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

[chuckd]

Hmmm. Imagine this latest turn of events at Spring Valley High School.

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

Students Stage Walkout In Support Of Deputy Fired Over Viral Video

CHUCK ROSS

Reporter

2:25 PM 10/30/2015

Hundreds of students at Spring Valley High School in Columbia, S.C. staged a brief walkout on Friday in support of the school resource officer and football coach who was fired earlier this week after video emerged of him dragging a female student out of her desk and slamming her onto the ground.

The students donned t-shirts reading “Free Fields” and “#BringBackFields” in support of the officer, Ben Fields.

Fields was fired Wednesday after a video emerged showing him yanking a 16-year-old black student out of her desk and forcing her to the ground.

The video touched off a nationwide debate over the use of force by officers in schools and over the possible racial dynamics at play. Fields is white.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/30/students-stage-walkout-in-support-of-deputy-fired-over-viral-video/#ixzz3q6hZQyYL

[BookMan]

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 ;-)

A police officer in a classroom physically taking down a student who has refused to stop texting?

Her crime is what? Failure to comply with a teacher's directive and failure to show a willingness to learn?

Welcome to the Police state of America.

[BookMan]

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.

It seems the only ones who don't see this are the majority of Americans.

Talk about closing your eyes and giving up personal freedoms with a welcoming embrace

Edited October 31, 2015 by BookMan

[ClutchClark]

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.

It seems the only ones who don't see this are the majority of Americans.

Talk about closing your eyes and giving up personal freedoms with a welcoming embrace

The officer was fired within days.

He was not even afforded a thorough investigation or disciplinary review board hearing.

This indicates what Americans think of his actions.

So your argument is meritless in this specific example.

This event could have been avoided at many times during its course but it was one reaction after another and that includes all the way up to the point he was fired and villified by the Press.

There were numerous mistakes made by all parties and in hindsight they all would have chosen to make a different decision.

The fired officer has now received death threats to his family...which is typical of the anti-law enforcement community at this point.

[BookMan]

The officer was fired within days.

He was not even afforded a thorough investigation or disciplinary review board hearing.

This indicates what Americans think of his actions.

So your argument is meritless in this specific example.

This event could have been avoided at many times during its course but it was one reaction after another and that includes all the way up to the point he was fired and villified by the Press.

There were numerous mistakes made by all parties and in hindsight they all would have chosen to make a different decision.

The fired officer has now received death threats to his family...which is typical of the anti-law enforcement community at this point.

That the officer would even have done the actions he did, whether the teenage girl struck him or not, shows how far out of whack with sensible and rational thought US law enforcement has become.

Policing in the US has an adversarial approach, often creating a conflict, rather than community policing and diffusing an incident.

Thankfully everyone has a camera on their phone these days to highlight such common practice

[NeverSure]

It seems the only ones who don't see this are the majority of Americans.

Talk about closing your eyes and giving up personal freedoms with a welcoming embrace

The law has long ruled that children don't have the same rights that adults to. At some point, children have to obey. In that regard Americans aren't giving up any rights.

I repeat. The school has the right to exclude and expel any child who won't obey the rules. This gal became a trespasser by not leaving where she was when told to. She could have been permanently expelled from school.

I repeat that it sounds to me as if the officer's handling of the situation was over the top, but the girl had put herself in a position where disobeying was committing the crime of trespass. I too expect the officer to be disciplined and the school and police department to be sued.

These are two separate situations - what the girl did wrong and what the officer did wrong.

Cheers.

[BookMan]

It seems the only ones who don't see this are the majority of Americans.

Talk about closing your eyes and giving up personal freedoms with a welcoming embrace

The law has long ruled that children don't have the same rights that adults to. At some point, children have to obey. In that regard Americans aren't giving up any rights.

I repeat. The school has the right to exclude and expel any child who won't obey the rules. This gal became a trespasser by not leaving where she was when told to. She could have been permanently expelled from school.

I repeat that it sounds to me as if the officer's handling of the situation was over the top, but the girl had put herself in a position where disobeying was committing the crime of trespass. I too expect the officer to be disciplined and the school and police department to be sued.

These are two separate situations - what the girl did wrong and what the officer did wrong.

Cheers.

Crime of trespass, sitting in her school classroom?

