US: Arrest of girl who texted in class prompts civil rights case

[MaeJoMTB]

In this example, you are doing something even though you are not moving. You are refusing to foolow the police order.

The police don't have the right to order me around.

They can request I do something, and if they ask nicely, I might do it.

Just because someone has a gun, doesn't mean I will unquestioningly obey them.

Edited October 28, 2015 by MaeJoMTB

[ClutchClark]

In this example, you are doing something even though you are not moving. You are refusing to foolow the police order.

The police don't have the right to order me around.

They can request I do something, and if they ask nicely, I might do it.

Just because someone has a gun, doesn't mean I will unquestioningly obey them.

Well actually they do. The specifics are defined by each State but a good starting place would be to google, "failure to comply to a police order".

The police are under no obligation to "ask nicely" and depending on the circumstances they can use force to make you comply.

Their "authority" to do this does not come from the fact they have a gun (as you suggest) but because it is the law. The specifics are defined by each State. The example I provided in the last post about the order to place your hands on the hood of the car is one example and if you think its your choice to obey or not because the officer did not say pretty please then you are in for a rather rude awakening ;-)

[whybother]

No, you are contradicting yourself when you say "she was not doing" something. If "she is not doing" something, then she is doing nothing.

Simple example:

Officer gives you an order: "Place your hands on the hood of the car".

Instead you do not move and do not comply with the officer's order--you do not place your hands on the hood of the car.

In this example, you are doing something even though you are not moving. You are refusing to foolow the police order.

That may seem contradictory to you but that is the way the law works. It is not me who wrote the law and it is not me who is being contradictory, I am simply explaining to you how the law works. If you think this is contradictory then your issue is with the law and not with me.

The law is irrelevant to this discussion.

The police officer ordered her to do something, which she refused to do.

Therefore she did nothing.

Nothing was the wrong thing to do, but that is what she did.

[ClutchClark]

I just saw a third video of the incident that starts a few seconds earlier than the one provided in this thread and it appears to show the girl striking out at the officer. Its interesting that the video provided starts immediately after she strikes out...whether it was intentionally edited or just coincidence is not clear.

According to the Richland County Sheriff, the officer's Supervisor, the girl was actually under arrest for causing a disturbance in the classroom...so some people appear to disagree with the opinion that the girl was doing "nothing".

Edited October 28, 2015 by ClutchClark

[snowgard]

The police don't have the right to order me around.

They can request I do something, and if they ask nicely, I might do it.

Just because someone has a gun, doesn't mean I will unquestioningly obey them.

If you come in a situation where the police ORDER you and you refuse it maybe will be a very hard and expensive lesson for you!!!

Believe me!!!

[snowgard]

Why schools not install GSM Jammers. No texting/calls/facebook/line anymore!!!

Very easy!!!

[26vinny]

Simple matter to resolve cell phone blockers in classrooms, i use 1 at my house in the evening to keep my daughter off her phone and internet when i am asleep. better safe than sorry

[TheKnave]

The video is very dramatic, particularly the one being most shown, starting AFTER she appears to take a swing at the cop. The sight of the chair tipping over, and her being pulled from it, are high-value emotional propaganda. Still, the girl was not injured, nor could it be argued that the cop had any intent, other than to place her under arrest, as his job required.

There are race issues at play here, political ones, as well as police training issues. Another cop might have handled it differently, but the fact remains that the girl resisted, after disobeying several rules. She had the ultimate decision as to how this might have ended, and choose poorly. Kids sometimes dob that, but by the time they are at that level, they should know better. Culture, and recent current events play heavily in such a decision. Respect for authority is learned not only from school, but especially from parents, and the community.

You won't catch me defending this cop's methods, nor those of cops in general, but they are, unfortunately, a reflection of what they have to deal with.

Generally, be respectful, and be respected.

[ClutchClark]

The officer, who has a record of violence...

Is it a record of violence or a history of accusations being made and dismissed after investigation?

