Slashdot Mirror
Student Arrested For Classroom Texting
A 14-year-old Wisconsin girl was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct after she refused to stop texting during a high school math class. The girl denied having a phone when confronted by a school safety officer, but a female cop found it after frisking her. The Samsung Cricket was recovered "from the buttocks area" of the teenager, according to the police report. The girl was banned from school property for a week, and is scheduled for an April 20 court appearance for a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge. I applaud the adults involved for their discretion and temperance in this heinous case of texting without permission.
Who wants to make the grammar joke?
"heinous case of texting without permission."
I think it has more to do with refusing bit than the texting bit.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Students shouldn't be texting in class. If a student refuses to follow the rules, you have to do something. In our lawsuit-happy culture, calling the police is pretty much the only option. If you were being insubordinate at work, you would be fired and they'd have security escort you from the building. If you refused, you would be arrested.
I'm not saying that this story is important, but this is usually something I would see in the normal sections of Slashdot. There would be a large discussion about the intrusion of law enforcement in an educational environment. I think the only reason that it's in Idle is because of the buttocks thing.
No existe.
... to Al-Qaeda!
I think you mean "yore". Next time pay attention in school instead of sending texts.
Like oh mah gawd how can they do this is so unfair like people shoudlnt like be so mean to people who are like doing their own thing like what wrong with the world?
Wtf is wrong with our schools.
Photos or GTFO
I personally think that everyone under the age of 65 should be banned from texting.
Also, the impression that I got of this young lady after reading the article is that she would be the type to wear very tight pants...if so, being able to stuff a cell phone in them would be quite impressive.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
I can recommend. I'll even cut y'all in on the finders fee.
Hmm, this "phone in the butt" story appeared just after the bar of soap phone story... cue jokes about bending over.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
Saw it, and passed. Like I passed on the lame argument against this guy. (The argument not being lame, the very fact of bothering to argue with such a silly comment being very lame indeed.)
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
When I was in High School, disruptive kids got sent to the Vice Principal for this kind of thing. Why did this get charged as a real crime? Don't schools have any discretion or judgment left to them anymore?
"No more butt-dialing!"
Oh wait you said butt not vag.
You are mandated to shut up, not text or do anything. Lest the cops come in and frisk your ass (and subsecuently finds a not-illegal item).
Poor kids.
Its good they have no rights. This way they can find out early that "rights" are not for everyone. Hell, as time passess, it seems they are for noone.
NO SIG
First offense, confiscate the phone and give it back at the end of the day.
Second offense, give her in detention, confiscate the phone and require the parents to pick it up in person if they want it back.
Subsequent offenses, repeat step two. The parents will get sick of this pretty quickly, and she will find herself without a phone.
It's not that hard.
The teacher asked the student to stop. Is there some other action a school is allowed to take with a student who refuses to follow instructions?
I think you are supposed to give them a trophy or something.
It helps with their self esteem;-)
noone doesn't get them either
When I was in school, having a pager on school grounds was immediate expulsion and a call for a criminal investigation (ie. is the student selling drugs) and attempting to log out of the terminal session on the library's card catalog was at least two weeks suspension. These days students and parents think having a phone is a universal right.
How are students supposed to learn how to circumvent the system when we set the bar so low?
You can take away the phone, but you can't force the mind to focus on the instructor. Kids won't pay attention to boring things unless they have motivation to do so. This can come from parents or peers. It can't come from "safety officers."
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
There are days when I think that we need to get rid of our entire educational complex.
Why is it that every educator wants to stop student to student communications of any form using any media? Teachers don't teach you how to live in a free society. They teach you to live in prison.
My solution is simple. Have the students see the bill for "education" right up front and if they don't want it then they aren't required by law to be there any more.
That's what makes this bad. That student was required by law to be there. I'm sure other laws have been made to "force students to behave in class." When will students band together and force teachers to behave or have pay cuts?
My god, what else do you think is acceptable then?
SWAT team brought in for a schoolyard fight?
Anti Terrorist squad for a stink bomb in the corridors?
Solitary detainment and waterboarding for not spilling the beans on who wrote in chalk on a school wall?
I'm disgusted that you think this is ok.
She sounds like a little shit, but that's what detention and suspension is for NOT the bloody police.
Please.
Why are my very expensive courts and police being tied up with this nonsense!!???
A Simple suspension and call home to the Parents was seen as going soft!!!???
WTF!!!???? Really WTF!!!!!?????
And no mention of a warrant >> Charges thrown out...
Why would you need a warrant? She was arrested on disorderly conduct and frisked. Unless something has changed recently, it's standard procedure to frisk the person you're arresting.
Had this been another country, one more serious about education, and parenting, this character would have been given an immediate failing grade and forced to repeat. But this is America, and we molly coddle our kids, who generally end up laying an egg when it comes to technical topics in high school.
This is about the punishment - not the crime. What the hell is wrong with you. Do you tie your shoes in little nazies. In an age where we find Judges being paid to send kids to jail we should be questioning every single one of these incidents. What's the motive here? And how did we come to this?
This is type of thing is indicative of the sense of entitlement everyone under the age of 20 seems to have these days. Everyone's the victim and no one is responsible for their actions. This girl doesn't need to be kicked off school property she needs to be stuck in a camp where there is no internet, cell phone, television, playstation, et al. for 6 months and see how the little punk likes it. She needs to be taught discipline of the highest order and maybe a criminal record and a good LONG dose of Community Service will teach little twerp respect.
Pax Vobiscum
I see a bunch of "oh how could this happen" and sarcastic responses to a sarcastic article... but I'm in the "Great!" camp because I have a daughter that has a cell phone addiction. She has other issues too that make having a cell phone a very bad idea. For example, sending threatening texts to her classmates, and generally using the phone to create drama (as well as completely go off the deep end by misinterpretting texts she receives.) Can a cell in class be disruptive? Are you kidding? First, the kid with the phone is obviously distracted. Second, anyone around the kid with the phone will see/hear the thumbs going mad (not to mention giggles, outbursts, or whatnot). School is for ... learning? I'd LOVE to see more schools out-right ban this [anti] social phenomena. Seriously, there are kids that would rather text than eat (bathe, or whatever other self care you can think of.)
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
I hope she used protection and lube... as well as plenty of disinfectant afterwards.
"What else can you do?" Really? This sounded like a completely routine school disciplinary matter to me. Even taking your swipe at "our lawsuit-happy culture" at face value, which do you think is riskier from a lawsuit standpoint: 1) giving a student a suspension; or 2) having her arrested?
Wrong.
No basis to search the girl? You should really read the article. She was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. Hate to break it to you sport, but you get frisked anytime you get arrested.
In days of yore, the teacher would have demanded the student pay attention and probably gotten compliance. Or the teacher would have threatened to make a phone call to the parents. Falling that the teacher would have grabbed the student by the arm and marched her down to the vice principal. Today, that would result in a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the school.
In too many schools, teachers haver zero authority, and students and even parents don't care about education.
Did the teacher overreact - sure. They probably should have just ignored the texting and all the other disruptions small and large in the class. Is it any wonder that 50% of teachers quit teaching in the first few years of their "career".
[Insert pithy quote here]
A 14 year old wouldn't stop texting in class? Leading to a frisking by a law enforcement officer and a court appearance? What the hell happened to "in loco parente" ("in place of parent", means while the student is at school, the school is the parent)? This parent gives you permission to destroy the fucking phone. If you're in shop class, you have quite a few more tools at your disposal to drive the point home, a physics lab, slightly less so. Unless the class was government, there's no reason to involve the men in blue. This was math class. Confiscate, eliminate the problem.
These days, teachers are responsible for students' learning. These students' performance on test scores lead not only to their continued success but to the school getting more funding. Kid thinks her phone is that much more important than learning, kid needs to learn how worthless the phone is so she can fucking pay attention. Only way to do that is to remove the phone from the equation. Shoot the hostage, so to speak.
My daughter will be 14 in 9 years. I will have given her the phone because I wanted her to have one in an emergency, not so she could text her friends in the next room. I will be very sorry for the inconvenience and disruption she will have caused. By the time she gets home, it will be hard for me to correct her behavior because we're so removed from the situation -- I will appreciate it if you could help me out. With the cost per SMS being what it is, you'll be doing me a double favor.
Except that their teacher did see her texting, and did ask her to stop, and did presumably summon the safety officer. So it's really a stretch to say that the cop just randomly 'searched' her.
Plus, I'm curious to see if there was a bit more to this story that we're not hearing. I can reasonably see the following happening:
Student refuses to hand over phone.
She's then told she will be searched.
She then starts screaming and yelling that she refuses to cooperate with the request.
That last part can be construed as disorderly conduct. You can refuse to cooperate, but doing it a loud and disruptive manner in a public place can be considered disorderly conduct (just like ANY loud and disruptive actions you take in a public place).
IIRC, it's standard practice to frisk somebody after you arrest them. I would guess that this is when they discovered the phone crammed between her butt cheeks.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
OK- but how does finding a phone on someone's body prove that she was texting in class? I know its pretty easy to check to see if she was, however at the time they probobly couldn't even prove it! Besides, texting might be rude, but disorderly? Pressing buttons quietly at a desk isn't exactly disorderly. Breaking a school rule- yes, But this is way to far. I mean, is sneezing to loud now disorderly? Or running to the bathroom when you really have to go?
Make-up with glitter in it was classified as a "distraction in the classroom" at my middle school, and people would get detention if they wore it . However, detention is a far cry from a disorderly charge.
I'm so glad I'm grown now. Schools are becoming more like tyrant camps than an actual learning environment.
Your mandated to be in schools. Your not mandated to pay attention.
Who wants to make the grammar joke?
His statement speaks for itself. That's the joke here.
Aside from the humor, he does make a valid point.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
For instance, when a police pulls behind us while driving, we have two choices. Run away or stop. Kids and other with similar development will run, thinking it is fun. Most rational adults will stop and do whatever is necessary to avoid a scene. It is a choice, and the expedient choice is made with training.
I know that the expedient choice is not always the right choice, but at least in america there are ways to make the expedient choice, admit no guilt,and deal with the situation later. This of course requires maturity and practice.
And training with proper use of phones is important. The teacher obviously asked her nicely to stop and the situation only escalated when she would not. What happens when she is so addicted to the phone, which she obviously is, that she cannot sit for her SATS without using the phone? Or if she is in an interview for college? Or when she starts to drive. I am sure that many of you would be happy to have your young children on the same street as a phone addicted adolescent that has just learned to drive.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Good move! Save time for the important things in life, like self-indulgent narration of things you didn't do.
What ever happened to detention??!
My
Limekiller
I don't get it. You have some 15 yro's that go and murder someone, and they have hangups about trying them as adults, yet a teen girl, acts up in class....and she get slapped with charges by the police? How fsked up is that? Geez...give her some detention, but, it doesn't sound like she committed any offense that required being charged with a crime?!?!?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
For the parents' response to this. The parents can either blow this thing way out of proportion by showing a sense of entitlement in the issue (as in "our daughter is entitled to do whatever the hell we say") or they can agree that cell phones don't belong in class in use.
Not to say that calling the cops was necessarily a reasonable reaction; one would hope that school suspension would have accomplished enough.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
FINE!
You Pay for it!
Police and Courts cost money to maintain. Money that does not need to be spent on childrens idioc obsessions with phones. Real criminals are making life tough on working americans and I want my police dept, and Distric Attorney out in the streets kicking ass, not wiping the ass of some disturbed little girl and her phone fetish.
Taking a trip in the way back machine on a setting of 17 years ago...
I had the brilliant idea of bringing my left-over 4th of July celebration fireworks to middle school and setting them off outside in the long jump pit of the track area. I cut last class of the day and ducked out to the track and field to wait for the last bell to ring before setting them off and running to my bus. My collection amounted to a handful of black-cats and some whistler bottle rockets (yawn, i know). I twisted all the fuses together and lit them with my Marlboro Red and before the first one went of, I was ambushed by the 4 principals.
Suffice to say they called the fire department and the police department and my and my buddy's parents. I remember laughing in their faces as my friend was crying like a baby, because I felt what I did was so petty. Yet all the adults were trying to make it seem like I had committed a murder!
The end result was a 4hr "behavioral corrections" class, 2 week grounding, and 1 week in-school suspension... AND a life-long obsession with combustible and flammable materials!@#
I would probably be serving multiple consecutive life sentences had this occurred yesterday and not when I was 15 TEE HEE. GOD FUCK AMERICA, I MEAN BLESS!
Pardon me, but I think the grammatically correct term is "You all" or "Y'all" ! 8-)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's stupid, but teachers have no other option. If they confront the student in class, they open themselves and the school to lawsuit.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Before everyone goes spouting off about how we're becoming a police state, has anyone (including submitter) bothered to read the linked police report? The cop refers to "prior negative contacts" with this person for both him and the administration. The chick ignores the teachers, lies to the cops, and brazenly continues to text in class. It's too bad the cops had to waste cycles getting involved, but judging from the police report the school personnel were at the end of their rope.
-R
SWAT team brought in for a schoolyard fight?
Well, why not. If kids can get beaten with baseball bats by other students, it seems more a job for police than teachers at that point.
The parents would have the teacher charged with force able confinement and the school board would be sued.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Teachers have their hands tied these days, they aren't allowed to do anything to the students. Calling the police is the only option it's sad but true.
I mandate that you're not quite finished with your education. And I also mandate that you pay attention whilst finishing it.
The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
I highly disapprove of strip searching students (at least a female cop did it this time). But then you have kids like her lying and stashing things where the sun don't shine, who can only be caught by strip search.
Expel her.
I have a daughter that has a cell phone addiction
That is YOUR responsibility as a parent to fix, NOT the schools. If your child spends all her time texting, then YOU simply take the phone away from her and let her know that she'll only have it back once she learns to use it responsibly. People like you are one of the main reasons why we have an ever more powerful government that takes more and more rights away from citizens.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Indeed because, as we all know, refusing to comply or follow orders in a non-military school is indeed a crime against all of society punishable by a sentence decreed in a court of law!
Who cares if it sets off the fire and other alarm systems, destroys all the classroom computers and any electronics in close proximity. It would get the job done! Plus it's alot less messy than hacking off her fingers so she can't text...or do anything involving opposable thumbs...
Once upon a time in a mythical land called Soviet Russia, a hot bowl of grits had Natalie Portman.
Snowflake had hidden the 'phone in her underwear so having Police present is the only way to avoid a lawsuit.
No sig today...
There is a difference between playful misconduct and willful disobedience. Historically the former was handled with detention and the latter with corporal punishment. Since corporal punishment has all but been made illegal what tool do you use? Of course I did not RTFA but from the summary it appears she was being snarky and rebellious. If she had just handed over the phone she would have landed in detention and that would be the end of it. So we either arrest them for a misdemeanor or return the power to the teacher. Unless someone has a better idea. Anyone?
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Seriously? She didn't obey a teacher. WTF did she expect to happen these days? Since you want to draw unrelated comparisons, what happens during a fire and she decides she's not gonna obey her teacher then? She's a kid. She's supposed to obey her teachers. If she doesn't like the rules, ask mommy or daddy to withdraw her. Actions have consequences.
That's just plain wrong...
Your(singular) = "Y'all are"
Your(plural) = "Alls'y'all is"
Alls'y'all better get off'n my lawn!!!
Police and Courts cost money to maintain. Money that does not need to be spent on childrens idioc obsessions with phones.
No, it's much better spent dealing with the MPAA/RIAA's random lawsuits...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Who's this Noone guy?
How you gonna do that when she stuffs it down her underwear? And if you let her get away with it, what's she going to do next?
No sig today...
WTF??? Your daughter has a 'cell phone problem' and you applaud the school for taking care of YOUR problem?? When did it become the school district's PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY in the matter?
Take a little responsibility for the actions of your offspring!
Don't spend your life lamenting your life.
If we're talking about text messaging, I believe the correct spelling is "ur"
Lucky she didn't get corporal punishment: that phone might have ended up in a very uncomfortable place...
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
and they have hangups about trying them as adults, yet a teen girl, acts up in class....and she get slapped with charges by the police
Are you an idiot?
Misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct is about as far from Murder as you can get.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Apparently you did not read the criminal complaint. The student was "known to the security officer" as a problem , and had "negative contacts" with the administrators in the past. Sounds to me like a problem child, who continued to act out, from a broken home, had repeatedly ignored the rules, assuming that she could skate out of all trouble. And since it was school she probably could, but in this case, they decided to file the charges. Finally she is forced to have a little accountability for her actions.