Wow, what a warped POV

Edited October 31, 2015 by BookMan

[chuckd]

It seems the only ones who don't see this are the majority of Americans.

Talk about closing your eyes and giving up personal freedoms with a welcoming embrace

The law has long ruled that children don't have the same rights that adults to. At some point, children have to obey. In that regard Americans aren't giving up any rights.

I repeat. The school has the right to exclude and expel any child who won't obey the rules. This gal became a trespasser by not leaving where she was when told to. She could have been permanently expelled from school.

I repeat that it sounds to me as if the officer's handling of the situation was over the top, but the girl had put herself in a position where disobeying was committing the crime of trespass. I too expect the officer to be disciplined and the school and police department to be sued.

These are two separate situations - what the girl did wrong and what the officer did wrong.

Cheers.

Crime of trespass, sitting in her school classroom?

Wow, what a warped POV

Check out post #89 above. Those are the actual school rules for the Spring Valley High School attended by the young lady in question.

Her refusal to surrender the cell phone to her teacher, an administrator and, finally the security officer, were in direct violation of her school rules.

Maybe where you live rules don't have to be obeyed.

Apparently not so at Spring Valley High School.

[BookMan]

Check out post #89 above. Those are the actual school rules for the Spring Valley High School attended by the young lady in question.

Her refusal to surrender the cell phone to her teacher, an administrator and, finally the security officer, were in direct violation of her school rules.

Maybe where you live rules don't have to be obeyed.

Apparently not so at Spring Valley High School.

Where does it say she will be committing a crime of trespass?

[Credo]

The girl was a student at the school so she was not trespassing, even if she was breaking a rule of the school. The conditions related to having a cell phone and when you can use it would be a regulation, not a law. The school does have policies about when and where the phones can be used, she broke those.

I agree that the officer was way OTT, but I fully understand the outrage from the many, many posters here who seem to feel that it's OK for migrants to walk through their countries to wherever they want to go without interference from anyone.

[lostboy]

It seems the only ones who don't see this are the majority of Americans.

Talk about closing your eyes and giving up personal freedoms with a welcoming embrace

The law has long ruled that children don't have the same rights that adults to. At some point, children have to obey. In that regard Americans aren't giving up any rights.

I repeat. The school has the right to exclude and expel any child who won't obey the rules. This gal became a trespasser by not leaving where she was when told to. She could have been permanently expelled from school.

I repeat that it sounds to me as if the officer's handling of the situation was over the top, but the girl had put herself in a position where disobeying was committing the crime of trespass. I too expect the officer to be disciplined and the school and police department to be sued.

These are two separate situations - what the girl did wrong and what the officer did wrong.

Cheers.

Crime of trespass, sitting in her school classroom?

Wow, what a warped POV

Check out post #89 above. Those are the actual school rules for the Spring Valley High School attended by the young lady in question.

Her refusal to surrender the cell phone to her teacher, an administrator and, finally the security officer, were in direct violation of her school rules.

Maybe where you live rules don't have to be obeyed.

Apparently not so at Spring Valley High School.

None of the four stated consequences of violations of cell phone usage at Spring Valley HS provide for exclusion and prosecution for criminal trespass. The entire notion that the school's property rights justify physical and violent restraint of students under indictment of criminal trespass is a complete red herring. An absolute non starter. The school policy indicated that consequences of non compliance with the cell phone policy follow District guidelines, which you do not specify but could in fact include suspension or expulsion. Neither the Police Officer nor the the teacher would have any rights under any policy to immediately expel or prosecute any student. The School Administrator may have some authority under the District guidelines but we don't know this at the moment.

What the far right, police state boosters have neglected to address is that the African-American female child was a minor with different legal expectations and provisions. Children go to school to learn. Part of this learning includes appropriate social interaction. Part of this learning is also making mistakes. The Police Officer was not a minor. He was an adult with a duty of care to the protection of that child and a supposed ability to make adult decisions. He is rightfully suffering the consequences of his decision which no doubt was informed by his training under the culture of institutionalised violence of the current law enforcement system in the United States that is brutal, primitive and self serving.

Why was this minor not treated with the respect that she deserved, even while she was being disrespectful to Authority. Because Authority in this case were too concerned about their own small minded concerns and not with their responsibilities towards the child. And I do certainly believe that the attitude of the representatives of Authority in this case was influenced by skin colour. There are references on this thread to 'thug' which is now a racist code word against African American youth.