Its a rather important distinction in my humble opinion.

A LEO will often find they are accused of some wrongdoing by someone they arrested. Accusations made in an attempt to retaliate are not all that uncommon and to avoid a cover-up, these accusations are investigated. If I have researched correctly, the officer was cleared of any wrongdoing after a formal investigation, correct?

You were an LEO. Did you ever have to use force in your career? Would some people call the level of force you used agsinst them as unnecessary or violent? Is it fair today for someone to say that you have a record of violence? It caertainly does not sound fair to me.

Edited October 28, 2015 by ClutchClark

[NeverSure]

I too think it sounds as if the officer overreacted, but I disagree with those who say it wasn't (technically) a police matter. If I read it right it sounds to me as if the girl was committing the crime of trespass.

I was once in court on a different real estate matter and observed a young man being arraigned for criminal trespass. That defendant didn't believe he had trespassed for his own various reasons. I'll never forget what the judge told him. He said "There are only two kinds of property in this world. There is your property and there is 'not your property'. It's up to you to know the difference".

When someone such as a school has the care, custody and control of real estate and in this case a school, they can exclude anyone else from the property. The moment that girl refused to stand up and leave the room she technically committed the crime of trespass. Yes she did. Right there it became a police matter and the officer had a legal duty to remove the girl.

I totally disagree with how he handled it. I think he should have, after exhausting pleading with her, simply cited her for trespassing and summoned her to court to face the charges. That's IF he felt he needed to play rough. Then if she failed to appear at her court hearing she would have been arrested for that. The escalation could have gone in steps until she learned that she had to obey authorities in the school and with the police.

As it is I think the police have egg all over their faces for acting too quickly with too much force rather than citing her and giving her a chance to wake up during the delay before her hearing.

Cheers.

The republican negative conception of political liberty of course does not extend to black teenage females apparently.

"Republican freedom merely requires the absence of something, namely, the absence of any structural dependence on arbitrary power or domination"http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/republicanism/#RepVerNegLib

Furthermore, your apocryphal judge did not include the idea of public property in his world view. I guess because that is a liberal concept. However, a school is an agency of the State, a State which requires mandatory schooling for children. It cannot exclude children from that requirement without due process. The idea that a child loses legal rights on the instance of non compliance with some instruction is insane. Perhaps you might demonstrate where that has been tested in law? As a student enrolled in that school she had every right to be there and the removal of that right is subject to legal protections and requirements for due process.

Finally, it is universally accepted that schools and individual teachers are in 'loco parentis', meaning that they take on the role of the parent in terms of having a duty of care towards the students. The teacher, administrator and all persons involved in this incident had a responsibility to treat the individual with respect and as a person who is there to be educated. In this case, the math's teacher can shove his calculus up his clacker and should have acted like an educator with a responsibility towards the development of that child.

I just don't get why people who call themselves republicans don't actually live by or apply republican principles to situations in life. I guess that's what the tea-baggers are about.

You said: "However, a school is an agency of the State, a State which requires mandatory schooling for children. It cannot exclude children from that requirement without due process."

You're nuts. Schools expel kids regularly at the school's discretion, sometimes permanently. NO kid has a right to go to school. He has a legal duty to go to school but if he doesn't obey the rules he loses his right to go to school. He has legal duties to go to school and to obey the rules - both legal duties.

The school has lawful care, custody and control of the school premises and can and may exclude anyone from the property.

If the school tells a kid to leave any part of the premises and the kid refuses, that kid is a criminal trespasser. End of.

[simon43]

I just saw a third video of the incident

Jeez! - How many mobile phones were in that class? IMHO, the lesson should not even have started with mobile phones in the hands of the students.

[ClutchClark]

The officer is no doubt having his character assasinated by every media outlet in the country for this single incident.