Not only did she lie about her actions, she repeatedly gave false numbers to the school for contacting her parents, and wasted several hours of the school employees time. She ought to be billed by the school district for the amount of time wasted by her.
Treat teenagers like adults they act like adults. Don't and they will always act like little children.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
I've personally been involved in situations where a student's refusal to cooperate lead to the situation escalating far beyond what was necessary. I think sometimes they believe that if they dig in their heels, nothing bad will happen and the adult will let up. They don't understand that digging in just escalates the situation. When I encounter such a student, I usually have to explain the complete consequences of their actions (including ultimately getting cuffed and hauled out if need be), before they relent.
From reading the report, it's pretty clear that the student had multiple opportunities to come clean before being arrested, and refused to take advantage of them. Yes, I agree that arresting the girl was overkill, but the report mentions that the officer had prior [negative] dealings with the student before, so I would suspect that there is a story here that goes back a little farther than "ZOMG STUDENT ARRESTED FOR TEXTING." Arresting the girl was overkill *if* this was her first disciplinary issue. If this is one of a long string of issues, it's a different story. When sane, measured discipline isn't getting through to a kid, it may be a good time to over-react and try to get the kid's attention.
I don't know the kid, and I don't know her history, so I can't judge whether or not the officer was out of line. I can imagine plenty of scenarios where it is, and plenty where it isn't. I've had students get in a disproportionate amount of trouble for similarly stupid reasons, and it usually plays out the same way: a student with a long disciplinary history tries to press their luck over something moronic, and comes up with the short straw.
I think we recently had an article on here about that. put tinfoil in the classroom walls.
Twenty years ago I was in the same school district and would have attended her high school. (Her school was not built until after I graduated). So, that narrows down where I grew up to about a square mile..
Anyway, a buddy of mine had a big box of .22 ammo in his locker for use at the range after school, got caught, and was lectured for a minute and told to take it home. There was no buttock storage involved unlike this story, which may or may not be relevant.
Also as a member of the future military members club, we thought it amusing to play hot potato with demilitarized training grenades in the hallway. Nobody really cared but some ex-mil teachers started telling us some "war-stories".
I recall police were called only for drug possession incidents.
It is, admittedly, a much more ghetto / multicultural area now which may explain the heavy handed-ness and / or police state environment now seen.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Actions have consequences.
Yes and consequences of this action should be either detention or in school suspension.
The police report stated that she was arrested for lying to a police officer. It also stated that she had "prior negative contacts" with the school administration and the local police.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
That is still you are. I consider ur used for your as the exact same misspelling.
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
Time for reductio ad absurdum. "Seriously? That guy didn't obey the cops when they told him to rape his sister. He deserved to get shot in the forehead at point-blank range." See how absurd an appeal to authority sounds when taken to extremes?
You are right that actions have consequences; in school, those consequences rarely, if ever, escalate beyond detention---suspension if you've gotten three detentions in a row. Unless there's a lot more to this story, calling the cops because a teenager wouldn't quit texting is just plain abuse of power. Now if the teenager wouldn't quit interrupting the teacher by texting the teacher, it might be construed as harassment, but again, the right answer is to confiscate the phone, give the student detention, etc.
Either way, the teenager would have to be doing something a lot more disruptive than texting for arresting her to be an appropriate punishment. That's just plain nuts.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
They don't even have to say the T word. Basically, the constitution was buried by Ashcroft. A man so scared of breasts he had statues covered up to hide them. So scared of liberty he had it written out of the law books.
I was under the impression that in this country minors were protected from searches on a non-violent nature without a parent present....
I can understand had this been a weapon but a cellphone? If that were my kid I'd be ripping that cunt cop a new asshole and setting the phone on vibrate.
You can't take the sky from me.
I've seen different permutations of this comment being thrown around, and this is indicative that either the system is really broken or people are highly exaggerating and don't know what they're talking about. Do we have any legal precedence of parents suing schools, teachers, and school boards for giving their child detention? Unless the teacher beat the crap out of the kid before detention, or unless the child was sodomized while in detention, I do not see how anyone can just sue and not be laughed out of court.
I went to high school in the 90's and detentions and suspensions were handed out a lot. When fights would occur, teachers would pull the kids apart and they would get suspended or face expulsion if there was more than one prior incident. I've only seen one incident of a school going into lock-down after a fight with the police called, and that was only because of a rumor of a weapon, which did not exist. Arresting a student for texting and then lying about having the phone is stupid and goes way too far. The kid should have been pulled out of class and given detention for her disruptive behavior. What a waste of police resources to have to go to a school to arrest an "unruly" kid for using their phone.
Anyway, have you actually seen or heard about parents suing teachers with "force able confinement" ? I read the report of the whole incident and the student was really bratty. She attempted to conceal her phone, kept lying to the officers, and even gave them wrong numbers when they tried to call her parents. Had she admitted that she had the phone to begin with, none of this would have ever happened. For that, I do blame her. But to arrest her? There are far more nefarious criminals out there that deserve our police department's attention, not a 14 year old brat. Stick her into detention and take away her phone privileges for a month for the first offense.
Best "String" Ever!
Peter Noone, of Herman's Hermits fame.
But seriously, this isn't about some poor child learning that she doesn't have rights (she does, including the right to remain silent and to have an attorney in a trial by her peers). It's about a disruptive adolescent learning that she has responsibilities. That's one of the things that schools are supposed to teach.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Overreact much? Kids will be kids and any adult that expects that kind of obedience is better off being wrong. This happened in the US where much of our wealth ultimately comes from that sort of "attitude problem." Just because adults can behave in anti-social ways because of their power doesn't mean that it's appropriate to do so.
Fires are a very different matter, I can not conceive of a way in which that analogy is cogent. Like it or not in most places kids do not have the option of withdrawing from schools or moving over to other ones just because they're not being appropriately taught.
The scary thing is that this sort of thing happens every generation and yet we've yet to get even a single generation that doesn't get drunk on power when it's their turn.
Install passive cell phone jamming tech in the schools.
Obviously cell phone use is not the disease it's the symptom, but unless we want to start legislating how people parent, treating the symptoms may have to suffice.
It permits hanging for treason, but not require it.
Well, there is a bit of difference in regional dialects too. Some areas will say, "alls'y'all", while others, such as where my family is from, will be a bit more general with "all y'all". Some are just plain uncultured and will use "y'all" by itself, regardless of the number of people being addressed.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Peter Noone?
the teacher of that class is ineffective. The administration has overreacted. The police overstepped and violated her civil and constitutional rights. I hope the family hires a bulldog lawyer to counter-sue, this will be a great trial.
They're using their grammar skills there.
What ever happened to detention?
Remember The Breakfast Club? It convinced students that detention was a valuable part of the whole school experience and could actually be fun. Now kids go out of their way to get sent to detention, hoping they'll get a chance to hook up with Molly Ringwald.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
It probably goes like this. 1) School officer has no legal authority to "frisk" students without their conent. (If they try, they risk a law suit), 2) Student refuses to consent to frisking, and refuses to cooperate. 3) Police are called, at which point school has no more say in the matter 4) Police are pissed off at having been called, and decide to charge student with disorderly conduct and being a pain in the ass.
At step 2), we don't know why the school couldn't handle this internally. I'm sure that they would have if they could have. No school principal / board wants this kind of publicity if they can avoid it!
We don't know this, but I suspect that this girl has a long history of being disruptive and uncooperative at school. The school has probably tried all sorts of other things in the past, to no avail. The principal probably (very bravely IMO) figured that calling the police might actually get through this girl's thick skull that being a disruptive pain in the ass is a REALLY BAD IDEA. And it might get her parents' attention as well.
Or are you just pleased to see me?
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
Finally she is forced to have a little accountability for her actions.
It's still a bit harsh for the actual offense, arbitrary accountability isn't going to curb her immaturity, she's just going to think "The adults here are idiots." And rightfully so, criminal charges for this are ridiculous even given her troubles.
Treat teenagers like adults they act like adults. Don't and they will always act like little children.
Given some adult idiots and their cell phone behaviors (like, say, talking about sex lives on a crowded bus), I wouldn't say this is acting like a child, I'd say this is acting like an adult with a cell phone.
Except that their teacher did see her texting, and did ask her to stop, and did presumably summon the safety officer.
Oh, I'm not saying the girl can't be disciplined. Go ahead and throw her out of class or even the school for a few days. If she refuses to leave the room, THEN call the cops to drag her out of the room. But by frisking her first, they put the cart before the horse and have left themselves open to a lawsuit.
Probably find that if she had just fessed up and handed over the phone, than nothing untoward would have happened. My guess there is more to the story and this nice innocent youth could have been a repeat offender, and this was the tip of the iceburg. You never know.
To me it sounds like she made it hard for the staff, so they made it hard for her.
My son already know if he fesses up the punishment is likely to be less than if I catch him in a lie.
Version 1: Me: Did you break this window when playing ball today?
Son: Yup, Billiy and I were, playnig and I kicked it ant the ball just went woosh in the window.
Me, and you know I've asked you not to kick the ball around that part of the house,
Son: yup.
Me: Ok, help me clean up the mess, you go get the newspaper from the recycler while I sweep up.
Son: But I was going down the shops with.
Me: No, now you are helping clean up.
Version 2: .... etc
Me: Me: Did you break this window when playing ball today?
Son: nope,
Me: Its your ball I've found, and the window wasn't broken earler, are you sure you didn't see it happen?
Son: Nope.
Me: You and Billy were here before, Are you sure you know nothing about it?
Son: Nope.
Me: I'm sorry, I dont believe you, especially as Billy already told me that you were playing ball here when the window broke, so now you are grounded for a week, so no Soccer tomorrow, and no computertime
Treat teenagers like adults they act like adults. Don't and they will always act like little children.
If you are going to treat teenagers like adults, then you should give teenagers full adult rights. That includes the right to turn down state coerced attendance in a public school system. As an adult, I'm not obligated by the state to spend 6 hours a day doing something which I consider to be a waste of my time, so if we treat her as an adult, maybe we should afford her the same right to choose how she spends her time.
When schools are run like jails, what schools produce are criminals.
Have you looked into making sure that homeschooling stays legal in your area? You should.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Parents are either unwilling or unable to parent. Teachers aren't allowed to use that paddle any more, the one with the holes drilled in it to reduce the air cushion that made such a loud smack sound. How the hell else are you supposed to get their attention. Basically, the only thing left when students refuse to follow instructions is to call a cop and charge them with something.
arthurpaliden writes:
"The parents would have the teacher charged with force able confinement and the school board would be sued."
OK, I'll bite. Cite one example where a school or teacher was sued for "force able confinement" when giving detention or suspension.
My
Limekiller
I agree: the police should not have been involved. But that means all those lawsuits against school personnel "assaulting" pupils are going to have to disappear.
What are those lawsuits against school personnel "assaulting" pupils?
Anybody can sue anybody for anything, but the only cases that come to court are the ones that involve a teacher injuring a student, which makes it a real assault (no quotes around it).
Can you cite a case?
Like the back of a Volkswagen?
Wrong.
"Disorderly conduct" is what the cops use when they want to arrest you but can't name an actual crime. Did you honestly not know this already?
Case in point: the cops never saw her use the phone, because they had to frisk her to prove that she had one.
I hate to tell you this, son, but the school and the cops went nuclear way too soon, and have asked for a lawsuit.
That's a heck of a generalization. If I remember my middle/high school days at all correctly, there's usually not much to do in class. And texting is not disruptive to others... so if you're that bored, why not do something instead of staring at the clock?
I really feel like if teachers would actually focus on education and stop worrying about discipline for discipline's sake, students might actually have a chance at being engaged in lessons.
How much of everybody's time was wasted because the teacher felt obligated to deal with texting instead of math?
That time allows for events such as asking her to leave the room, asking her to hand over the phone, and any response from her to have occurred. Those separate events could have merited both the search and the charge. This story just gives me a vibe that we're not getting the whole story.
The teenager was busted last Wednesday at Wauwatosa East High School after she ignored a teacher's demand that she cease texting. The girl, whose name we have redacted from the below Wauwatosa Police Department report, initially denied having a phone when confronted by a school security officer.
The real question is, was it set to vibrate? Inquisitive minds want to know.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Actually it's adults acting like children, probably because they never got smack down as a child.
Reminds me of a time when I was sitting with an old friend in a coffee house. The friend was a former DEA undercover, who looked about 10 years younger than he was, so they would send him into schools to bust drug dealers. We're having our coffee while the group of teenagers behind us is talking about the pot they scored next door in the alley. After listening to them for about 20 minutes or so, my friend casually leaned over and said, "You know, I don't care if you want to screw with your own mind, but you do realize that everyone here could hear every word you said?" When they replied, "So what?" He pulled out his badge, flashed it, and said, "Cause you never know when they guy next to you works for the DEA. You get one pass, next time be a little brighter."
I had never before seen people piss their pants in public before, but MAN did they move getting the heck out of there.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
Back in the day before cellphones I unfortunately sat in front of a girl who talked. So one day I was finally annoyed enough with her talking over the teacher, so I turned around and said rather loudly, "WOULD YOU SHUT UP, WOMAN!?" She was so shocked that the quiet guy in class said something that she looked at me blankly and actually did shut up. I might have passed that class because of that event. I'd have done the same to a girl who was clicking away at her phone. But realistically if I was the teacher, the easiest and most effective thing to do would be to fail her, class participation was probably a part of her grade and if she didn't ace the rest of it, it would've been well within the teachers authority to fail her. But just as easy as kicking her out of class, sending her to the principals office, and having administration call her parents would've been equally effective at dealing with her, teaching her that this was inappropriate behavior, while still allowing her to eventually get her education, and perhaps not send her down the road of a delinquent. What would be interesting is to follow up on her in 5 to 10 years and see if she's a contributing member of society, or if she's on welfare with octuplets.
Not only did she lie about her actions, she repeatedly gave false numbers to the school for contacting her parents, and wasted several hours of the school employees time. She ought to be billed by the school district for the amount of time wasted by her.
In other words, it should be an issue for the school to deal with, and not the police? I fail to see the criminal issue here.
What a waste of time and resources.
Why would you need a warrant? She was arrested on disorderly conduct
Because "disorderly conduct" is what the cops claim when can't site you for an actual crime - theft, DUI, etc - just ask the nearest black man.
The cops didn't see her using the phone because they had to search her to find one. School should have just suspended her for a few days, and THEN called the cops if she refused to comply. But by searching her without a warrant or probable cause, they've open themselves (and the school) up to a lawsuit.
They are making her an example of what is going to happen from now on. It is really extreme to be doing what they are doing to her...hysterical is probably the best word to use here, but on the other hand this might cause the kids to suddenly behave...probably not because you're dealing with kids.
Once a person is under arrest they may be frisked. It's a fairly common, necessary, and lawful practice.
Incidentally, the subject of your post is exactly the reason the police were called. The teachers can't physically hold a student or force said student out of a classroom without fear of lawsuit so the police were involved. Perhaps if people like yourself didn't run around screaming "Laaaawwwsuuuuit" constantly the situation wouldn't have escalated to that point in the first place.
A teacher will get ito all kinds of shit if (s)he puts his/her hand into a kid's pants - for any reason. Far better to get law enforcement to do this.
Hopefully this will send a message to the stroppy teen.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Stop texting right now or I'm going to shove that phone right up your a.... oh nevermind.
Refusing to obey and causing a stir can lead to a public disturbance, which can be construed as disorderly conduct. How far that should go, however, is a pretty good sized grey area.
The overall vibe I get from your comment is that you demand compliance. Yeah, Ok, for the good of society, I want kids to follow a basic set of rules. But I also want them to tell authority to fuck off, when necessary. This kid's a little rough around the edges, but I like her spunk and I wish more kids had the guts to stand up to authority.
Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
So next time a cop pulls me over because I'm driving 5mph over the speed limit, the cop asks me if I know why he pulled me over, and I answer "why, no sir, I don't,", I should be arrested for lying to the officer?
/s.
/.?!?!?
1) She lied to an officer. If you arrested everyone who ever did that, you would have no room for the murderers, rapists, child-molesters and kids who send text messages in class
2) Do you really think that sending text messages in class was a legitimate reason to call the cops in the first place?
Seriously, do you people actually believe the things you post on
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
I realize that the core issue is refusal to stop being disruptive, but why not prevent this particular type of disruptive behavior?
If teachers could have rooms which were basically Faraday cages, wouldn't that make texting impossible?
This is not the kind of love and support this young woman needs. You can't solve the problems that have been brought by years of abuse and neglect arresting someone and calling it "accountability". In point of fact, this young person was being held against her will, and there is no law saying she has to do everything her teacher says.