Edited October 31, 2015 by lostboy

[chuckd]

Check out post #89 above. Those are the actual school rules for the Spring Valley High School attended by the young lady in question.

Her refusal to surrender the cell phone to her teacher, an administrator and, finally the security officer, were in direct violation of her school rules.

Maybe where you live rules don't have to be obeyed.

Apparently not so at Spring Valley High School.

Where does it say she will be committing a crime of trespass?

I never said she was trespassing. I said she was in violation of her own school rules.

Nice try, though.

[sgtsabai]

The school rules should have stated that no cell phone is allowed in class. I think that is reasonable and sensible. Unfortunately for the abusive cop, that rule wasn't in effect, want to bet it soon will be. It is no wonder there is a kindergarten to prison pipeline and most are black. Hmmm, new law to violate, texting while black. Hope the prick never finds another job and ends up on food stamps, maybe he'll learn something. Naw, his kind never do. Like all right wing racists he will blame the chick for him losing his temper. Good thing she had nothing resembling a gun or she would be dead, like so many others. And yes, she should take a bit of a "vacation". While his wrong was by far the most onerous, 2 wrongs have never made a right, oops, they do make a right wing.

[NeverSure]

Check out post #89 above. Those are the actual school rules for the Spring Valley High School attended by the young lady in question.

Her refusal to surrender the cell phone to her teacher, an administrator and, finally the security officer, were in direct violation of her school rules.

Maybe where you live rules don't have to be obeyed.

Apparently not so at Spring Valley High School.

Where does it say she will be committing a crime of trespass?

It was a crime of trespass and trespass is always a crime. Permission to stay can be revoked at any time by the people who have the care, custody and control of property and in this case that was the school.

The girl was told to leave a room and she refused and at that moment she became a trespasser in that room. It matters not that she was a student because a school can expel a student at any time. They tried to expel her from the room and she refused and became a trespasser. The police were summoned.

Again, I disagree with how the officer handled it and I think he is in trouble. I believe they were both wrong.

As I said earlier, the cop should have cited the girl with a summons to court for trespassing and let her sweat that out. It would have set an example for the rest of the kids too. The school could always drop the charges before a trial and I'm convinced the DA would go along with that.

Cheers.

[Scott]

I don't think that if she is enrolled at the school that she can be charged with trespassing, at least not easily. Failing to follow the rules and regulations of a facility do not usually meet the the standard of the full force and effect of breaking a law, but if the rules and the regulations are deemed to be within the scope of a legally permissible regulation, then there is legal recourse.

I think there are rules and regulations that would supersede trespass and would be more applicable than trying to charge her with trespassing.

As I have stated before, in my work in schools (and with juvenile offenders in other settings), there is more than one way to skin a cat. The class was already disrupted by her behavior. I would have asked all the students to come with me and taken them to another room, whether it is the library, or the science room. The school authorities who deal with discipline issues could have dealt with her alone and with much less drama. She could have been kept in the room until her parents or guardian came to assist in dealing with her.

Dealing with obstinate students is a little like dealing with a donkey. They may be stronger, but the teachers/Admin need to be smarter.

[BookMan]

Check out post #89 above. Those are the actual school rules for the Spring Valley High School attended by the young lady in question.

Her refusal to surrender the cell phone to her teacher, an administrator and, finally the security officer, were in direct violation of her school rules.

Maybe where you live rules don't have to be obeyed.

Apparently not so at Spring Valley High School.

Where does it say she will be committing a crime of trespass?

I never said she was trespassing. I said she was in violation of her own school rules.

Nice try, though.

Chucky, u commented directly to my post about trespass and the justification of the officers behaviour

The rules you linked to, say nothing about trespass or forcible and violent detainment by a police officer.

The rules are about phone usage and confiscation of the device.

My point was: Americans seems to accept their loss of personal freedoms and the conversion to a mini police state with a calm self-assuredness that everything is in fact okay. You illustrate the point well.

[BookMan]

It was a crime of trespass and trespass is always a crime. Permission to stay can be revoked at any time by the people who have the care, custody and control of property and in this case that was the school.

The girl was told to leave a room and she refused and at that moment she became a trespasser in that room. It matters not that she was a student because a school can expel a student at any time. They tried to expel her from the room and she refused and became a trespasser. The police were summoned.