Out of fairness, I would like to point out that he was the school football coach...a job he was in no way required to take but rather that he "chose" to take. I have yet to meet me acosch in my life of HS athletics that was not a coach because they were interested in helping kids and mentoring them, etc. and I have yet to meet a coach who was not well liked by students and staff alike. (Ofcourse some of you may know of exceptions).

I would also like to add that in most locations, the position of SRO is typically assigned by a PD to an officer that has requested to take the position and that the school administrators and the officers supervisors feel the applicant is well suited for.

The fact he volunteered to coach AND was an SRO suggests that he had a genuine concern for students.

[ross163103]

The article states someone suggested this never happens to white kids.

Can someone tell me why white kids follow the rules and black kids are defiant?

Or was that not what the person quoted was suggesting?

To assume that white kids follow the rules is naive, to say the least, and probably racist.

I was a white kid I followed the rules and when I broke them I took the punishment didnot rely on my color to get me out of it. Colored people who use their color to cover up bad behavior are the racist ones .

Would you have been tossed over the floor and handcuffed by a policeman, if you had dared to send a text message in maths class?

I wouldn't have been tossed over the floor and handcuffed by a policeman because I wouldn't have been texting in school.....simple. People tend to forget THE GIRL TEXTING is what started this problem. If she would have stopped when asked too, no problem. Yes, maybe the policeman was heavy handed, but SHE chose to break the rules. There are always consequences when not abiding by the rules/laws set down by society.........I learned this the hard way many years ago.

[Emster23]

Ah, couple more points floated into my mind. Situation could have become a primo "Teachable moment" as they say in education circles.... individual rights vs need for order, brain storm alternatives to confrontation, etc. Also one thing that can cut through all this is for teacher to use humor... if you can break that defiance with a laugh (not at expense of the student, btw) then it snaps them out of that defiance and usually gets compliance. With my classes of disturbed gangstas I often went that route.

[retarius]

Think of how a British bobby would have handled this issue, with some quiet persuasive chat, not with physical force. The US police are among the worst in the world, and the US is fast becoming a police state. I suppose the girl, being black was lucky she wasn't shot dead (that's sarcasm by the way).

[Andaman Al]

Well the way these things have a habit of escalating in the US i reckon now it should be about 5-7 years before we have a 3 year old tazered in kindergarten for taking a toy off another child and refusing to give it back. The worrying thing being there appears to be more than a hand full of people on here that would argue the toddler got what was coming to him.

[vogie]

The article states someone suggested this never happens to white kids.

Can someone tell me why white kids follow the rules and black kids are defiant?

Or was that not what the person quoted was suggesting?

To assume that white kids follow the rules is naive, to say the least, and probably racist.

I was a white kid I followed the rules and when I broke them I took the punishment didnot rely on my color to get me out of it. Colored people who use their color to cover up bad behavior are the racist ones .

Would you have been tossed over the floor and handcuffed by a policeman, if you had dared to send a text message in maths class?

I would not have been texting as I went to school before mobile phones were invented but I did have a blackboard cleaner thrown at me when I would not stop talking in class. and I deserved it

Maybe if you had lost an eye you might be singing a different tune?

[ClutchClark]

British News Headline Reads:

"A Bobby Filmed zpunching Student Won't be Disciplined"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2520961/Police-officer-filmed-punching-student-wont-disciplined.html

Apparently his superiors received numerous complaints from students that officers were punching kids indiscriminantly but the Brass decided to not even investigate the allegations.

Yeah, you guys do things differently over there.

Is this what you meant by quiet persuasive chat? ;-)

Edited October 29, 2015 by ClutchClark

[lostboy]

I too think it sounds as if the officer overreacted, but I disagree with those who say it wasn't (technically) a police matter. If I read it right it sounds to me as if the girl was committing the crime of trespass.

I was once in court on a different real estate matter and observed a young man being arraigned for criminal trespass. That defendant didn't believe he had trespassed for his own various reasons. I'll never forget what the judge told him. He said "There are only two kinds of property in this world. There is your property and there is 'not your property'. It's up to you to know the difference".