"Treat teenagers like adults they act like adults."
I never see people calling the cops on my friends when they are texting during their compulsory education process. That's because we don't write laws to compel adults to sit on their ass 8 hours a day (yet), and last time I checked, texting was not illegal. You have a strange idea of what constitutes freedom and accountability, sir. There's more to life than keeping your head down and doing what you are told. You advocate teaching her the opposite of accountability.
Then you are not a Teacher.
I've given up on Slashdot's comment scores.
1. What makes you think it would do much? If a student is _that_ disruptive, to the point of flat out refusing to cooperate or obey in any form or shape, not to mention the attitude to the cops bit, I'd say the parents aren't too involved in her education, one way or another.
Best case scenario: it's some single mom who threw in the towel long ago. You might make the mom unhappy a bit, she'll sob on some friends' shoulder, but she's not going to even know where to start to discipline her daughter.
Second worst: the parents don't really give a flying fuck in the first place. They just hope that their daughter grows up without much attention, like the tree in the back yard. Or that if someone has to do things right, it's the teacher, society, whoever other than them.
Absolute worst: the parents actually are proud of that antisocial behaviour and encourage it. Behind many a sociopathic school bully is a parent who's proud that his son/daughter looks out for number one and puts those losers in their place. Behind many, "bah, learning is for loser nerds. Who needs it?" attitudes is some parent who slipped through school on the exact same attitude, and still rationalizes it as the right thing.
2. If she refuses to leave class or stop, what are you going to do? Let her sit there and keep making a point of being a git until the parents get there? Even if the parent immediately drops everything and comes over, you're realistically looking at another hour fucked up before they actually get there.
I know people, heck, work with people where the dad commutes half way across the country, the mom commutes two cities away, and either of them can't get home in less than two hours even if they wanted to.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I'm speaking from a purely UK-based point of view here, but here in England, it's up to the school to enforce these rules. Some schools have an acceptable use policy for mobiles, while others allow them as long as teachers don't see them (they remain in the student's pocket and such). Our taxes aren't wasted on calling out the (already stretched, badly trained and poorly funded) police to sort out such petty incidents.
And at least our classrooms have no state-supported creationist wackaloons, or a sports culture that leads to hysteria, exclusion and murder.
The bottom line is that us Brits can prioritise when it comes to education. Some schools allow phones, and we're none the worse for wear.
Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
Lying is not a crime.
Yes it is. It's called fraud. And as part of their education children are taught that lying has consequences. When they reach adulthood the consequences may be more severe.
---
The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".
Actually it's adults acting like children, probably because they never got smack down as a child.
You're right, I guess to be most accurate I would say "She was acting like an adult who was acting like a kid" ;-)
"I have a daughter that has a cell phone addiction. "
no, you have a daughter with a lack of will power. At worse, it's a habit. It is not an addition. Calling it that pushed YOUR responsibility onto others.
Why does she even have a cell phone? turn the damn thing off. Kids survived the whole of human history all the way tp the 21sty century without having one.
I'd rather parents took the damn things away and had some modicum of responsibility instead of blaming and 'addiction' and trying to make the school the childs only place for learning [proper behavior.
Yes, I am a parent. Yes one of my children borrows the cell phone. Guess what? they don't use it during class.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
They are making her go to court on 420? Those sick bastards
I am not necessarily in favor of calling out the cops, but an example sometimes has to be made. If this kid is more interested in texting than in the math, then he/she should be chucked out of the school and be home schooled.
I do not understand the reference to creationist nonsense. Or do you folks imagine that every county in the US is like Dover, PA (the people there had the good sense to finally get rid of the neanderthals in any case) ?
She lied to the police. I read the report. By my count she lied to the police about 5 different things, and several times each.
The link contains the entire police report (redacted). It contains everything that the school authorities and police officers did. The fact that she was lying about the phone was corroborated by the teacher and two of the girl's friends before she was searched by a female officer. The police also tried to contact the girl's father (she gave police several false phone numbers, presumably because the cell phone was actually her father's phone). The police finally succeeded in contacting the girl's mother. The mother was alerted before the girl was searched that she would be searched. The mother eventually came to the school to talk with the teacher and the authorities.
Unlike the headline, what actually happened was completely reasonable and it was clearly the girl that was out of line.
At any time the girl could have avoided problems by simply turning over the phone.
The arrest report is actually a pretty interesting read. Unfortunately, once you've read the report it is pretty hard to feel that the young lady was abused by the system.
Yes it is. It's called fraud. And as part of their education children are taught that lying has consequences. When they reach adulthood the consequences may be more severe.
What the hell are you talking about? Fraud is deception motivated by the intent to damage another party or for personal gain. Lying is an intentional declaration of an untruth, but may have many many different underlying motivations (or none at all).
Here's an example to distinguish a lie from a fraud:
Yes it is. It's called fraud.
Assuming that you know you're full of shit (and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), your statement above is a lie. However, it does not constitute fraud.
Once a person is under arrest they may be frisked. It's a fairly common, necessary, and lawful practice.
Did you honestly think I didn't know this already? But the cops have to have a valid reason to arrest you - something that obviously never occurred to you.
Yes, I know they arrested her for "disorderly conduct", but that's the catch all excuse they use when they don't have an actual crime on their hands, like theft or assault. Just ask the nearest black man about it.
Consequences that are way out of proportion like the relevant case are tyranny.
On the other hand, as I'm fairly confident that this will go nowhere, it makes for a good story when she's older.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
It's called "probable cause," dumbass. To perform a search, you need either a warrant or probable cause.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
There is a difference between playful misconduct and willful disobedience. Historically the former was handled with detention and the latter with corporal punishment. Since corporal punishment has all but been made illegal what tool do you use?
So the only choices to deal with the willful disobedience of a minor are physical beating or arrest by the police? Who the hell modded that insightful?
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
There. Fixed that for ya.
In my school days she would have suffered a suspension and that suspension would be noted in such a way that most colleges would never accept her. Two or three such incidents and she could forget about any college touching her with a stick. Such people were pushed into menial jobs for life. But the schools would not have called the cops.
It sounds to me like this kid was lying and disruptive. There is already quite a bit of discussion about the correct response when dealing with this sort of situation. What interested me with this story is the disruptive nature of texting.
Hypothetically a student could be in class texting and not be disruptive or bothersome to others (if there are no sounds from the phone and so on). Shouldn't the kid have the right to do that if they choose. I realize it means they will not be paying attention in class but that is their loss not anybody else's. A post above mention how some classes are required even when they are really a waste of time to some students shouldn't we allow these students to use their discretion? If this story was about anybody besides a public school student or a prisoner it would be ludicrous.
If kids are never allowed to learn how to use their freedoms aren't we just creating a society that will never know those freedoms exist?
The numbers still say that biology teachers have a harder time in the U.S. teaching evolution because of regulations on textbooks requiring them to have nonsense from the Discovery Institute, et al, as an alternate 'theory'.
But anyway, back to the point: when we get a case like this (texting, lying to the police, truanting, smoking etc.) we generally realise they're a lost cause, throw them in the lowest sets and wait for natural selection to take its course. They normally end up working at the deep frier in McDonald's.
Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
Let me be the first to say whoosh.
So tell her to go to detention.
"No."
"Ok, then you're suspended, leave school."
"No."
If someone disregards the authority of a teacher, what makes you think they'll suddenly start respecting it when the punishment is upped?
I dunno, #1 sounds like what a rational society would do. #2 sounds like false arrest - definitely worth bringing a lawsuit about. Kid can't follow school rules? Kick them out and arrest their parents for abandonment if they keep coming back.
Just out of curiosity, and an honest question, what law did that break? If you get caught lying about something the police can use that in court to incriminate you, but I'm not sure that lying in itself is a crime.
I googled it and found conflicting answers, but I haven't heard of anyone actually being charged with "lying to the police" unless it was part of something that made them an accessory to an actual crime.
The usual recommendation is to not talk to the police at all though, "right to remain silent" and all that.
Ok, seeing how I am still in high school and I see things like this everyday, I will show you how it probably went.
1. Girl gets caught texting
2. teacher says put the phone away, that's the first and last warning
3. girl gets caught texting again
4. teacher asks for phone to confiscate
5. girl refuses
6. (while this is going on, class is stopped and no children are learning)
7. 5 mins of this and the teacher says fine, go to the disciplinary office
8. student refuses
9. disciplinary teacher comes to classroom
10. student flat-out denies ever using the phone
11. in order to avoid risking a ton of head-aches with over reactive parents who think their child is never wrong, the teacher calls in the police to confiscate the phone
12. Now all in all this is about 10-15 minutes wasted. Believe me this happens every single day in my school, but it doesn't get to the extreme of police. I say first offense phone gone for the day. Second offense, for the year. Third offense suspension. 4th Expulsion
Apparently not.
HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
NO CARRIER
The numbers still say that biology teachers have a harder time in the U.S. teaching evolution because of regulations on textbooks requiring them to have nonsense from the Discovery Institute, et al, as an alternate 'theory'.
Curiouser and curiouser. Please supply those numbers since the famous court case did establish that any such regulations on textbooks would violate the establishment clause. While it is conceivable that certain biology teachers in red states experience some social ostracism for teaching evolution in science class, there are no regulations of the sort you speak of. At least AFAIK.
Well, yes, if it was one-on-one tutoring, but it isn't. If you have to stop the entire class every time some kid decides that rules don't apply to them then you won't get much teaching done.
Oh, wait, that's exactly what's happening....
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdom.html
No sig today...
Some more details that weren't mentioned in the summary. Since I saw the news story several times from different sources, I didn't bother reading the above article.
The student in question didn't just refuse to behave once, but multiple times that day. Each time, the on site police officer was called in to deal with the student after the student refused to follow the legitimate directions of the teacher to put away the cell phone. The police officer tried to demand that the student surrender their cell phone. The student lied and claimed they didn't have one, at which point the officer left.
It sounded like the school gave every opportunity for the student to resolve the situation by following directions.
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend unto the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
Why would you need a warrant? She was arrested on disorderly conduct
Because "disorderly conduct" is what the cops claim when can't site you for an actual crime - theft, DUI, etc - just ask the nearest black man.
The cops didn't see her using the phone because they had to search her to find one. School should have just suspended her for a few days, and THEN called the cops if she refused to comply. But by searching her without a warrant or probable cause, they've open themselves (and the school) up to a lawsuit.
If you read the police report, the cop is a School Resource Officer. A SRO is always in the school and is supposed to be specially trained to handle incidents in school.
If you had read the report, you would have also noticed that the SRO tracked down several people to find out if she had a phone or not. You would also know that the girl had discipline problems in the past. The girl also refused to give up the phone and lied to the officer multiple times. If it's a public school that has rules in place that allow them to take away cell phones, it was completely justified.
Oh, they had a valid reason. It's called "disorderly conduct."
I'm a little curious as to where race comes into this discussion. Maybe you can enlighten me.
Regardless, once you're arrested, you're arrested and although you may think it's an excuse, it's legal and in this case, justified.
I will go ahead and state the obvious:
What the kid did was annoying, disorderly and immature; no argument about that.
What the school and police did was irresponsible and a complete waste of public resources.
This was not a police matter. Very few things in a school are police matters. In this case, the teacher failed to properly supervise and discipline a student under their direct responsibility. Suspend/detend the kid, sure, but cops ? Did someone get beat/stabbed/shot/raped ? No ? Then no cops.
Idiot teachers like this are the leading reason why today's kids are such utter failures. They take after the moronic role models they're given.
"School resource officer" is what a school cop is called, in our district it's a local sheriff's deputy. While I would like a school to be able to work without one, the reality is in today's environment involving them is the best way for a teacher to protect them selves and avoid a lawsuit.
Teachers in our district have been told if they take a phone during class and it gets lost they have to pay for it. Guess who takes the phone? The school cop. that way, it's on the county.
Of course, most teachers prefer not to have to do that; and will sometimes take different approaches. For example, if its an athlete causing trouble a word to teh coach results in the entire team being punished; that's usually enough to stop an future problems.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
How do you think the situation should have been handled, then? Let the girl do whatever she wants? At what point do you not accept her bad behavior?
From the description of the search and retrieval of the phone it sounds as though it was already in said uncomfortable place, or nearly so.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
the teacher failed to properly supervise and discipline a student under their direct responsibility
I thought the problem was that they were supervising and disciplining the child, just not the way you thought best. Unless you give the "proper" way to do it when someone flouts the rules and refuses to leave when asked, I have to presume you don't know what you are talking about.
Learn to love Alaska
public school system which treats students like inmates and citizens like subjects
I don't know about you, but I went to both a public schools and private schools (In Australia). The public schools ther students had the "upper hand" so to speak. Teachers had next to no rights over the kids, couldn't touch, couldn't this, couldn't that. The result was an overall poor education - though every liberty in the world. I then moved to a private (Catholic) school. It was a rude awakening of a much smaller set of rights for each student. There were after school detentions (staying back for just over an hour writing lines). There was homework - and you actually had to really get it done. Oh, and my favorite, with some teachers who didn't believe in detention, you got the cane - hand out, generally three to five. That fucker stung for a good ten minutes too. And you know what? My kids are going to private schools. Why? I learned discipline. I learned respect for others. I learned that there were consequences to my actions and to my lack of actions at other times. That is a GOOD life lesson to have.
So she had a cellphone... What exactly is the big deal?
Lets look at that.
1) A student in a school is there to learn. Sure, it might seem okay to just leave her alone and do nothing. But when her grades start to plummet, who parents do you think will come baying for blood demanding to know why their precious Snowflake can't read at a level three years below her?
2) She is sitting in a class of ten to thirty other students (No idea of class numbers there) and not paying attention. When teacher asks her a question she can't answer, the teacher then has to explain things over again taking up the other students learning time because Little-MIss-Chatty wants to SMS.
It's interesting they chose to charge her with disorderly conduct, of all things. She was not drunk. She was not loitering
People who are drunk and disorderly are charged with being drunk and disorderly. People who are loitering after being asked to move on are charged with loitering. People who are being disorderly are charged with being disorderly. What's not to get? Let me spell it out more clearly.
Disorder is the opposite of order. At a school, the order for teachers is to teach. Students generally attend school to learn, ergo the general order for students is to learn, listen and obey teachers/instructors. When a student disobeys a teacher they are being disorderly. When the refusal is escalated to the level where the student outright refuses under strict instruction to obey, there is a number of options available. The school chose to call the police. If this was the school I went to, my phone would have been confiscated the first time I dared to bring it out and was caught. If I refused, an afternoon detention would have quickly been written up along with a phone call to my parents.
If banning the girl from school for a week and a minor misdemeanor is what it takes to learn a life lesson here that it's not always alright to do anything you want and that in situations, you might have to do what others want you to do even if you don't like it... Then that's a very cheap price for that lesson.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
The student was not arrested for texting. The student was arrested for refusing to turn over the phone and lying to the instructor and the police officer about it.
Had this student turned over the phone to the instructor, there likely would have been a small punishment, perhaps confiscation of the phone and detention. Now this kid gets a juvenile record (purged at 18), a court appearance, and will perhaps learn a lesson...
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
For what? She goes home and says "they suspended me for nothing because the teacher doesn't like me." Well, the parents go to the school and ask what happened. The teacher says that she saw the child texting. The parents say "but you could have taken away the phone" and the teacher says "I didn't find any."
So, you have a child suspended for texting with no phone, and you expect the parents of this little drama queen to believe the evil teacher over their little angel? Yeah, that will work well. If the teacher calls the cops, they at least get to keep their jobs, even if the little liar manages to tell one lie too many and piss off one too many people and ends up in jail.
Learn to love Alaska
Yes it is, if you are talking to a police officer involved with an investigation. It can be construed as "impeding investigation" or "impeding police business". They were investigating her, so, her lies were directly impeding their ability to get to the bottom of the story.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
amen!
with one small correction. calling the safety officer on a kid is actually *easier* than sending them to the principal... what if they just choose not to go?
They will never stop until somebody makes the
I suggest you read the arrest report in its entirety. Basically the officer waited till after class to ask her if she had a phone. After she said no, the officer confirmed with the teacher and two other students who had seen her with the phone. After being confronted with this, she STILL denied it. So the officer arrested her for disorderly conduct for her disrupting class and lying to him.
She then proceeded to lie to the officer regarding the phone number that could be used to contact her parents. After eventually getting in contact (presumably by requesting the information from the school records), her mother was contacted and informed that her daughter would be searched. At that point, the female officer (who had been sent) proceeded to perform the search. Where the phone which belonged to her father was found.