Again, I disagree with how the officer handled it and I think he is in trouble. I believe they were both wrong.

As I said earlier, the cop should have cited the girl with a summons to court for trespassing and let her sweat that out. It would have set an example for the rest of the kids too. The school could always drop the charges before a trial and I'm convinced the DA would go along with that.

Cheers.

You would do well in current US law enforcement by your whacky and confused reasoning about what constitutes trespass.

The student cannot be trespassing unless she is specifically banned from the school premises by the school administration.

[Scott]

I think we can stop the discussion of trespassing.

If a person is asked to leave your property and doesn't, they can be charged with trespassing, but generally they are not because the reason for asking them to leave may be a more viable option than going after someone for trespassing. That is the case even if the person was originally invited to your property. For example, you have a party and someone gets argumentative and you ask them to leave.

Laws related to juveniles are statutorily different than those of adults. If she is 18 then it is a different ball game than if she 17. In this situation it is not a big difference, but it is different.

In general, texting in class should never reach this level and I assume that is why it is in the news. I am relatively certain there have been many students that have violated this rule with little or no fanfare.

Unless someone can show that she was texting to a drug dealer or someone planning to bomb the school, this whole matter escalated why out of proportion.

Feel free to express your opinion on the topic, but let's dispense with personal comments directed at other posters.

[arunsakda]

Not surprised to hear such opinions (from the usual suspects) but many are saying it was "the girls fault" and firing the officer an injustice!

My personal option on these types is that they are so psychologically invested in a concept of a strict authoritarian law-enforcement state

that they are extremely reluctant to criticize any action of authority figures, even when provided evidence of misconduct and brutality even resulting in death,

sometimes arising from seemingly minor incidents.

One should note that in one month of 2015** US Police killed twice as many people as the UK police did in the entire 20th century.

**

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/american-cops-killed-people-month-march-uk-entire-20th-century/

Edited November 1, 2015 by arunsakda

[MaeJoMTB]

I repeat. The school has the right to exclude and expel any child who won't obey the rules. This gal became a trespasser by not leaving where she was when told to. She could have been permanently expelled from school.

You are confusing the present with the future.

The police officer has no rights to exclude any pupil.

That decision would be up to the school principal after due process, no such decision has yet been made.

You can not be a trespasser in any school classroom to which you are currently enrolled, and your lesson in progress.

Edited November 1, 2015 by MaeJoMTB

[TuskegeeBen]

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?

You were getting warm with the first sentence. It actually does happen to white kids, and more frequently than the news broadcasters are willing to report.

Granted, I concede that we blacks do have our own inherent behavioral issues to overcome, especially on a specific class level, that MLK was quite aware of being,

.......in the making, and attempted to actively circumvent. It cost him his life (a different topic of discussion).

.

However, Blacks just get the prejudicially reserved, and preferred sensationalistic mention in the press, compared to White, Asians and Latinos. Does that answer your question?

Edited November 1, 2015 by TuskegeeBen

[chuckd]

Check out post #89 above. Those are the actual school rules for the Spring Valley High School attended by the young lady in question.

Her refusal to surrender the cell phone to her teacher, an administrator and, finally the security officer, were in direct violation of her school rules.

Maybe where you live rules don't have to be obeyed.

Apparently not so at Spring Valley High School.

Where does it say she will be committing a crime of trespass?

I never said she was trespassing. I said she was in violation of her own school rules.

Nice try, though.

Chucky, u commented directly to my post about trespass and the justification of the officers behaviour

The rules you linked to, say nothing about trespass or forcible and violent detainment by a police officer.

The rules are about phone usage and confiscation of the device.

My point was: Americans seems to accept their loss of personal freedoms and the conversion to a mini police state with a calm self-assuredness that everything is in fact okay. You illustrate the point well.

The reference I made to post #89 gives a link to the use of mobile telephones, which were quoted by me in post #89.

However, if the link shown in post #89 is followed, it will open up an entire world of knowledge on the school's rulings and possible disciplinary actions that are at their disposal.

In a matter of three minutes I have found all the information you are seemingly unable to locate. The link provided below says, in part:

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

The basic enforcement procedures in instances of criminal conduct are as follows.