When someone such as a school has the care, custody and control of real estate and in this case a school, they can exclude anyone else from the property. The moment that girl refused to stand up and leave the room she technically committed the crime of trespass. Yes she did. Right there it became a police matter and the officer had a legal duty to remove the girl.

I totally disagree with how he handled it. I think he should have, after exhausting pleading with her, simply cited her for trespassing and summoned her to court to face the charges. That's IF he felt he needed to play rough. Then if she failed to appear at her court hearing she would have been arrested for that. The escalation could have gone in steps until she learned that she had to obey authorities in the school and with the police.

As it is I think the police have egg all over their faces for acting too quickly with too much force rather than citing her and giving her a chance to wake up during the delay before her hearing.

Cheers.

The republican negative conception of political liberty of course does not extend to black teenage females apparently.

"Republican freedom merely requires the absence of something, namely, the absence of any structural dependence on arbitrary power or domination"http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/republicanism/#RepVerNegLib

Furthermore, your apocryphal judge did not include the idea of public property in his world view. I guess because that is a liberal concept. However, a school is an agency of the State, a State which requires mandatory schooling for children. It cannot exclude children from that requirement without due process. The idea that a child loses legal rights on the instance of non compliance with some instruction is insane. Perhaps you might demonstrate where that has been tested in law? As a student enrolled in that school she had every right to be there and the removal of that right is subject to legal protections and requirements for due process.

Finally, it is universally accepted that schools and individual teachers are in 'loco parentis', meaning that they take on the role of the parent in terms of having a duty of care towards the students. The teacher, administrator and all persons involved in this incident had a responsibility to treat the individual with respect and as a person who is there to be educated. In this case, the math's teacher can shove his calculus up his clacker and should have acted like an educator with a responsibility towards the development of that child.

I just don't get why people who call themselves republicans don't actually live by or apply republican principles to situations in life. I guess that's what the tea-baggers are about.

You said: "However, a school is an agency of the State, a State which requires mandatory schooling for children. It cannot exclude children from that requirement without due process."

You're nuts. Schools expel kids regularly at the school's discretion, sometimes permanently. NO kid has a right to go to school. He has a legal duty to go to school but if he doesn't obey the rules he loses his right to go to school. He has legal duties to go to school and to obey the rules - both legal duties.

The school has lawful care, custody and control of the school premises and can and may exclude anyone from the property.

If the school tells a kid to leave any part of the premises and the kid refuses, that kid is a criminal trespasser. End of.

A little early in the conversation for personal attacks I think. Who said that schools do not expel students? I certainly did not. I stated that students cannot be excluded without due process. Not standing up on the order of a school employee would, in most cases, not meet the standard for expulsion. Yet you claim that the moment the child in question did not obey that instruction, then she immediately lost her rights because the school's property rights trumps all else. This according to your overhearing some unknown, un-named and anonymous Judge.

I point to my lack of understanding caused by the inconsistency in the viewpoint of a person who has claimed many times that you are not required to respond to any police officer who stops you and you are not breaking any law and you do not even have to give your name and yet this young, black, female student does not have the same privelege. I made reference to the political element in this exchange, not the personal one.

Again, perhaps you can demonstrate where a student has been prosecuted for criminal trespass as a result of losing their right to be on school property due to disobeying an instruction from a school employee whether that employee is ancillary staff or teaching staff.

[ClutchClark]

I was a white kid I followed the rules and when I broke them I took the punishment didnot rely on my color to get me out of it. Colored people who use their color to cover up bad behavior are the racist ones .

Would you have been tossed over the floor and handcuffed by a policeman, if you had dared to send a text message in maths class?

I would not have been texting as I went to school before mobile phones were invented but I did have a blackboard cleaner thrown at me when I would not stop talking in class. and I deserved it

Maybe if you had lost an eye you might be singing a different tune?