This is not the case of an officer immediately arresting her because she was texting. It was an officer who arrested her after he confirmed that several people had seen her texting despite being asked not to. He even stated that her arrest was partially due to her continued lying.
It's pretty clear there was no justification for the search. The disorderly conduct charge was invented specifically to "justify" the search as a search incident to arrest.
Wisconsin law provides "Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor."
Texting in class doesn't fall under any of the listed categories, so already you have to use the catch-all "otherwise disorderly". But what really makes it clear is that no arrest was made after the conduct was described and investigated. Instead, the arrest was made after she refused to turn over her phone, showing it was merely a pretext for which to justify a warrantless search.
In my school days, well cellphones were the size of a brick and too expensive for high school students to have. However, pagers were common. They were also commonly used for drug dealing and other criminal activities. The school rules clearly stated that if you were found to have a pager at school, it would be assumed that you had it for this purpose, the police would be notified and you would be held in custody until they arrived to deal with the situation.
Also, in my day there were a lot of kids in school that should have had this kind of thing done to them. If you read the entire report, it sounds like this kid was a bully. She tried to make other kids hide her phone for her. She also demonstrated that she felt no accountability for her own actions. Maybe now she'll think twice about being a troublemaker in school, and serve as an example to others.
I hear a lot of you whining and complaining because of how she was treated while at a place she was forced to be. Well, I feel sorry for the kid in her class who was trying to understand square roots -- but couldn't because every time the teacher tried to explain it, this girl's phone would beep.
Feel sorry for the kids that actually appreciate the free education that my tax dollars are paying for, rather than this sorry excuse for a person.
I've been following the slashdot posts for a couple of weeks now and I must say I'm shocked that there is so much agreement here. I thought slashdotters were a more radical group. But judging from the comments to this post they seem to be all in favor of obedience. In my view school should be about learning, not obedience. You can force a child to obey but you can't force them to learn. In fact obedience is a very dangerous thing. Americans are so obedient we just sit and watch as our authorities wreck the economy.
No mod points now, though.
I read the article, and the redacted transcript, and there's no sign of them issuing her with a detention, or a suspension. Besides which, when a child is suspended you call their parents and request for them to pick them up, not kick them off the grounds (duty of care).
In the end it's the parents you escalate to in a situation like this, not police. There's a whole process beyond that, including a school pscyh councilor, more suspension and then expulsion before you anything like this should happen.
IANAL, but lying to a police officer is usually a misdemeanor. Do you lie to the police? You can use your fifth amendment right instead, which is entirely legal and is one of the many great things about the American Constitution.
1. Arrest is not equal to imprisonment. Misdemeanors do not carry the same punishments as felonies.
2. Disrupting class prevents others from learning, which is what they are there for and is critical to the advancement of society. If the teacher and administration do not have the authority or ability to correct this bad behavior, then who will?
Do you feel that education is not important?
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
I agree.
In this day and age, kids seem to be getting overdoses of "it's a free country and I want my rights", giving them absurd senses of entitlement over anything and everything.
Seriously, society has gone mad. The concept of individual rights has been twisted into some disfigured unrecognizable mass of idiocy. We can't spank our kids any more, which is why the current generation is such a rabble of unruly, apathetic, self-centered brats. On the other hand, civil liberties are so far gone that we can't protest outside of designated protest zones.
Kids need spankings. It's worked for thousands of years of human behavioral evolution. Governments need checks. Demonstrated over thousands of years of human social evolution.
People, its time to pull our heads out of our asses.
I hate printers.
Also...
STAY OFF MY LAWN!!!
this was TOSA EAST?!
as somebody who attended tosa west (the GOOD wauwatosa public high school) let me just say that i'm not the slightest bit surprised. our ac dec team beat the pants off 'em every year, and probably still does.
wow, you'd think i wouldn't still be this emotionally invested in an old high school rivalry...
They will never stop until somebody makes the
The student needed reprimanded, that is clear. The sad reality is the schools must rely on our police force to deal with the students, or risk a lawsuit. What can you do with a student that will not do what the school employees ask, and blatantly lies to them? In the meantime the students wanting to learn probably missed a day of lecture.
She sounds like a little shit,
Yes, she does. I do wonder though, how much of that is because she is in a school where the supposed adults can't even drum up enough respect from a bunch of 14 year olds to handle a bit of willfulness without resorting to calling the cops. That doesn't excuse her behavior, but it might well explain it.
When I was in school, such behavior meant a trip to the principal's office. Any attempt to refuse to go would result in being dragged there if necessary (and consequently, a much less pleasant conversation once there).
I read it too, I know it's not in there, the point is that it's an ineffective solution because there's no ability to enforce it. Since you did read it you'll know that they tried to call her parents, and she did everything in her power to make it impossible for them to make contact, of course she could have just said nothing and made it impossible.
So, given that my point what "none of that works if the child doesn't cooperate" do you have any suggestions that don't require exactly that?
Detenion: Refuse
Suspension: Refuse
Parents: Withhold the contact
councilor: Refuse
I understand that these are routes that went untried, but I think it's misguided to assume they would have had a different result given the attitude of the child in question.
Studies say that it doesn't help, but here's something I've never seen studied:
When I was a kid I was a fairly well behaved boy, one of the other kids I grew up with was not. He was spanked regularly because he frequently acted out and was violent and destructive.
Now, true, he was not helped, he's still a moron, BUT, my desire to avoid a similar fate lead me to be very well behaved. There are some kids that can't be helped, but that doesn't mean that making an example of them can't yield fringe benefits.
"the type to wear very tight pants"
You mean mumble pants?
Why mumble pants?
Cause you can see the lips move, but you cant hear what they're saying.......
You sound very serious.
Why does a school have an on site police officer?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Lying to the police is a crime. Many jurisdictions call it interfering with an investigation. Not only that but it SHOULD be a crime to lie in almost every circumstance I can think of, with a few extreme cases where I think it might be acceptable (keep in mind you still have the right to refuse to answer a question). Lying is destructive to almost every situation in which it's used. This is why almost every religion and moral code established in society have it considered taboo and why there are so many moral stories in which examples are shown of it's destructiveness.
Student with attitude gets authorities upset with her and ends up charged with disorderly conduct. Doesn't this happen at least 10 times a day somewhere?
Exactly. If anyone should be charged with disorderly conduct, based on disturbances of silent texting; as strange as it sounds, it should be the teacher.
A more appropriate response would be for the teacher to have announced rules against texting in advance, and upon spotting it, privately made notations without causing a disruption. Handing the student a note warning them of a grading penalty, and that they should stay after class, or at teacher office hours, if they wished to further discuss
No no, you misunderstood. He said nazies.
It would be awesome to have shoes made out of hollowed Nazis though.
What you just said isn't derivative of Schwartz' speech, and in fact is counter to his intent. Schwartz made the point that people must be able to BREAK the rules when it is wise to do so. He also used that example of the kid accidentally being given an alcoholic drink which then, because of people following the rules without wisdom, resulted in the boy being separated from his family for weeks! That is nearly a direct parallel to what happened here: school staff and enforcers blindly applying and enforcing rules without wisdom, leading to this only slightly rebellious kid being whisked off to a criminal court.
Schwartz is right: people are so now dependent upon "rules" that they lack wisdom and the moral will to exercise judgement.
This makes me think of a friend in high school. His phone rang during our senior English class.
He stood up, answered it, said "I have to take this" and walked out. Our teacher actually cried.
After class, she called him a whore.
Perhaps the school has had a problem with students using cell phones and texting for other purposes. I've heard of places where they've banned the devices because too many students were using them during school time to set up drug sales or prostitution. If this is one of those schools, that would explain why the charges of having the device and refusing to give it up were considered so serious.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
I don't think the parent was trying to say that she did not warrant punishment, just that it shouldn't be a "criminal" case. As annoying and obnoxious as she may have been, it does not warrant having a criminal record! This type of situation should have been dealt with at the school level (suspension, etc) but not in a criminal case.
There are kids that get physically assaulted by other students in high school and all that happens is maybe a suspension the first 3 or 4 times. For these kinds of assaults to get mere administrative punishment and a texter to get a criminal record is absolutely STUPID. It pisses me off when people complain about problems not being dealt with while big important ones get completely ignored.
From Wikipedia: "In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual."
Does the rule of inclusion elude you? Fraud is performed through lying, but lying does not necessarily imply fraud. Just as a DUI requires you to be driving, yet driving is not illegal.
That's not the situation..
She continuously used her phone in multiple classes and every time the school officer was called "she didn't have it".
For your situation to make sense you would of had to have been pulled over for speeding multiple times that day by the same officer.
Treat teenagers like adults they act like adults. Don't and they will always act like little children.
For students who are generally school-oriented, what you're saying is true. They appreciate being shown a little respect and consideration. For the rest of the school, being shown a little respect is a sign that the teacher is afraid of you and gives you a license to walk all over the teacher. Perhaps those kids will act the same way when they're adults so you're actually correct :)
Depending on the school, the ratio of "good kids" to "troublemakers" can be very high or very low. In my school, I think like 80% of the discipline referrals come from about 7-8% of the school population. So that's a pretty good ratio we have. But I've been in worse schools.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
The teacher must do so immediately. Maybe he/she did wait until a student activity was begun? Then quietly asked for the phone? "No." At which point the teacher must insist right then. Letting "no" go means losing the entire classroom management later. It has nothing to do with pride or "hurt feelings" it is a necessity!
You can rationalize that it's the "teachers fault" all you want, but you would be wrong. This girl is facing consequences for behavior she knew was wrong. The consequences are well documented in any public school. She CHOSE to behave this way and now must face the consequences.
There's also the small matter of the school board policy governing what teachers can do and not do. Not to mention the law.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
She wasn't simply arrested for texting in class.
She was brought to the school's office because she refused to stop texting despite a teacher's repeated orders for her to do so during class.
Once in the office, she was questioned and lied multiple times.
The school's officer questioned several witnesses whose stories all agreed with the teacher's, meaning the student was almost certainly lying. (Her own friends ratted her out)
After confronting her with this, she continued to maintain her lies.
It was at this point, having refused to cooperate with the teacher to end her disruptive behavior, having refused to cooperate with the school's officer, having lied to multiple school officials, and refusing to cooperate with anyone there that she was finally informed that she would be arrested for disorderly conduct.
The school's officer then requested her parents' contact numbers so they could be informed.
The student gave multiple (different) incorrect numbers for her father.
She then provided a correct number for her mother, who was called to the school.
She was then searched by a female officer, who located the phone on her.
The school officer did what he could, giving her every opportunity to cooperate.
It was her decision to refuse time and time again and to provide false information time and time again, and now she's living with the consequences.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Uh what? Who exactly did she defraud of a monetary sum by saying she didn't have a phone?
Schools and police in the US have a history of violating student's privacy by confiscating communications devices and then perusing the contents. Lying while not under oath is the compliment to freedom of speech, freedom to think and all that other shit that your army raped Iraqi girls for. At least appreciate it you fuckcunt.
Before you call my response disproportionate to your stupidity, let's consider that the poor girl is appearing before court for texting during class.
Research on behavior modification shows that punishment (like, say, spanking) results in escape and avoidance behaviors and usually results in people reverting to the unwanted behavior once the source/threat of punishment is taken away. Positive reinforcement for wanted behaviors (and removing the reinforcement in response to unwanted behaviors) is more effective, longer lasting, and generally results in a more psychologically healthy individual.
And, just for some anecdotal evidence, I worked for 3 years in a group home for abused and emotionally disturbed children. The ones who were physically beaten seemed to have learned from their parents not how to behave properly, but that anger and violence are the way to respond to someone who does something you don't like.
Oops, I forgot something I meant to add to my last post.
I agree that we have a serious parenting problem in our society. In a nutshell, though, I don't think our problem isn't that we're not spanking--it's that most parents haven't learned and/or implemented the healthier replacement for spanking.
So children can be arrested for disorderly conduct when they commit the heinous crime of disturbing the tranquillity and serenity of the typical high-school classroom by the extremely uncommon and disruptive behaviour of sending a text message, obviously. It's not like America has enough people in prison already, we could always use some more.
So you believe that because such authority can sometimes be justified that an instance where reasonable options were untried is justified?
The TED speech given by Barry Schwartz that someone else referenced (oddly trying to make a contrary point) is very descriptive of what happened in this instance.
If you have to call the police just because you have a 'disruptive' student silently texting, you won't get much teaching done either, and should be looking for a new profession.
Except the "disorderly conduct" is what led to the search. Prior to that they had no basis for an arrest, only school action such as expulsion. The search would have been unlawful, and AFAIK Jack Bauer tactics don't work in the real world (threatening to do A, to force a person to do B, thereby justifying A).
I'm surprised no one has mention the handling of the actual cell phone. The search was done by an officer, not a school official, and the citation was issued from the police. Why was the cell phone then turned over to the school. It also seems this would be evidence, making it worse.
Yes, with the shocking invention of the baseball bat our society is now in utmost peril. There is seemingly no defence to a teenager armed with sporting goods except an armed response from the State.
For the same reason they probably have on site day care. Times have changed.
So its a criminal offense to text during class? I must be missing something...
Wrong: not all lies are fraud, and this one certainly wasn't. No one was harmed as a result of her lie (except the girl herself, and the taxpayers whose money has been wasted prosecuting her).
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Anecdotal evidence of course, but, it sure kept my young ass in line. I respected authority, I learned to avoid an ass whuppin' by doing what I was supposed to.
I've noticed too...there seems to be a steady decline of child discipline and respect for adults and authority since we stopped corporal punishment.
Hell, back when I grew up, it wasn't just your parents...ANY parent in the neighborhood could full well swat your ass if you acted up, and they'd call your parents (who were thankful for the help) and you'd likely get another one when you got home.
Try that today..and the parent/neighbor is a criminal....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Fraud, slander, libel, falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater, etc. The list goes on. And when it comes to lying to authority figures, there's always obstruction of justice and perjury.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
There is a distinct line of difference between abusive beatings...and corporal punishment. It certainly seemed to work well with my generation, and before.
I know I'd certainly not turned out as well without it when I was raised. THAT was about the only thing that would get my attention. I wasn't a bad kid...but, mischievous. I didn't get that many spankings, but, the ones I got I deserved, and it certainly modified my behavior in a permanent fashion.
I guess if I were a kid today....rather than strike my behavior up to just 'being a boy'....they'd just drug me...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
As an adult, I'm not obligated by the state to spend 6 hours a day doing something which I consider to be a waste of my time, so if we treat her as an adult, maybe we should afford her the same right to choose how she spends her time.
There's only one problem with this option, and that's our current screwed-up welfare system, which will likely be her path given the easy way out in life as an uneducated adult. For me personally, as a taxpayer who gets rather pissed by working very hard to ultimately pay for others who choose not to, thanks but no thanks.
Why is it sad? They're there to teach, not punish. Let someone else do that so they can get on with their jobs with those that want to learn. Everyone else can be garbage wo/men.
And your vibe would be wrong. I personally do not agree with the rule that this girl is accused of violating. However, there is both a right and a wrong way to vent your problems with it. Had she for instance just admitted she had the phone, and then fought either legally or through the school board to get it changed, that's great. That I can be 110% behind. However, after breaking the rule to then repeatedly lie about it, which she should have known was going to get found out, was not only stupid, but totally destroyed any credibility she may have. As for telling authority to "fuck off," I don't think that is the proper way to handle the issue. If it were, I would just tell the IRS to "fuck off" because I don't agree with personal income tax. Guts to stand up to authority isn't the issue. Had she had guts to stand up to authority, she would have simply admitted she had the phone and then worked to fix things. Hiding, lying, refusing to tell them how to contact parents, etc., isn't having the guts to start up to authority. It's a spoiled little shit figuring that because she's a kid she can do whatever she wants and never have to pay a price.
Freedom comes with responsibility, without responsibility it's not freedom it is anarchy.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
So you taught him the universal life lesson of "don't get caught."
"You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8
I see your studies, research and science, and raise you 10,000 years of what worked. Positive reinforcement works *as well*, it's not a binary choice where one excludes the other.
For me I got Nintendo if I ate my vegetables. I got a spanking when I set off a firecracker in my neighbor's dog house.
Sorry, spanking works. I don't give a shit what some band of idiots greedy for research grants say.
I was spanked, my parents were spanked, their parents were spanked. It works, and has worked, since forever.
I hate printers.
