 29, 2015 21:43:46 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Oct 29, 2015 14:47:20 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Look Paul,
You called for an end to welfare.  The kid is underage, orphaned and living in a foster home.  If welfare is cut off, what, exactly do you propose - not only for this one child, but other children who are also orphans or who have been removed from abusive homes?  I'd really like to hear a positive suggestion other than "End welfare"

Well, look- welfare is subsidizing the dissolution of the family.  We have heard from the attorney representing the as-yet-unnamed girl that she recently lost both of her parents-- but we don't know exactly what that means.  What I am calling for is not an end for looking out for one another, but reforming HOW we do it.  In addition to income-- welfare should be asset-tested; AND just like you have to look for a job in order to get unemployment benefits, you should have to look for private charity to get welfare.  How many PRIVATE sources have you sought help from, which ones, etc.  Government should be a LAST resort.  And we need to be very careful not to subsidize a welfare lifestyle, and careful that we do not CREATE dependency.  AND, yes- at some point, you're done.

Paul,
That is a complete copout.  What, exactly is your proof that "welfare is subsidizing the dissolution of the family"?  (I left an abusing spouse with no idea of what welfare was available)

And, What, exactly, in your opinion, should this child do? Specifics please.

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2015 22:22:14 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 29, 2015 21:58:06 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Wrong question.

What lesson did the police officer teach the students in the class on consequences of refusing a legitimate request from authority?

They will use unreasonable force on you. It is important to get video evidence.

Nope. Care to try again?

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2015 22:30:53 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Oct 29, 2015 21:58:06 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Wrong question.

What lesson did the police officer teach the students in the class on consequences of refusing a legitimate request from authority?

That if you lose your self-control on the job you can be fired.

Nope (your answer didn't even remotely relate to the question). Care to try again?

[billisonboard]

Oct 30, 2015 4:35:12 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 29, 2015 22:22:14 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

They will use unreasonable force on you. It is important to get video evidence.

Nope. Care to try again?

I understand you want a different lesson to have been taught but it wasn't.

[Green Eyed Lady]

It makes no difference if she was an orphan, in foster care, on welfare.....whatever. She knew right from wrong.  Saying otherwise and giving excuses for her poor behavior is contributing to the problem. Nobody said anything about throwing her out in the streets. People are saying she should be help accountable for her actions.

There are people right here on this board who have had a difficult time growing up. There are people right here on this board who have had other serious trauma in their lives.  There are kids from really good homes who misbehave. Right from wrong.  She knew it - she admitted it. She needs to be held accountable and that's the bottom line.  We don't need to enable these children because all that will accomplish is to raise a crop of completely useless adults. Give her the help she needs - absolutely. But don't give her excuses.