Its all fun and games until someone loses an eye !!

;-)

Edited October 29, 2015 by ClutchClark

[bangon04]

""When I saw what was going to happen, my immediate first thing to think was, let me get this on camera. This was going to be something ... that everyone else needs to see,"

so the net result of the staff insisting that the one cellphone be not used in the class was to disrupt the entire class and to cause every other student to pull out any cellphone to hand and use it to film the event.

I think this qualifies as an over-reaction. I also agree that cellphones should be banned in class, and if parents refuse to support the policy, then schools should have the means to enforce the policy by exclusion of the student.

But western societies seem to prefer making lawyers rich instead....

[MaeJoMTB]

The police don't have the right to order me around.

They can request I do something, and if they ask nicely, I might do it.

Just because someone has a gun, doesn't mean I will unquestioningly obey them.

If you come in a situation where the police ORDER you and you refuse it maybe will be a very hard and expensive lesson for you!!!

Believe me!!!

Off topic

Sorry, done it loads of times. Last time was in a UK pub.

3 police and me in a crowded pub,

Sergeant says to me in front of everyone with a loud and commanding voice "If you don't leave immediately, I will arrest you"

My reply, "If you think I have done something worthy of arrest, go ahead"

Sergeant turns and leaves, followed by his 2 pals, crowd in pub applaud me.

Not to mention,

Last time I was falsely arrested in the UK, they settled out of court for just under 10,000GBP.

The investigation cost them around another 100,000GBP

An expensive lesson for them!

Back on topic,

Please don't assume every citizen is either fearful or compliant with those 'allegedly' in authority, especially when they are exceeding or abusing their authority..

The police have rules they have to follow, if they break those rules they need to be punished.

In the OP, the policeman was completely out of control, and went way beyond any use of 'reasonable force'.

He needs to be dismissed immediately, no need for investigation or discussion.

Phones in classrooms,

Clearly this incident displays why children need phones in classrooms.

Citizens need the means to record and share incidents where those in authority abuse their power.

Children especially, need protection from thugs in uniforms.

Edited October 29, 2015 by MaeJoMTB

[snowgard]

Phones in classrooms,

Clearly this incident displays why children need phones in classrooms.

Citizens need the means to record and share incidents where those in authority abuse their power.

Children especially, need protection from thugs in uniforms.

WRONG!!! If there were no phones in the classroom it don't give this problem!!!

And in the good old times this girl got a slap on the face and learned to respect the teacher!!!

Why so much youngsters not RESPECT authorities, older people and the own parents anymore?

Because it don't give penalties for this!!!

[ClutchClark]

The police have rules they have to follow, if they break those rules they need to be punished.

In the OP, the policeman was completely out of control, and went way beyond any use of 'reasonable force'.

He needs to be dismissed immediately, no need for investigation or discussion.

Phones in classrooms,

Clearly this incident displays why children need phones in classrooms.

Citizens need the means to record and share incidents where those in authority abuse their power.

Children especially, need protection from thugs in uniforms.

Reasonable Force. The officer did not go beyond the rules of reasonable force IF this had been an adult.

Please review the definition of Use of Force Continuum that a LEO is allowed to use.

He had already attempted to use Level One & Level Two without success. At that point the girl struck at the officer. His response was automatic at that point and would have been entirely acceptable IF this girl been a 16-year old male who was 6' and 200 pounds the officer would likely still have his job but on suspension. Well, if it were a white student he would still have his job but if it was a black student he would have been fired. These days city managers would rather fire a cop prematurely than risk a riot.

SgtSabai can explain this from an anti-authority point of view for your benefit ;-)

I think he tslks your language ;-)

Edited October 29, 2015 by ClutchClark

[mcfish]

He was to soft. If it were me she would have gotten a swift boot right up the Arse crack while she was down

Sent from my SC-01D using Tapatalk

[spidermike007]

She deserved a swift beating. Good on the cop. Sets an example for what was probably an extremely unruly bunch of kids. Most America parents refuse to discipline their kids. Nice to see them getting it from somewhere.