In my school days, there were no cell phones and I once got detention for wearing shoes but not socks. Seriously.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I'm probably showing my age by saying this ("I'm 37! What? I'm 37. I'm not old") but this appears to be a totally appropriate response by the school authorities. In fact, I would advocate smashing her phone into a thousand pieces with a sledgehammer, right in front of her. It's unfortunate that the cops have to get involved but remember that these days, teachers are hamstrung by lawsuits, PTAs and school boards. I would recommend that everyone read the *entire* report before jumping to conclusions. This student has had discipline problems in the past (see last sentence in first para), and she repeatedly lied to the teacher, the principal and the police officer about the phone. I also don't understand how anyone can claim that using a cellphone (this includes texting) during lessons is not disruptive. I'm sure parents would be aghast if their precious little snowflake pulled out a PSP or a Gameboy in class. And yet, using a cellphone in class is OK?
If he was that, he would have arrested them for probable cause. Instead he just let them know that the rest of the world didn't need to hear about their activities.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
There's a huge difference between fraud and lying.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
This is the part that confuses me...
Why are police involved at all? Is it common to have police enforcing school policy? What is this, China? Oh wait.. I bet China doesn't do that...
What part of this was criminal in any way?
This sounds like eminently wise advice - but as an adult, I don't think you can be arrested for lying to school employees and wasting their time.
Or, for the adult equivalent, to your co-workers / employers / wherever-you-spend-your-most-productive time.
You can be fired, or ostracized from whichever community applies - at the very worst, you might even be billed or sued in some context for significant loss / harm.
But unless your random authority figure has a the habit of making you sign notarized affidavits for everything you say, an arrest is not a consequence any adult would expect from the actions you describe.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
Spanking is certainly a hit with the traditional crowd.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Forgot my tags
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Forgot my [SARCASM] tags
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Sounds like a pretty skilled undercover operative, flashing his badge at any stoned teenager in sight...
They didn't try, so of course we can assume they would be completley ineffective. In fact, let's just give her the death penalty, after all, it's unlikely that anything lesser would have worked.
Whether or not they would be effective is irrelevant, they went untried when they should have been used first.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Alright, this girl was texting on her cell phone. How much of a disruption is this really? It's not. It doesn't distract any other students. The police officer, on the other hand, interrupted the class of the girl who was a friend of the cell phone girl to see if cell phone girl had a cell phone. He stopped a class and pulled a student out to see if another student had a cell phone. Now that's a disruption. The fact that the school kept her in the office for several classes and then arrested her and barred her from school was a larger disruption.
Here's what would happen if they let her stay in class:
Best case scenario: She learns something from class between text messages.
Worst case: She doesn't learn anything and she doesn't disrupt anyone. (It's not like cell phone keys make a whole lot of noise)
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Lying is one of four factors necessary to comprise fraud. Lying, in itself, is not a crime.
SG
Speaking as an American...
History is rarely as simple or concise as one-line rallying cries would have you believe.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
Or the self indulgent narration of things I'm to cool to do, like how I'm too cool to respond to your post.
Aww crap...
Why does the police record say 2008 ?
I think a public caning is in order.
Actions have consequences.
Yes and consequences of this action should be either detention or in school suspension.
If she had surrendered the phone upon the 1st request by the campus officer then detention would be appropriate. Since she continued to claim that she did not have a phone and further concealed it. She escalated it beyond detention or in-school suspension. I think that a fine is correct in this case. If you read the transcript of the officer's report, this student is known to the administration as a "problem".
What point? That you don't have to pay attention in class? Uh, sorry, no. The schools all have codes of behavior which outline how a student is to behave, as well as the disciplinary measures to be implemented in case of non-compliance. Sure, you can ignore those rules, but you can ignore laws too - either way, you're going to have to deal with the repercussions.
What most people either do not know or don't understand is that during school hours the school administrators, faculty, and staff stand loco parentis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis) for the student. They are in effect the student's parent with all the rights and powers thereof. So a search by a police officer at the request of a school administrator is perfectly legal. It's annoying but it is legal, anything found is admissible in court.
Students (esp. minors) DO NOT have the same rights as an adult. Everyone seems to forget this whenever there is a news story of this type. In my experience (7 years teaching high school), the administrators err far to the side of caution when it comes to defiant students for fear of lawsuits. Since most school districts are strapped for cash in times of prosperity they do everything possible to avoid expensive lawsuits.
Lying to a cop is not a crime in of itself.
Actually, yes, lying to a cop IS illegal in many places.
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
I think a major source of the decline in parenting is that they don't get involved in education and instead choose to let the media(television, magazines and music) be the parents.
I'm not saying those are all strictly bad influences, but they must be taken in moderation as all things in life. When kids watch +4 hours of TV per day on average, you know something is just wrong.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Some people will even pay to get a good spanking... ;-)
Yes, actually, depending on how disruptive your behavior is. Of course, the real problem here is that people who act out in this way generally tend to keep escalating the situation until they end up in handcuffs (and even after that, in some cases).
It's like the "don't taze me bro!" retard. He was acting like an idiot, being insulting as hell, and generally distrusting the event at which he was present. Even so, both the speaker and the security personnel restrained themselves and gave him a chance to speak his mind. When they finally asked him to leave, he refused. They still restrained themselves, and gave him every opportunity to do the right thing. Instead, his behavior got worse and worse until he ended up on the ground getting zapped and cuffed.
Some people simply have no common sense. They seem to think that they have unlimited freedom to encroach on the rights of others, and do not acknowledge authority of any kind. Well, so be it - whether or not they want to acknowledge authority figures is irrelevant, as long as we have authority figures who are authorized to use force.
She'll be less likely to use it as a phone when it smells like ass.
is not interesting enough to keep the students from distraction, and we decide to punish the student for the "incompetence" of the hierarchy.
Who wants to make the grammar joke?
This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original...
says /.
Damn, I thought that was too funny to pass up! Its lack of originality is at least half the humor.
man, I feel like mold.
I'm sorry, but when was the last time a hockey player got jail time for assault? Exactly, its part of the game. When you're part of an organization with its own discipline measures, you don't bring the law into it unless necessary.
The girl should be given detention or forced to write an essay on ADD medication or something.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
There are a couple of things going on here. Let me begin by saying here that extensive research on these topics has been conducted in both social and developmental psychology - neither of which involve counseling or psychotherapy in any shape or form.
First, the data shows time and time again that using physical aggression (spanking) in an attempt to punish physical aggression actually makes subsequent physical aggression more likely to occur.
Second, punishments like spanking are very difficult to use effectively because the act of spanking is rewarding to the spanker. Not only does it quickly stop the offending behavior, but it also allows the spanker to believe something has been accomplished. They are effectively doubly rewarded for spanking which will make them more likely to spank again in the future. Spanking recipient are more likely to make the same behavior covert rather than simply stopping using the behavior. Effectively a loop develops in which spanking elicits more aggressive behaviors, which in turn results in even more spankings that further reward the spanker.
Third, the base temperament of your acquaintance likely made him a more difficult child to handle with regardless if spanking is used or not. This more difficult temperament makes it more likely yet that the child will be spanked due to the inherent rewards spanking offers to the person doing the spanking.
Spanking certainly is an emotional topic and we often base our opinions on its value and effectiveness based on the exact same type of reasoning that leads to many other incorrect beliefs. Examining the data clearly shows that spanking is less effective than other forms of punishment (modeling desired behavior and rewarding towards it are more effective yet) and in fact does more harm that good, but without having the data to analyze we base our opinions on casual observations. This is exactly what the thousands of generations before us did for spanking, medicine, and other forms of fabricating explanations for the phenomenon they witnessed.
Casual observation may establish that such things are factually correct, but statistical analysis shows this to be wrong in many cases. Were casual human observation anywhere near 100% correct there would be no need for research in the sciences.
As a teacher I do think that perhaps what is unsaid is probably the bigger cause of this. I know there are a lot of slashdotters that are all about 'students rights,' and I agree to an extent they have to be there. But, when you're dealing with a classroom of students and attempting to teach state mandated material to students, maintain discipline, and manage to teach kids everything else in between (including often times being someone that they're more willing to talk to than their parents,) there has to be rules in place. (That's of course not including any daily fun you have with parents, politics, and whatever else comes up in your daily routine).
Cell phones in particular are a real big hot button in the education setting right now. At my school as long as we don't see them or have evidence they're there we leave well enough alone. I teach band, I'm down right happy for cell phones when I come back from trips - they keep me from waiting till 2 in the morning for parents to show up! The issues of photos, bullying through the phones, and much more importantly emergency management are causing this kind of stuff to begin being mandated to us by district lawyers. Word for my campus is next year they're not to be here at all - automatic consequences.
In the past I have had students outright say that they'll not listen to me on that issue if there's an emergency lock down or something. That kind of break down in discipline at that kind of time is something that can't be tolerated. Now I know that there are none of these circumstances being mentioned here - but please get off the high horse about students should be able to have every disruptive device and use them at all times.
Most importantly with this, I'd be willing to bet the student in question was blatantly disrespectful to all of the authority figures involved. At a certain point the student probably limited the options available to them. Perhaps there were mistakes, but due to privacy issues you will never hear the school side of the story.
Please explain this to George Bush, Dick Cheney and.... well, every politician that ever lived.
Yeah, thought so.
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
I believe that it's wrong to assume that the reaction was completely unjustified given that the people on the ground probably have a lot more history and context to work from than anyone armchair quarterbacking on Slashdot does.
I would argue that there's as much evidence to suggest that this is where things were headed regardless as there is to a believe that that similar appeals to authority would have been effective.
Disorderly conduct is one of those 'crimes' that should not exist.
It is arbitrary and capricious and allows a cop to arrest you for doing anything or literally nothing at all.
When you get arrested for disorderly conduct you can be sure that you just pissed the cop off and they decided to run you in as payback. That's all it is. It is a 'crime' made up to let police lean on anyone they don't like.
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
I don't mind reiterating my point, so I wont hold it against you that I have to repeat myself.
"I understand that these are routes that went untried, but I think it's misguided to assume they would have had a different result given the attitude of the child in question."
I am not arguing that they made the right choice, I'm arguing that it's misguided to assume that things would have gone differently if only they had tried to suspend her before calling the police. I'm not stating that you should never ask a murderer to stop, I'm stating that it's dumb to assume with any degree of certainty that if you ask they'll stop.
No where did I say "Don't bother" I said (in paraphrase) "There's no reason to believe it will be effective."
Legitimately asking here, not calling you out: I've seen the research that states that spankings are not beneficial to the child being spanked, I'm curious if you know of any research about what I was relating, the effect of one child being spanked on other children.
We've seen that prison fails regularly and preventing repeat offenders, but throwing them in jail does seem to be a pretty good tool for keeping others honest.
I only had to be spanked about three times as a child. The skillful parents make it more psychological... I was crying before a hand even contacted my ass. And it didn't even hit that hard. You can be damn sure I remembered the humiliation next time my mom looked at me and told me to stop acting up.
However, in this girl's situation, the most effective solution would have been to take her phone, smash it, and then have her parents come pick it and her up. Now obviously that doesn't fly nowdays, but it worked great when I was in school 20 years ago. You can guarantee no one would take a cell phone to class after that.
I'm going to post this again because the guy who replied to me posted AC and I don't know if he'll ever see it again.
I've seen the research that states that spankings are not beneficial to the child being spanked,and as I stated in my example the spanking did nothing to help the child. I'm curious if you know of any research about what I was relating, the effect of one child being spanked on other children. We've seen that prison fails regularly and preventing repeat offenders, but throwing them in jail does seem to be a pretty good tool for keeping others honest.
Try that today..and the parent/neighbor is a criminal....
What was the crime you think they should be spanked for? I might agree if they beat someone up and someone spanked them, in a limited fashion, with witnesses, etc.
But if you did what I imagine many would do and try to hit them for swearing... Well fuck. I don't consider it a crime and would be mighty displeased to find someone beating one of my family members for their choice of words.
Perhaps it was the more homogeneous ethics of the 50s largely-christian USA that allowed this communal punishment to work...?
As for age, I've never said to a child that age conveys anything other than wrinkles, nor would I ever suggest that they defer to anyone because of age on anything except bus seating and other physical concessions. For any given person age usually correlates to intelligence, reasoning ability, even temper, and so on, but for all of that I can point to any number of people of any age that are untrustworthy, dumb, panicky, or any other failure that would keep me from wanting to advise a child to trust them. I'd never assign permission on anything other than a personal basis. One teacher, cop, friend, or relative is not the same as another.
this student is known to the administration as a "problem".
She's not obeyed them before on at least one occasion? Well whatever then, burn her.
Or, um, maybe conclude that they were likely overzealous with punishment for non-crimes in the past too?
She was not lying to gain anything or damage anyone. Just lying to preserve her property.. that does not equal fraud.
Should she be punished yes.. suspension/detention . Getting the police involved is a bit much.
open source sub sim. I might start coding again for this. http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/contribute/
Can I play?
Never forget this country was founded by rich white land owners that didn't want to pay taxes. without representation in Parliment because they refused such representation when offered, knowing they would then be taxed with representation which wasn't wanted because it was in a illegitimately ruled foreign government
The AC was half-right. Your friend is actually sounds fairly lenient in individual punishments and likely doesn't see himself as an asshole. But, he does work to restrict people's freedom to use drugs as they see fit.
He himself may not publish misleading propaganda equating pot with crack, or confiscate vehicles from casual pot smokers, or jail people whose only crime was to make their own alcohol, but he's part of the same industrial machine and has to be considered as an interchangeable, equally-guilty part in activities that he ignored, if not participated in.
The war on drugs is pretty much a scam, where it isn't outright fraud. What that makes people who participate in it is an exercise for the reader, but it doesn't get much better than 'unwitting patsy' and goes all the way up to 'complicit in murder for terrorist goals'.
After seeing so many comments leaping to the defense of cops who use tasers on innocent people, I suppose I shouldn't be so shocked by the consensus here. Fine, fascism makes perfect logical sense, children should surrender their private property to agents of the state on demand or be thrown in prison, whatever. The best argument against that kind of attitude is me and people like me throwing stones at your head, and that's not really the kind of thing that can be expressed over the internet.
I agree, the police shouldn't be involved.
However he's right, it's lawsuit central out there now, the world is ridiculous, what can a teacher do? Call the principal, the principal can tell the student off, they still may not leave the classroom - period.
So the highest level of authority in the school still can't PHYSICALLY do anything if the person is being a little shit.
I hate cops involved in rubbish like this, I really do but this litigous (sp?) assholes have brought it on us all.
Lying is not necessarily fraud. Nor would it be fraud in this case. Lying to the police can be a crime, in most jurisdictions this is called Obstruction of Justice. But the girl was not charged with that.
What baffles me the most about this case was the rigamarole everyone went through to determine that she had a phone. Why did it matter? If the teacher saw the phone, that's the end of it. Give the pupil the appropriate punishment. (detention, suspension, saturday school, etc) Why did it have to be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that she did in fact possess a phone? What if she had passed the phone off to a friend before the officer arrived? Would they have then had to let her go unpunished? The incident originally wasn't about her committing a legal crime, it was about breaking school rules. When you're talking about breaking school rules you don't need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to get a "conviction".
Lying is one of four factors necessary to comprise fraud.
By who's definition?
Lying, in itself, is not a crime.
Not always. Often however lying, particular for personal gain, is fraud in the broadest sense and has consequences, either socially or legally.
---
The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".
What else can you do when you don't know the technicalities and haven't been informed of your right to remain silent?
And why is lying to a cop so bad? Either they've got proof of you breaking a law or they don't.
By the time you get to a judge it seems more reasonable to compel people to talk, and demand honesty, because you theoretically have examined the basic issues at hand. Does the issue warrant ordering someone to reveal a secret. When a cop is demanding you answer his questions on the street he's in the worst possible place to be making that call.
Our current style of street-police who deal with criminals is out-dated. With modern rapid response teams possible the police should merely establish a perimeter around a violent subject or keep tabs on a non-violent one till the next team showed up. This team would contain someone analogous to a hostage negotiator. Someone who could talk the person down, explain legal realities, and help the person surrender non-violently to end the situation without any actual crime being committed. The other members of the team, more based on the chance of violence, would be armored as necessary but carry only sticky-tape and nets as weapons. Further specialized teams (translators, foreign-culture specialists, etc) can be called as needed and arrive in minutes.
And in the event the suspect busts out a gun and starts shooting the original police officer, who has until now stood mute and out of the way, watching but not drawing any attention, draws his civilian-legal sidearm and exercises any citizen's right to self defense when faced by a gun-wielding psycho... The same handling capability we have now, but without the needless escalation inherent in the usual interrogation/arrest process.