• Upon observation or notification and verification of an offense, the administrator should confer with the staff involved, effect the appropriate disciplinary action and, if appropriate, meet with the student.

• If warranted, the student should be removed immediately from the school environment. The parents/legal guardians should be notified as soon as possible.

• If appropriate, school officials should contact law enforcement authorities.

• Established due process procedures will be followed when applicable.

• A complete record of the procedures will be maintained.

Possible sanctions to be applied in cases of criminal conduct may include, but are not limited to, the following.

• out-of-school suspension

• referral to outside agencies

• expulsion

• restitution of property and damages, where appropriate, may be sought by local school authorities

http://policy.microscribepub.com/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=217479199&infobase=richland2.nfo&jump=JICDA-R&softpage=Document42#JUMPDEST_JICDA-R

PS: My user name is not "chucky, much as your user name is not "bookie". Thanks in advance for your future consideration.

[BookMan]

The reference I made to post #89 gives a link to the use of mobile telephones, which were quoted by me in post #89.

However, if the link shown in post #89 is followed, it will open up an entire world of knowledge on the school's rulings and possible disciplinary actions that are at their disposal.

In a matter of three minutes I have found all the information you are seemingly unable to locate. The link provided below says, in part:

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

The basic enforcement procedures in instances of criminal conduct are as follows.

• Upon observation or notification and verification of an offense, the administrator should confer with the staff involved, effect the appropriate disciplinary action and, if appropriate, meet with the student.

• If warranted, the student should be removed immediately from the school environment. The parents/legal guardians should be notified as soon as possible.

• If appropriate, school officials should contact law enforcement authorities.

• Established due process procedures will be followed when applicable.

• A complete record of the procedures will be maintained.

Possible sanctions to be applied in cases of criminal conduct may include, but are not limited to, the following.

• out-of-school suspension

• referral to outside agencies

• expulsion

• restitution of property and damages, where appropriate, may be sought by local school authorities

http://policy.microscribepub.com/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=217479199&infobase=richland2.nfo&jump=JICDA-R&softpage=Document42#JUMPDEST_JICDA-R

PS: My user name is not "chucky, much as your user name is not "bookie". Thanks in advance for your future consideration.

Thanks Chuckd. You can call me Bookie, many do.

Once again though, you have provided spurious information. The entire passage is related to 'Instances of criminal conduct'.

How is her refusing to stop using her phone criminal conduct?? It is not, of course.

You see, Chuckd, while it took you 3 minutes to find this useless piece of information, it took me less than ten seconds to realise it was irrelevant.

Please. Don't waste my time with nonsense.

Thanks in advance for your future consideration

Bookie

[chuckd]

@ Bookman:

From the same link previously provided:

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

Level II - disruptive conduct

Disruptive conduct is defined as those activities engaged in by a student(s) which are directed against persons or property and the consequences of which tend to endanger the health or safety of oneself or others in the school. Some instances of disruptive conduct may overlap certain criminal offenses, justifying both administrative sanctions, intervention of law enforcement authorities and court proceedings. Disorderly conduct (Level 1) may be reclassified as disruptive conduct (Level II) if it occurs repeatedly.

Acts of disruptive conduct may include, but are not limited to, the following.

• use, possession or being under the influence of an intoxicant

• fighting

• vandalism (minor)

• stealing

• threats against others

• trespass

• abusive language to staff, to include profane language

• refusal to obey school personnel or agents (such as substitutes, volunteer aides or chaperones) whose responsibilities include supervision of students

• possession or use of unauthorized substances, including tobacco and tobacco products, non-prescription drugs, “look-alike” drugs and drug paraphernalia, including rolling papers

• illegally occupying or blocking in any way school property with the intent to deprive others of its use

• unlawful assembly

• disrupting lawful assembly

• unlawful possession or use of a personal electronic communications device (including a cellular telephone)

• use of a personal or district issued electronic communications device (including a cellular telephone) in violation of policy JICJ (Use of Electronic Communication Devices in School) and/or IJND/IJND-R(2) (Electronic Communication and Data Management)

• inappropriate verbal or physical conduct

• being in an unauthorized area

• gambling on school property

• other disruptive acts as determined at the school level which are not inconsistent with board policy

The basic enforcement procedures in instances of disruptive conduct are as follows.