Before you lose your minds, this is being said at least partly in jest.

[oncearugge]

Persistent, insolent defiance is easily dealt with by excluding the brat from the school.

I agree the policeman was a poorly trained boy trying to do a mans job and failing.

[whybother]

Where is this video showing the girl hitting the police officer before (not while) she got dragged to the floor?

[chuckd]

The police don't have the right to order me around.

They can request I do something, and if they ask nicely, I might do it.

Just because someone has a gun, doesn't mean I will unquestioningly obey them.

If you come in a situation where the police ORDER you and you refuse it maybe will be a very hard and expensive lesson for you!!!

Believe me!!!

Off topic

Sorry, done it loads of times. Last time was in a UK pub.

3 police and me in a crowded pub,

Sergeant says to me in front of everyone with a loud and commanding voice "If you don't leave immediately, I will arrest you"

My reply, "If you think I have done something worthy of arrest, go ahead"

Sergeant turns and leaves, followed by his 2 pals, crowd in pub applaud me.

Not to mention,

Last time I was falsely arrested in the UK, they settled out of court for just under 10,000GBP.

The investigation cost them around another 100,000GBP

An expensive lesson for them!

Back on topic,

Please don't assume every citizen is either fearful or compliant with those 'allegedly' in authority, especially when they are exceeding or abusing their authority..

The police have rules they have to follow, if they break those rules they need to be punished.

In the OP, the policeman was completely out of control, and went way beyond any use of 'reasonable force'.

He needs to be dismissed immediately, no need for investigation or discussion.

Phones in classrooms,

Clearly this incident displays why children need phones in classrooms.

Citizens need the means to record and share incidents where those in authority abuse their power.

Children especially, need protection from thugs in uniforms.

You seem to be doing things that are borderline illegal. Just an observation based on your self profile above.

Equally clearly, the following is from the school rules for the Spring Valley High School, where the incident took place:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

High school

High school students may use ECDs such as cellular phones, electronic pagers or any other communications devices before and after school, during their lunch break, within "free zones" (as determined by the principal) and as deemed appropriate by the teacher and approved by the principal for educational and/or instructional purposes only. Any other use of wireless communications is considered misuse and violations may result in disciplinary action.

Consequences

• first offense - warning/confiscate device and return to student at the end of the school day

• second offense - confiscate device/return to parent/legal guardian

• third offense - confiscate device/return device to parent/legal guardian and privilege to have device is revoked for the remainder of the school year

• fourth offense - confiscate device/return at the end of the school year

Violation of this policy shall result in discipline as outlined in the district's code of conduct (policy JICDA/JICDA-R).

Adopted 8/27/96; Revised 5/26/98, 6/26/01, 7/1/03, 6/27/06, 6/23/09, 8/28/12

Link provided: http://policy.microscribepub.com/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=17934955&infobase=richland2.nfo&jump=JICJ&softpage=Document42#JUMPDEST_JICJ

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The young princess was clearly in violation of school rules and her refusal to surrender her telephone brought on the over-the-top reaction from the school security officer.

They were both at fault.

[sgtsabai]

They both were at fault. I'll say this, that was way too much force applied, way too much. She should have been expelled and the "officer" was fired. Next will be the law suit which the parents will win, as they should. Had I done that during my tenure as a New Mexico commissioned/certified law enforcement officer I would have justifiably been fired. We were actually taught not only the law, but to respect the person we were arresting, investigating etc. Ahem, yes respect their rights as a human being whether we liked it or not. Amazing how well that works. Times have changed and the "protect and serve" went out the window some years ago. The US now has a militarized occupying "militia". Personally, I would not allow a cell phone, I-pad or what ever in a class I taught. Something wrong all the way around in this story. Hell something wrong in the at the brink surveillance/police state of America.