Umm no it isnt "fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them"
Wrong. At the time I write this wikipedia is saying "In the broadest sense, fraud is a deception made for personal gain ...".
---
The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".
Do you honestly think they went over this in her mandatory law class? How to refuse unreasonable search requests? The limit of a teacher's authority, the limit of police authority, etc?
I highly doubt they ever covered this before she got arrested for something that wasn't criminal.
Regardless, court is where adults go when they break laws, because they're adult enough to understand the laws. Children go to detention because it is assumed they are not. If they were adult we'd be letting them exercise their judgment by voting and drinking and we do not, so clearly we don't think they deserve adult treatment. Of course, ignorance is an excuse, so this assumes that society actually attempts to teach people the laws of the land. You can't reasonably be bound to the finer points of a societal contract you've never heard of.
As for your anarchy, why do you think it is incompatible with responsibility? If for instance you have a plant, in an anarchy you would still be responsible for watering it. The only difference is that should you choose to abandon that responsibility it merely goes undone (and you, plantless) instead of society arbitrarily punishing you but watering the plant.
You sure are missing something... like, the whole story.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
The AC was half-right. Your friend is actually sounds fairly lenient in individual punishments and likely doesn't see himself as an asshole. But, he does work to restrict people's freedom to use drugs as they see fit.
He himself may not publish misleading propaganda equating pot with crack, or confiscate vehicles from casual pot smokers, or jail people whose only crime was to make their own alcohol, but he's part of the same industrial machine and has to be considered as an interchangeable, equally-guilty part in activities that he ignored, if not participated in.
The war on drugs is pretty much a scam, where it isn't outright fraud. What that makes people who participate in it is an exercise for the reader, but it doesn't get much better than 'unwitting patsy' and goes all the way up to 'complicit in murder for terrorist goals'.
That DEA officer, like any officer in the various branches of the police, has as his job to enforce the laws that were put into place by congress, whose members were democratically elected by the american people. So I'd say he shares about the same amount of blame as....pretty much anyone?
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Buddy,
Despite how you feel about drugs, it's illegal. It doesn't matter one iota your feelings, there's no "freedom to use drugs as you see fit". Especially since the law states otherwise.
You see, the way the world workss is that the laws are changed to reflect the society it protects. You're view on whether it's right or wrong means you have the ability to perform civil disorder, however you will be facing the legality portion much like everyone else that has taken that route. It's necessary, and done with anything worth fighting for.
Enjoy your fight :)
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
.... the girl was arrested BEFORE the police attempted to contact her parents. I don't know what kind of totalitarian hellhole you live in, but here in Australia the schools don't call in the cops for disruptive students. The girl should have been taken aside by a senior teacher, and her parents contacted from the numbers on file.Seriously what kind of shit hole do you live in that the police can arrest you for not cooperating with their investigations into your own behaviour? I don't even have to identify myself to police here, and that is the way I like it.
This will get kicked out in court and this dumbass cop will get a rap on the knuckles and some bad press.
N.W.A. said it best (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiX7GTelTPM).
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
It was a point made, nothing more.
Get off your pedestal and wipe it off once you step down.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
That might have been funny if what was said was not the bare truth....
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Let's just reiterate for the sixteen billionth time in these comments that the arrest would not have happened if proper protocol was followed with the officers.
Refusing to allow temporary relinquishment of an item to an officer upon request (when the right is bestowed upon the officer by the acting parent at that moment, ergo the staff), further action is taken.
It was methodical, and was the students fault. It will happen again to the next person that does such a thing, also.
This isn't just a minor disobeying, this is complete refusal to accept that the school has authority over you as a guardian.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
which do you think is riskier from a lawsuit standpoint: 1) giving a student a suspension; or 2) having her arrested?
Option 1 is riskier (especially if it involves touching the student in any way to resolve the issue). You cannot be sued by the other party for calling the cops. You can be charged by the cops for false police reports, but in a situation like this that isn't going to happen (especially if the school safety officer is a cop themselves and makes the call). Also, any misconduct would result in the police being sued, not the school.
Two swats. Confiscate the phone, to be returned at the end of the school year. After school detention for two weeks. Case closed. Any more problems, two more swats. Corporal punishment changes attitudes quickly, and efficiently. No need of a councillor, shrink, analyst, or whatever. Americans are to pussified to swat their children, so they deserve this sort of circus.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
If I refuse to turn off my phone during a meeting at work, they can fire me, but they can't criminally charge me.
But I know, this is kids, we've got to fuck them as hard as possible, so bring in the people with guns!
It's been a long time.
spanking and other physical punishment was stopped (at many many levels) and child behaviour has grown significantly worse.
Care to tell us why? it should have got better by your measurements.
IE: I call BS, there are a mountain of researchers out there who are more than happy to push one particular cart here. There are also a large number of good responsible parents who know the realities.
I would also suggest that a leading cause of behaviour problems is the desperate need to convince children that they are 'empowered', which of course most children interpret as 'allowed to do whatever they want'.
Having quite some experience with social services locally (and not saying this extends globally, but hey it might) it is interesting to see that most punishment/development/result studies are specifically biased to 'high risk' children, and VERY few are done on low risk children - nothing works better than a nicely skewed sample base.
My parents spanked me (rarely) which I was especially bad, and I strongly thank them for it. I have also never hit ANY person since being a young teenager, in anger or for any other reason.
How would they get the phone? I suspect a teacher making a physical search of a female student would end up arrested and without work faster than you can possibly imagine.
Children learn quickly when adults have limitations such as these..
America has insane attitudes towards children in criminal justice.
An adult who molests a 8 year old is entitled to a rehabilitation program that's based on a scientific consensus, and a fair trial. A child who molests another 8 year old will be sent to a re-programming center where discredited techniques meant to "cure" homosexuals in the 30s are used.
This is just another case of the same thing. If I refused to stop texting at work, I'd be fired. They couldn't call the police before even taking that step.
But hey, if you're going to fuck your kids to the tune of 12 trillion dollars, why not fuck them in a totalitarian sense too?
It's been a long time.
"could barely read at an 8th grade level"
I hear about americans reading at an Xth grade level all the time. Could someone break down the levels for me? Maybe I can even find out what level I am on. (Do I level up by writing "what level I'm on" ?) That would be sweet.
"he, who has quotes in his signature, is a douche" - unknown.
Why so?
Just imagine that the teacher had laid his hands on *her* ! He would be the one explaining himself to the police, the courts, and the unemployment office afterwards. That's how things work.
That teacher had precisely 2 options left.
(a) accept the fact that henceforth he has no further authority over her (or any other student's) conduct in class
(b) call in the cops
According to US laws and customs that teacher acted both "professionally" and "correctly". It's idiotic, but there it is.
Besides which, the student in question can call herself lucky she wasn't even Tasered down (as seems to be becoming the norm with arrests in the US). Perhaps female suspects are discriminated against in that they don't immediately receive a Tasering ... perhaps the venue was too public, or perhaps she was smart enough to "comply" unreservedly with the police once they arrived (by immediately lying flat on the ground and spreading all her appendices).
Oh yes ... and that student also tried to brazenly (and stupidly) lie her way out of it by denying she had a cellphone at all (a classic pose). This was a bluff which would have worked fine had not everyone seen her fiddling with a phone and had the police not had the foresight to bring a female officer. Unfortunately for the student in question her bluff was called and she was strip-searched, she was subsequently proven to be lying when said cellphone was retrieved from the general area of her buttocks by a female police officer. I imagine her entering a plea that it was planted there, which was brutally over-ruled by the authorities, leaving her with psychological scars for life. Ah well.
Which just about sums up her general level of honesty, well-meaningness, and determination to make trouble for all involved.
In retrospect that teacher was *very* lucky he called the police instead of trying to cope with the situation himself. Quite apart from running the risk of being knifed on the spot by the girl's boyfriend, does anyone here believe for an instant that said female student would have refrained from making spurious allegations aimed at getting this teacher fired? I don't.
I'm afraid that this is what the world has come to. We've *got* to call in the police when high school students act willfully, or we're in deep legal trouble.
...is with the bleeding heart liberals, like the poster of this story, who have forced schools to escalate matters in a formal manner.
Pre-lunacy the school could and would have dealt with it internally: confiscated the 'phone and caned the disobedient child. But now because of bleeding-heart liberals they can't do that so they are left with the only option of escalation.
No half-way decent school can afford to let one stroppy badly behaved child get away with that kind of behaviour. If you're looking for someone to blame: look at the "me me me" generation brat and her crappy parents.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
That DEA officer, like any officer in the various branches of the police, has as his job to enforce the laws that were put into place by congress, whose members were democratically elected by the american people. So I'd say he shares about the same amount of blame as....pretty much anyone?
You're just trying to get someone to Godwin, aren't you?
Anyway, no, that's absurd. Most of us aren't doing anything to keep the drug laws on the books and enforced, they're already on the books, and there is a fraction of the population who are rabidly opposed to losening them that pretty much keep it going. Even they though are not out there actively enforcing it. Your friend is definitely more responsible for the war on drugs than everyone else is.
Of course in my book that's nothing too bad, I'm opposed to the drug laws, but they're pretty low on my list of laws that are flawed (and very low on my list of things that are wrong with the world), and enforcing them is not like, say, enforcing genocide.
So I'd say he shares about the same amount of blame as....pretty much anyone?
Certainly no more than any other supporter of these laws.
But certainly more (blame) than someone who was outspoken against these laws knowing the harm they'd do, or someone who voted against them.
There's an amount of blame in paying taxes, but considering they'll come and arrest you (ultimately jailing or killing you if you resist) for withholding taxes, it's certainly not cut and dried.
If, for instance, there was a law that required you to turn in people of a certain religion for "re-education" which you knew to be a euphemism for torture or death you'd be expected to disobey it. Presumably you wouldn't be to blame at all for the law if you did this...
How, in your eyes, can someone not allowed to leave a group or stop funding all the actions of that group, be considered responsible in the same fashion, and to the same degree, as someone who signs up to take a more active part?
Despite how you feel about drugs, it's illegal. It doesn't matter one iota your feelings, there's no "freedom to use drugs as you see fit". Especially since the law states otherwise.
You just stated the obvious, AND appear to have responded to the wrong post.
Anyway, the tired old response to that tired old argument is something along the lines of "I don't really feel the need to follow laws I don't believe in just because bible-pounders and do-gooders happen to have greater political influence than the rest of us who think the drug laws are stupid."
Not sure what the cliche response to that one is, but in case it's relevant, no, I don't use drugs, but that has nothing to do with it being illegal.
Sorry, but it mattered when people disliked prohibition and now we see many of their actions as reasonable, instead of criminal actions as the state of the day would have had you believe. Had they sat back and followed an unjust law, or those who promoted the law, we'd still have the unjust law.
Moreover, beyond drugs, is the issue of the civil liberties stepped on in combating the supposed drug problem.
I have a medium problem with society telling someone they can't smoke pot.
It becomes a large problem when tobacco and alcohol are provably more dangerous in all measurable ways and yet legal.
It becomes a huge problem. One that has totally destroyed all trust in, or respect for the government in all ways, when it becomes legal to confiscate someone's car and give that money to the police without ever having to 1) prove a crime was committed 2) the car aided it or 3) that the police deserve the money from the seizure.
I can't even describe my contempt for the people who execute armed no-knock raids over alleged victimless crimes. The ones who can't even be bothered to check the details of their orders before kicking down the wrong door are even worse.
however you will be facing the legality portion much like everyone else that has taken that route.
Why people expect protesters to sit quietly and be jailed by, to them, criminal regimes is beyond me.
Besides, this isn't an issue of my freedom to do harmless things, this is an issue of my dislike for people who participate in destroying my civil liberties and my society, all to collect their paycheck, regardless of any law that attempts to justify their behavior.
If everyone treated that specific DEA agent (and all others, on an individual basis) like an asshole murderer until he not only quit the DEA but helped shut them down for their abuses perhaps we'd actually see some change. But instead people are willing to give the peons a free pass because they were just following orders. It doesn't matter if he's officer of the year, as measured in unreasonable confiscations and unjustified arrests, people want to give him a get-out-of-responsibility card just because someone else signed his paychecks (likely using money he stole in the first place.)
Seeing that I doubt she'll get capitol punishment for this (damn shame, should have happened in Texas, the only state sane enough to understand it's better to fry them young before they have a chance to become voting liberals!) she should at least be publicly caned!
... wait I'm not a redneck.....
The problem with youth these days is that pansy ass liberals in Washington have made it so that we can't beat our kids to keep them in line anymore. What's worse is that those bra burning lesbians in Washington won't just stay where they belong, AT HOME, barefoot and pregnant. This world is going to hell in a hand basket fast and it's all because people listen to CNN and get their panties all in a twist because they can't see clearly Saint George W. Bush is going to save us from the evil A-Rabs.
It's about time we stop sending girls to schools where they can distract boys from their studies once they reach puberty. It's about time we start slapping our daughters around when they show signs of free thinking. It's about time we get this work back under control. These girls don't need school anyway, they should be making babies from the day they turn 18 in order to make sure that those hispanols don't take over this county!
Oh
The principle of the school should be canned like tuna over this. When the principle of the school reacts this harshly to an incident of a teenager lying to avoid losing their phone in school, how will he/she respond to real problems. Teenagers ARE disorderly. Teenagers are unruly. Teenagers DO lie to avoid getting in trouble. Threatening a teenager you know is lying is a waste of time. The kid already knows he/she is in trouble. The kid knows that if they get caught the punishment can't really be any worse. The kid will just keep lying until the situation resolves itself.
A school principle who has a student arrested over a situation like this lacks leadership ability and lacks good decision making abilities. The girl did not endanger any other students. She did disrupt class, but she'd have been scared to do it again later. Can anyone seriously tell me, how, on any planet a school leader can ever be taken seriously or gain the trust or respect of their students when the principle thinks the proper method of dealing with a 14 year old that obviously is testing her boundaries, is to have her arrested and then tried?
If I lived in this middle of nowhere hick town, I'd lynch the principle unless he/she dropped the charges and made a public appology stating that he/she overreacted because of his/her incompitance as a school leader.
The price of freedom for police is the law, and there's this perverse attitude that when it comes to kids, police don't have to follow the law.
In ten thousand years, my boss could NEVER get the police to come to my workplace and frisk me because I didn't stop texting after he told me to stop. It's not against the law, for one thing. For another thing, if the administrators hadn't bothered to try any other remedies, then they hadn't met the standard that an adult would be charged under.
We're just fucking kids at this point. Either they're kids and the school has to deal with them, or they're adults and the police have to deal with them and they should be afforded every single protection an adult is granted under the law.
It's been a long time.
Read: you will refrain from fiddling with your cellphone if told to do so by your teacher.
"Suspension" as in "hang by the neck until dead"? I didn't notice - was the offending person in Texas, where the state murders minors and mental defectives, so neither of those defences are available.
OK, if it's a first offence, I might go for her spending a month in the gibbet cage and just hoping that no-one gets put in the cage above.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
By what law does the policeman have authority to demand the cell phone?
Adults are protected against unreasonable search and seizure by the constitution. Once you bring a state official, a person with a gun who has legal authority to take away your rights, into the mix, you've stopped treating the kids like kids. It's hypocritical to attack this kid for not following the rules while ignoring that the police were acting outside the legal scope of what they'd be allowed to do to an adult, effectively not following the rules.
It's been a long time.
What school has to ask the bloody child for the contact details for their parent? They're supposed to have all contact details on file in case of an emergency.
If she was involved in an accident and was sent to the hospital how would they exercise duty of care and contact her parents if she were unconscious?
It sounds more like another case of over-reacting American school teachers.
Wes
If you bring people from the state with guns into the mix, the game is changed. If police are to be enforcing school policies with the full force of the law, then these kids deserve full rights under the law.
Under the 4th, the police weren't entitled to the phone. They had no reason to believe an actual crime had been committed, so they could not ask an adult for the cell phone, yet they have legal authority to search this girl. The state broke the rules that apply to everyone else.
Why should this girl bother following the rules if authority doesn't have to? I'm sick of people advocating fucking children.
It's been a long time.
If you were a native American. The white people were mostly British subjects. It was their government and as legitimate as any other.
Do you carry a gun? Are you a state sanctioned agent legally mandated to assist in restricting the rights of citizens?
Police are serious fucking business. If you're going to be using them to enforce school regulations, then kids deserve full rights under the law. If that were the case, the police could not ask for the phone because no crime had been committed.