• Upon observation or notification and verification of an offense, the administrator should investigate the circumstances of the misconduct and should confer with staff on the extent of the consequences.

• The administrator should notify the parents/legal guardians of the student's misconduct and related proceedings. The administrator should meet with the student and, if necessary, the parents/legal guardians, confer with them about the student's misconduct and effect the appropriate disciplinary action. A complete record of the procedures will be maintained.

• If appropriate, school officials should contact law enforcement.

Possible sanctions to be applied in cases of disruptive conduct may include, but are not limited to, the following.

• temporary removal from class

• alternative education program

• in-school suspension

• out-of-school suspension

• transfer

• referral to outside agency

• expulsion

• restitution of property and damages, where appropriate, may be sought by local school authorities

http://policy.microscribepub.com/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=217483161&depth=2&infobase=richland2.nfo&jump=JICDA-R&softpage=Document42#JUMPDEST_JICDA-R

[stevenl]

The amount if racism here, from people professing to not be racists, is abhorrent.

[chuckd]

The amount if racism here, from people professing to not be racists, is abhorrent.

Got anybody in particular in mind or is this merely a blanket condemnation of whoever doesn't agree with your version of events?

Just curious.

[stevenl]

The amount if racism here, from people professing to not be racists, is abhorrent.

Got anybody in particular in mind or is this merely a blanket condemnation of whoever doesn't agree with your version of events?

Just curious.

Nothing to do with the events, only with the comments. It started with the first answer and hasn't stopped since. Edited November 1, 2015 by stevenl

[arunsakda]

I don't think anybody on this thread said "Well I'm not a racist". Very few have the gall, and can't be taken seriously anyway. It would be more helpful for such persons to simply state that racism is something that is ubiquitous. And all people should struggle against it and to strive to undermine and deconstruct racism and its processes.

What we do havehere on this thread (as so commonly seen on TV threads) is the typical subtle bigotry and eurocentrism of many who grew up in various countries wearing a cloak of white priveledge and lack any kind understanding or sensitivity to those who did not.

The fact remains this was a shocking overuse of force and it would never happen to a white schoolgirl in the US.

Edited November 2, 2015 by arunsakda

[sgtsabai]

Some of the posters have said in other threads that they are not racists. The points in this thread are at least in part she was black, female, had an "attitude" and refused to obey an over the top cop that should have never been there in the first place. There is no excuse for the cop's behavior and it would not have been tolerated in my time. This entire situation could and would have been taken care of by administrative procedures had it not been for the current totalitarian "zero tolerance" practiced in the school pipeline to prison. BTW I was once sent home to change t-shirts after wearing a t-shirt saying Seniors 63 with a nickname of 96 proof. I didn't like it, raised hell but I went home and changed. The administration was right, it was part of the annual Jr./Sen. fights. No cop to beat me up, drag me out of the class and take my word for it, the annual fights were a lot worse than texting on a damn phone, we didn't have those things then, we actually communicated. Oh, we won against the Jr. & Soph.'s.

[chuckd]

Some of the posters have said in other threads that they are not racists. The points in this thread are at least in part she was black, female, had an "attitude" and refused to obey an over the top cop that should have never been there in the first place. There is no excuse for the cop's behavior and it would not have been tolerated in my time. This entire situation could and would have been taken care of by administrative procedures had it not been for the current totalitarian "zero tolerance" practiced in the school pipeline to prison. BTW I was once sent home to change t-shirts after wearing a t-shirt saying Seniors 63 with a nickname of 96 proof. I didn't like it, raised hell but I went home and changed. The administration was right, it was part of the annual Jr./Sen. fights. No cop to beat me up, drag me out of the class and take my word for it, the annual fights were a lot worse than texting on a damn phone, we didn't have those things then, we actually communicated. Oh, we won against the Jr. & Soph.'s.

The police officer was a School Security Officer.

Our little princess refused to hand over her cell phone to her teacher which prompted him to request the presence of an Administrator.

When she refused to hand over her telephone to the Administrator, the Administrator called the School Security Officer.

She then refused to hand over the phone to the Officer which resulted in the video as seen.

The Officer was there at the request of the school Administrator.

The Officer was way over the top with his reaction, but had she merely followed the school rules none of this would have happened.

However, the ACLU and NAACP are in complete agreement with your version of events, regardless of what the OP says.