It's been a long time.
Nothing you've said has swayed my opinion in the slightest. If anything, it has reinforced my view. The police don't have an inherent right to search your physical body, nor the right to know if you are caring a cell phone. Without a warrant, that's a pretty clear case of unlawful search and seizure. The school have the right to search students and their property for violations of the law, e.g. drugs, guns, etc., but AFAIK, no court case has ever held that they have the right to search a person's body for something that is not illegal to possess on school grounds.
Lying is also not inherently a crime, and although it could cause you to get hit with obstruction charges, there would have to be a crime investigation in progress; if there was no legitimate reason to be doing a crime investigation, OoJ charges would be hard to make stick. Again, unless there's a LOT more to the story, this seems like a stretch, particularly if she had not been read her Miranda rights prior to the questioning in which she lied. If she was not advised of her right to remain silent, I'd expect this to end up in a civil suit in which the school and the P.D. end up making a pretty large payout. I'd be surprised if it didn't end that way, in fact.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
In the real world, she'd get fired for not listening to her boss, but at NO point would her boss be able to get an agent of the state with a gun to enforce his whims.
In fact, an employer would probably get in trouble with the police for wasting their time, and rightly so.
It's been a long time.
This absurdity I would assume stems from what's called "resist, obstruct or delay" around here, but similar statues are common across the country. Basically this gem of the legal system makes it illegal to lie to a cop, or not give them any information they ask for. Apparently the right to remain silent doesn't apply until you're actually under arrest.
I personally have had the misfortune to be arrested and charged with this. I was at a friends house, and was taking a nap on the couch while they had gone out to the store. They came home while I was asleep and didn't wake me. I awoke to a loud pounding on the door right next to the couch. I got up and opened the door to see a cop standing there. They asked if my friend was home. I said "I don't think so" and looked over my shoulder. While my head was turned the cop said "I'm going to look around" and walked right past me into the house and into my friends bedroom. They found him laying on the bed and arrested him (he had a warrant for a failure to appear), and then walked back into the living room, looked at me and said "I'm arresting you for resist obstruct or delay" and handcuffed me and took me to jail where I spent the next 2 days.
I got the charge dropped after shelling $600 out on a lawyer and doing 24 hours of community service, all for saying "I don't think so."
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
I don't know about strip searching but if you get to the point where you have to be physically removed from the premises and refuse, yes, your boss can call the police on you.
Not if they left it, it wasn't their government. And rule by a king is never legitimate.
Those in authority always go for the easiest targets. If I was a cop I'd much prefer to be arresting teenage kids on bullshit charges than dodging the lead trying to prevent real crimes.
I understand that these are routes that went untried, but I think it's misguided to assume they would have had a different result given the attitude of the child in question.
I totally agree, there's no reason to believe going through the proper channels and procedures would have made the slightest difference. So I assume we're all agreed then that the girl should be summarily executed?/p.
Yes it does, it shows children that the correct response to behavior you disagree with is violence. Used for minor offenses it also leaves little ability to link cause and effect, unless you advocate breaking bones when children are really naughty
Corporal punishment is not a simple issue, but you'd be aware of that if you hadn't decided on what answer you liked without investigating the matter first.
To beat (possible trauma) and to spank (temporary inflammation of the buttocks) are not the same thing. I'm not on any particular side of this debate, however, I don't beat my kids neither do I spank them. Abuse means exactly that and yes, there would be long term consequences. Let's not compare the two.
Yes, I was occasionally spanked and I believe, in my case, this has resulted in immediate behaviour correction. Too often people make a link between spanking and anger. It certainly is inappropriate to spank as a result of anger. Spanking should be used as a means to correct immediately inappropriate and possibly life threatening actions by a child.
I would simply suggest changing the building code for schools to include Faraday cages in the walls of every class. There, problem solved.
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
You say that as though there aren't countless problems that can't be solved without anger and violence.
Would you rather a nation of people that are liable to kick your ass when you do something wrong, or a nation that just sits on their hands and watches as someone else does something wrong?
A fire is what is called exigent circumstances. At the point that a teenager refuses to exit a burning you are more then within your right to man handle them. Anything less would be negligence.
Whereas in this fucked up situation she was using a cellphone which is not life threatening.
Bad analogy.
IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
Before that age, many children have a complete disregard for social rules and niceties - if they're even aware of them. Because of that, they tend to become assholes ready to call mummy/daddy when they get the punch in the face their behavior's earned them. That is especially true when they're faced with adults who work with them all day long, as such people are considered suspect before hand if any kind of incident crops up. This is one of the cases where presumption of innocence does not apply to the adult.
[disclaimer] Yes, I work in a junior high school and the attitude of the little bastards has become insufferable, to the point I'm currently looking to change jobs within the next few months.
"What the kid did was annoying, disorderly and immature; no argument about that."
-Good, so you AND the cop AND the principal all agree that it was disorderly conduct.
"What the school and police did was irresponsible and a complete waste of public resources."
-No, it wasn't a waste of public resources. The girl will have to pay for all of the costs incurred as a result of her actions: Court, police, bail, fines are all paid by the violator, not just the fine.
"This was not a police matter. Very few things in a school are police matters."
-School officials, with the exception of School Resource Officers (who are Law Enforcement, not school officials), do NOT have the legal authority to frisk-search or use physical force (except in extenuating circumstances such as self-defense and breaking up fights) against someone who is non-compliant. Would you prefer they do?
"In this case, the teacher failed to properly supervise and discipline a student under their direct responsibility."
-They DID properly supervise her because they were able to notice she was texting on her phone during class. They DID properly discipline her by following an appropriate course of action (and 7 day suspension): Asking the student not to use the phone, Asking the student to stop using the phone, Asking the student to surrender the phone to the teacher, and then calling the principal who did all of the same. Unfortunately, the girl continued to disrupt the class and the next level of involvement was the police. They did all of this because the student WAS their responsibility.
"Suspend/detend the kid, sure, but cops ? Did someone get beat/stabbed/shot/raped ? No ? Then no cops."
-The student WAS suspended for 7 days, and forbidden from school property for that same period. So, short of a rape/shooting/stabbing, you think the cops should not be called at all? So how do you propse to deal with a continually defiant student? You have to get them to comply before you can do anything to them, and she wasn't complying with anybody, even disobeying the cops for a while.
"Idiot teachers like this are the leading reason why today's kids are such utter failures. They take after the moronic role models they're given."
-No, idiots like YOU with the horrible logic, "Innocent Child" argument, and responsibility avoindance are why todays kids are such utter failures
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Right - treating someone with a position of legal authority like a "asshole murderer" will make him reconsider his position in life, not push him to become like the thug police you are ranting against. I think most people in that sort of line of work would tend to shove back when shoved.
"If everybody is thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking" - Gen. George S. Patton
The difference between adults and teenagers isn't the mental capacity - its the experience to make the right decision, instead of the decision that suits you at the time.
"If everybody is thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking" - Gen. George S. Patton
That's something else.
If I shoot my boss the police get involved too. That's completely irrelevant, because it doesn't mean that they can suddenly get involved because I keep on texting after being told not to and he's getting frustrated.
It's been a long time.
Like leaving this pointless thread without posting!
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
I'm sure they are only telling part of the story. The truth will probably be something more like this: 1) student texting in class, 2) student refuses to give up phone to teacher, despite it being against school policy, 3) teacher calls in campus police because student not complying and being disruptive, 4) student resists (misdemeanor!) police and does not give up phone. The article leaves out that this girl is a problem in the class in the past. People will say, "Oh my god this is horrible she was only texting..." In reality, this is not the case, newspapers love to fry people on the first page and exonerate on the back page- it sells better this way.
I have taught in schools where the vast majority of parent contact information was bogus. The real shocker is that it came from the students. I have even had parents that did not wish to be contacted if their child was in trouble. I know that this does not apply to the case here, but it's not all "one world".
Normally I ascribe all life to intelligent design, but in your case I'll make an exception.
Other than listen, ask questions of the teacher, and, you know, learn.
Best Slashdot Co
See: Bernie Madoff
You had a "revolution" against the then government. Not a "resistance" against a foreign invader.
"the teenager would have to be doing something a lot more disruptive than texting for arresting her to be an appropriate punishment"
My guess is that she was arrested for persisting in disruptive behavior in the face of police edict. I would guess that she denied having a phone and the school employees didn't want to take the responsibility of frisking her. (Would you risk your job in an attempt to keep order?) So they called the real police and they asked about the phone. She probably persisted in the lie and the police ended up doing the search. My guess is the arrest stemmed not from having a phone or using it in class but rather from disobeying a police order. That will get you arrested.
Normally I ascribe all life to intelligent design, but in your case I'll make an exception.
Yeesh. She deserves it though.
Cellphones were banned when *I* went there, and I graduated almost 10 years ago.
TRHOnline - Staggering Towards Brilliance
Your mandated to be in schools. Your not mandated to pay attention.
Who wants to make the grammar joke?
His statement speaks for itself. That's the joke here.
Aside from the humor, he does make a valid point.
You're right. You're not mandated to pay attention. However, I'm not obligated to call this person educated or even intelligent by any means, or give them a job.
Oh, and one more thing. The school system isn't mandated to hand over a diploma either, especially to an Idiot With An Attitude who feels like they don't need to pay attention or follow rules.
But why are you defending his case? In college people do indeed behave as you say, and look at the quality of the graduates. Yuck.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
There are kids that get physically assaulted by other students in high school and all that happens is maybe a suspension the first 3 or 4 times.
Uh, what?
I'm 31 now, so this happened a moment ago, but when I was in Jr. High school I was a mama's boy who didn't know how to stand up for himself. I would get in fights regularly, just minor scuffles really, but nobody ever got in trouble for picking on me. One day a kid actually picked a one-on-one fight with me and I beat the crap out of him and got immediately expelled. Went across town where it all happened all over again, except nobody ever picked a one-on-one with me again. Went to a high school where it happened some more, stopped doing all my classwork, got straight Fs and got expelled some more.
Most kids that pick on, beat up, or otherwise physically harass others never get in any trouble AT ALL. It is part of a pervasive culture of violence supported by school officials who look the other way even when they know who, what, when, where, and how. The why is simple: because they can. Is it a coincidence that all of these schools had sports programs and nearly all of the bullies are jocks? Fuck no, it is not.
Sending children to American public school is child abuse. It is a critical element in the perpetuation of our one-sided system.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
They were investigating her
She was not accused of a crime. Thank you, please drive through.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This is BS. The police report clearly states that the student was NOT arrested for texting in class. READ TFA !!!
Normally I ascribe all life to intelligent design, but in your case I'll make an exception.
NOT all kids belong in class. Not saying they don't belong in school, just not in the classroom. In Holland we used to have a strict seperation between technical schools where you learned a trade and administrative schools where you didn't. They came in various level, the telling bit being that the levels weren't equal, lower administrative school (houshold academeny) was significantly lower then lower technical school. Basically, leao thought you how to boil an egg in the 4th year, lts trained cooks. mavo thought you how to make a check, mts thought you how to run a restaurant. Anyway, if you were the kind of student who had ants in his pants then techincal school was for you. LOTS of practice hours were you were so busy physically that the few hours of theory were a welcome relief. But that wasn't good enough, things had to change and practice hours went down and theory went up (not theory about trades but stuff like social studies) until the two systems were merged. The happy result? Employers complaining graduates don't have any skills and increased dropout rate because kids with ants in their pants can handle sitting still the entire week. The girl in this story should NOT have been in this school. We try to put all kids into the same mould and it just doesn't work. Some kids need more freedom to explore, some need strict discpline and some just need to be kept busy a lot. The US calls its new system, no child left behind. What it really means is "who cares about what kind of person you are, you will damn well behave like everyone else and if you don't everyone else will suffer the consequences". The only way we can change the education system is if we learn to accept that everyone is NOT equal.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I would simply suggest changing the building code for schools to include Faraday cages in the walls of every class. There, problem solved.
Then how do you handle calls to emergency services in cases of emergency ? How do you handle the problems for the gazillion of schools which were already built without the Faraday cages ?
If you want to solve the problem in a technological way, take a solution that already has been tested. To avoid abuses at the work place, there are firewall restricting what websites employee browse to.
For the school, one could similarly imagine local micro cell-towers, which could be automatically picked up by GSM phones (closer range - better signal - preferred by the phone) but would only allow outbound traffic to a set number of key numbers : 911 (EU:112), other emergency services, school's nurse number, other administrative numbers, etc. Done correctly, this could even play the same role as the wireless DECT network you find in lot of corporate work places. Except that it doesn't require a separate DECT phone but works with your everyday GSM phone.
When complaining about GSM phone nuisance, people are quick to ask for jammers (which could have actually very nasty consequences) but nobody speaks about small-scale emitter.
Specially, I suppose, licensing requirement should probably be lower for microtower given the much lower emitting power (we're speak about covering a room, not a whole city's block).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I'll assume by your terse response that you and those that modded you insightful have been wronged in the ISD where you went to school. It would appear that anger prevented you from actually comprehending the question (you did see the ? didn't you?). I abhor violence and I do not advocate "beating" anyone although I can't say I've never felt the urge to do so. That being said I still haven't had anyone answer my question and thus it remains. What other options are there?
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
The king makes the law, but that doesn't make the law legitimate.
A government cannot legitimately exist except through the will of the people. Anything else is a dictatorship - slavery.
If someone disregards the authority of a teacher, what makes you think they'll suddenly start respecting it when the punishment is upped?
This is a complete non-sequitor. So we should call the police to arrest someone who hasn't broken a law, based on what they might do?
Blimey, if at my school the teachers dialed 999 everytime a pupil disobeyed a teacher, there wouldn't be enough police in the country to deal with it...
You're missing the point - namely, the issue is, since when does breaking a school rule constitute a criminal offence?
Yes, we can have the debate on how schools can deal with children, and how effective punishments are. But are you seriously suggesting the teachers dial 999 everytime a rule is broken?
For heaven's sake - we're talking about texting in class, not someone who's been suspended, anyway.
And if you're worried about pissing off the parents, having their child arrested is probably the last thing you want to do...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorderly_conduct
I think most people in that sort of line of work would tend to shove back when shoved.
I see, they're likely to be unreasonable (implications of violence) when challenged and that's why we shouldn't challenge them for being unreasonable...
Obviously you'd start by saying "Hey Bob, did you know the DEA did X, Y, and Z and you working for them means you're supporting these things". Only when they refuse to take responsibility do you move to open condemnation, progressing to outright social excommunication as required to get through to them, or failing that, make clear to others that their behavior is not socially acceptable.
a position of legal authority
An official performing duties they know to be corrupt, or supporting an organization whose actions are known or should be known to be corrupt, can hardly be said to be a legal authority. Willful ignorance is no excuse - any newspaper could have explained the facts for this agent or any in a similar position.
What else can you call someone who willfully ignores any evidence about possible problems with their behavior and blindly supports their organization against criticism?
If she had surrendered the phone upon the 1st request by the campus officer then detention would be appropriate. Since she continued to claim that she did not have a phone and further concealed it. She escalated it beyond detention or in-school suspension.
Disobeying a teacher once is beyond detention or suspension, and requires police to arrest them? I'd like to know what school you went to. I think most teachers would be glad to have the child do as they are told, and not receive a detention for it! If they don't, then that's what detention is for. Suspension is for most severe troublemakers.
And the police are for people who break the law.
You're missing the point. It's not about what level of punishment is appropriate. It's since when did breaking school rules become criminal offences?
I'm from the UK, so maybe things are different there - is it really routine to call the police everytime a child breaks a rule? I mean, there are certainly things from my school days that I can see would be breaking laws, and would therefore be something you could call the police for (vandalism, bullying, violence, theft) - but even there, it was almost always dealt with by the school. So what's so special about this case that texting requires police intervention, when other cases that do involve breaking the law don't require police intervention? It makes no sense. The only thing I hope is that we're not getting the full story - but it's bizarre just how many posters here seem to think that calling the police in the described situation is perfectly normal.
I read this article yesterday. The student got arrested for not stopping an action after class was stopped and the supervisors where putting school on hold waiting for her to stop doing an action. I don't like police states myself, but I like lame-ass attention-whores trying to pump up their ad revenues just as little.
Being arrested for not obeying an authority is not the same thing as being arrested for texting. mmkay?
Law is legitmate, by definition.
Law is not morality. Don't mix them up.
Maybe now these children will start to realise that a large part of growing up is to do what you're told to. Hopefully they won't forget that lesson very quickly.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
woah, when did lying become a crime? Was she under oath?
No. From TFA "She was told her disruption in class with the phone out, the refusal to obey the teacher, and her not telling [the school authorities, and police,] the truth is what got her arrested". I'm not sure how you missed that, since the GP said exactly that "her arrest was partially due to her continued lying."
Well, we're given limited information about her prior interactions with the administration and police in the report. Maybe there's other separate reports detailing those. Maybe this was just a shoddy report, maybe the police officer is really just on a power trip. I don't know, on Slashdot we have a heavily filtered version of the facts. What we deal with is half-hypothetical.
My point is that if someone is following a pattern of being willfully disruptive eventually you reach an end to what you can accomplish without putting yourself in legal jeopardy. She was arrested and cited for disorderly conduct then let go until her trial date. She violated her week-long suspension not once, but twice and got two more citations for trespassing. My read of the situation is this was not someone quietly texting in class and not an isolated incident, but one of a long string of events where the school's measures against her had proved ineffective and she was detracting from the learning environment. It's not just frustration but the end of the road for what the school can do (short of expulsion I guess, dunno what the policy on that is). As far as I'm aware something doesn't have to be contraband either to initiate a search if it is evidence of a crime as long as there is probable cause that it is on her person.
Okay, I'll make a law. Oh wait, I have no legitimate authority with which to subject people to my law.
And of course, you have no more authority than me unless I grant it to you, so you can't impose your will on me...
Legitimate government is derived solely through a mandate from the people. Anything else is ultimately derived through force of arms. A king has no claim to power but the latter.
One thing you have to understand, this is not the school and legal system I grew up in nor my parents grew up in.
I am guessing here but what probably happened, is that the twit was cheating on her Math test. Teacher caught her. Twit hid phone. So now it is Teachers word vs hers. In my day you would get sent to Principals office, teacher would inform of infraction, and punishment would then be done, probably just a talking to or perhaps a suspension if serious enough. Now a days, if twit gets suspended, and no proof, then school gets sued by parents.
Teachers do not have right to "frisk" students. See parental suing above. So what does teacher do, call the cops and have them frisk her, find phone, proof of cheating. Normally this would end the same way where the Principle would be the one giving out punishment. However refusing to comply with a Teacher is one thing, refusing to comply with police is another. It could be that once an incident has taken place the police are obligated to follow through and have no choice. It could be that they just pissed off the officer. More likely they are just using the incident to scare the bajesus out the twit in hopes of impressing on her some respect for authority. Who knows, not enough detail to determine. Anyway it is likely the report is sensationalistic and they just want to grab a headline, odds are it is really nothing.
In short, kids and governments need spankings?
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
One thing that seems to be left out of this discussion is the perceptions of the students who observed the action. They might provide meaningful insights. At this point, it sounds like you might need a court order to oblige the student to comply; in that light involving the police might make some sense.
Spanking shouldn't be the only tool in your arsenal. I personally believe that it is an invaluable lesson to learn that your parent is willing to hurt you. Really makes you think about what "or else" might mean.
Too bad you can't swat kids with a paddle anymore. Could have punished the girl and taken her phone out all in one stroke. Problem solved.
Never argue with a man carrying a water buffalo
But those inconsiderate dickheads who insist on texting in the movie theater should be drawn and quartered.
Get this through your head - the police do not need a reason to arrest you. Being an asshole is sufficient. Or the officer having a bad day. It is a sign of childhood to challenge the rules. It is a sign of adulthood to realize that the rules don't apply to the people with guns. Don't like it? Get a gun.
I got the distinct impression that the cops had already been called by the time she had given a bunch of false numbers.
Did that remind anyone of this:
Skinner contemplates bringing the `Board of Education' out of retirement, and tells Bart to call his father. Bart calls Moe.
Bart: Hello, is Homer there?
Moe: Homer who?
Bart: Homer... Sexual.
Moe: Wait one second, let me check. [calls] Uh, Homer Sexual? Hey, come on, come on, one of you guys has got to be Homer Sexual! [guffaws from the gang] You rotten liver pot! If I ever get a hold of you, I'll sink my teeth into your cheek and rip your face off!
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
No, you shouldn't necessarily be arrested for lying to an officer. You also shouldn't be surprised if it happens.
You keep talking about morality, not law. Being "good", "right", "nice", not to mention "democratic", "rational", ... none have any bearing on whether something is legal. And no matter what you want to believe, the British government of the America colonies was as legal as any government. If you deny that, you must be an inhabitant of the Kingdom of Heaven, because no real human government is legitimate then.
Disobeying a teacher once is beyond detention or suspension, and requires police to arrest them? I'd like to know what school you went to. I think most teachers would be glad to have the child do as they are told, and not receive a detention for it! If they don't, then that's what detention is for. Suspension is for most severe troublemakers.
And the police are for people who break the law.
You're missing the point. It's not about what level of punishment is appropriate. It's since when did breaking school rules become criminal offences?
I'm from the UK, so maybe things are different there - is it really routine to call the police everytime a child breaks a rule? I mean, there are certainly things from my school days that I can see would be breaking laws, and would therefore be something you could call the police for (vandalism, bullying, violence, theft) - but even there, it was almost always dealt with by the school. So what's so special about this case that texting requires police intervention, when other cases that do involve breaking the law don't require police intervention? It makes no sense. The only thing I hope is that we're not getting the full story - but it's bizarre just how many posters here seem to think that calling the police in the described situation is perfectly normal.
You missed that I stated that the if the student had surrendered the phone to the CAMPUS OFFICER (not the teacher) it might have been just detention. If she had surrendered it to the teacher, she probably would have gotten it back at the end of class or the end of the day without further action.
As for is it routine for the police to come to campus ever time a student breaks a rule, no. But it is not quite usual for the vast majority of high schools in moderate to large cities to have a police officer on campus during school hours because parents will sue the school at the drop of a hat because their precious snowflake would never do anything wrong therefore the school/teacher/administrator is wrong. The school is protecting itself from most of the frivolous lawsuits by having the police handle anything outside of simple issues.
Yes, it's sad, but it's where we are in the US.
Why is this under idle. It really should be YRO.
is our children texting?
The teacher in a classroom is legally responsible for the safety and security of the students in his/her charge (technically "children" even if 17 years and 364 days old); and is also legally responsible to the administration to follow the rules of the school; and is also restricted by many rules of interaction with students. I urge the libertarians posting to consider how they might handle contradictory directives which can lead very quickly to immediate removal from one's job (plus, due to the nature of the job license, being forbidden to get another such job *anywhere* *ever* again). Escalation to higher authority is typically the only safe solution, and that higher authority will also take the safe road of overreacting. After all, charges can always be dropped.
And that also means legally responsible for knowing where those students are at all times. To the poster whose child stopped at the bathroom without seeking permission, you are reasonable in being annoyed that the child received a disciplinary note, but you would be HORRIFIED if a child had an asthma attack and died and nobody noticed that a child was missing until the next class change.
Being adversarial with police and other authority figures, especially when you are guaranteed to be caught in a lie, is not a particularly good tactic either. It guarantees that they have something to pin on you even if the original issue evaporates.
If I received a forced pat down followed by attempted removal of objects from under my underwear, I know *I* would be engaging in some disorderly conduct.
They went waaay overboard. An escalated response on her part was justified.
RTFA. She was only searched after she was arrested. And guess what--when you get arrested, the police are allowed to search you.
Make a scene after you are under arrest at your own peril. That's a great way to get a resisting arrest charge.
Courts have consistently ruled that police are allowed to do what is necessary to arrest someone. The time to make your case is in front of a judge--not with the arresting officer. Again: if an officer informs you that you are under arrest, you would be extremely well-advised to shut up and cooperate.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
How fsked up is that?
She wasn't fsked, or even fscked. Just frisked.
Yeah, see a couple of posts earlier. Leave the police to the ACTUAL crimes, not to someone refusing to listen to the teacher.
I am not devoid of humor.
It's a misdemeanor. Some juveniles benefit from a scary court appearance. I don't know about Wisconsin, but in some states, certain misdemeanors are wiped from record after a short period, and if she's under 16, it might be expunged after she's 18.
I need people to pour my coffee, pick up my garbage, and scrub the toilets I use each day.
I applaud their decision to opt out of education. We need to nurture people like this. We should provide them with additional distractions beyond their phone. Once they've shown a disinterest in education and the disdain for authority to go with it, we should issue them a portable game unit and a headset.
First offense, confiscate the phone and give it back at the end of the day.
Second offense, give her in detention,
I agree with you for most students, but if you read the complaint, you'll see that this girl was well-known to the arresting officer. That tells me that this kid has a severe discipline problem.
I think it's safe to assume that the school has long-since been through offense 1, offense 2, and offense 536 with this kid. I'm not surprised in the slightest that the school decided that detentions, assuming she showed up to serve her detentions at all given the ease with which she lied to a cop, were simply not getting through to her.
It's actually a lot harder than you'd think to achieve behavior-modification in kids who are that blatantly defiant. We could speculate all day about how she got to that point, but the fact still remains that someone like her represents a huge challenge to those who is responsible for her.
By way of example, what would you do if your 14-year-old kid just openly and publicly defied your authority? Let's say you were in public, in front of lots of people, and your kid loudly informs you that you are a total asshole. The instant you open your mouth to speak, he follows it with, "Shut the fuck up, dad." I've actually seen this happen before. What would you do if you were the dad whose kid just undermined and humiliated you?
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
The GP did, Grandma!
Free Martian Whores!
She didn't obey a teacher. WTF did she expect to happen these days?
Today's authorities are incompetently authoritarian. Back when I was in school (no cell phones but...) it would have been detention, or swats.
And how can a society that passes laws against disorderly conduct or "drunk and disorderly" seriously call itself a free country?
Free Martian Whores!
I don't know why spankings should be forbidden. As long as you don't abuse your kid or slap too hard there is nothing wrong with it. I think most police and judges would agree that a parent spanking their kids is authorized.
If I would have pulled something like that off with my parents (calling the cops or whatever) I would get a spanking just for doing that.
Adults these days are too afraid to do anything for fear they might end up in court. There is something definitely wrong with that since these days anything out of the ordinary will end you in jail and that is being taught to our kids by these examples (if you do anything wrong, we'll call the cops and you'll go to jail).
But that's our legal and educational system that needs an update, not our individual parenting system.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
And, just for some anecdotal evidence, I worked for 3 years in a group home for abused and emotionally disturbed children. The ones who were physically beaten seemed to have learned from their parents not how to behave properly, but that anger and violence are the way to respond to someone who does something you don't like
Like the abusers whose children you worked with, you seem to not understand the difference between a spanking and a beating.
The human hand has a whole lot of bones and a whole lot of nerves and is a delicate structure. The buttocks are mostly muscle and fat. Beating a child with a coathanger is abuse, spanking a child with the hand is not.
Your ignorance is part of what's wrong with today's society.
Free Martian Whores!
"Disorderly Conduct" also allows them to charge a person with a Misdemeanor instead of a felony, such as assault. Misdemeanors often have terms like restraining orders, fines, and community service. Felonies generally have jail time.
And you ignore the fact that the police can use it to lean on someone YOU don't like. Such as the guy who walks into a church with his boombox turned up to 11 and refuses to go away. Peeping Toms often come under the Disorderly Conduct label as well.
The definitions of Disorderly Conduct are often quite soft. Which makes it easy to charge, and much harder to prosecute.
I really wish I had mod points to mod you up and mod the GP down for your elegant retort.
That's not respect, that's fear.
Respect is when you do the right thing because it's the right thing.
Somehow, I think that a lot of our current problems stem from the fact that people can't distinguish the two.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
That's exaggeration and mis-framing of my point. I was highlighting the excessive disproportionate response, not promoting the anti-social behavior.
You're missing the point - namely, the issue is, since when does breaking a school rule constitute a criminal offence?
You ask the question, but you don't answer it.
Yes, we can have the debate on how schools can deal with children, and how effective punishments are. But are you seriously suggesting the teachers dial 999 everytime a rule is broken?
I said no such thing. I stated that there are cases where the only two choices for a teacher are to let a student get away with disrupting class continually or to call the police. Are you stating that you'd rather have no discipline in school at all than ever call in the police? (not that I think that's what you are saying, but that's about how you seem to be wording such questions at the end of your statements, inflamatory, not what I said, and making a point against a point I never made)
For heaven's sake - we're talking about texting in class, not someone who's been suspended, anyway.
We are talking about a liar that disrupted class, lied to the teacher, continued to disrupt class, lied to the additional school staff brought in, lied to them, and hid "contraband" in a location chosen to make it impossible for school officials to retreive. The school had no choice but to let a student get away with flaunting the rules, or call in someone that could legally search the student. Are you saying that anyone that gets around the rules should be rewarded?
And if you're worried about pissing off the parents, having their child arrested is probably the last thing you want to do...
Parents angry with a reason are fine. Parents angry with cause are bad (cause being a legal standing to sue).
Learn to love Alaska
Anecdotal evidence of course, but, it sure kept my young ass in line. I respected authority, I learned to avoid an ass whuppin' by doing what I was supposed to.
I'm not having much luck with google, but my kid's pediatrician told me that a certain percentage of children have a compliant nature and will respond to any discipline system. That includes corporal. There exists a good chance that you were one of those children, and would have responded to any discipline system, and that all of those whuppins were superfluous.
I've noticed too...there seems to be a steady decline of child discipline and respect for adults and authority since we stopped corporal punishment.
This has been the observation of aging adults throughout known history:
"The world is passing through troublous times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress." -- sermon preached by Peter the Hermit, 1274 A.D.
Hell, back when I grew up, it wasn't just your parents...ANY parent in the neighborhood could full well swat your ass if you acted up, and they'd call your parents (who were thankful for the help) and you'd likely get another one when you got home.
Try that today..and the parent/neighbor is a criminal....
Parents may lawfully practice corporal punishment with their own children. Personally, I am not against corporal punishment, but I am very specific about how I want it applied to my own children. I am not OK with any adult other that myself and my wife hitting my kids, but I would definitely appreciate a phone call to let me know what my kids are up to, and then let me decide if a spanking would deliver the proper message. Also, there are many parents who refuse to use corporal punishment, so I don't see how any other adult is justified in administering a whuppin on someone else's kid.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Unfortunately, the reverse is not true, as police are allowed to lie to anyone.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The kid actually got off easy. Lying to an officer is a class H felony in WI.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Your lawyer sucks.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
People, its time to pull our heads out of our asses. Absolutely! 'Cause you know, when you spank your kid, and they've got their head up their ass, it tends to give them a concussion!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I'd love to hear your answer to the GP's question.
I think you underestimate the challenge that such a grossly defiant child presents for those who must take care of her.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Strange that the link did not intrigue you enough into landing the following URL (obtainable through the URL you sent) :
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/6:Curriculum,_Conclusion
Ahhhh - the usual liberal response. "Violence is violence, and it serves no useful purpose." Although you don't say so here, I suppose that "Violence never solved anything." Having raised three sons, I have "investigated" the use of corporal punishment. Pain is indeed a teaching mechanism - in fact, a quite valuable teaching mechanism. Discarding that teaching tool as "barbaric" hobbles parents, teachers, even government. One might note that the United States has one of the highest crime rates in the world - even discounting such trivial government BS as arrests for possession of natural substances. (cannabis) Note that I DO NOT advocate "abuse". Corporal punishment should be meted out sparingly, not as a standard response every time an adult is even mildly irritated at a child's conduct.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
"Disorderly conduct" is what the cops use when they want to arrest you but can't name an actual crime. Did you honestly not know this already?
How does that matter? Whether or not the arresting officer had probable cause to make the arrest is for the court to decide after the fact. Because she was arrested, she was searched incidental to the arrest. This is standard procedure.
I hate to tell you this, son, but the school and the cops went nuclear way too soon, and have asked for a lawsuit.
Well, then their attorney would advise them that while the disorderly conduct citation stands about a 90% chance of dismissal, making false statements to an officer is a Class H Felony in WI. Might want to exercise some care regarding which boats are prudent to rock.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
"Who wants to make the grammar joke?"
Who wants to make "stuffing vibrating gadgets where the sun doesn't shine" jokes?
Despite how you feel about racial integration, it's illegal. It doesn't matter one iota your feelings, there's no "freedom to sit wherever you want on the bus". Especially since the law states otherwise.
Oh wait..... its not integration, its segregation that's illegal and that's largely due to people who willfully refused to obey the laws of the time, which they saw as unjust.
Jherico
What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"
The difference being that the officer in question has no evidence that you are lying. He can establish your speed but not your awareness of the speed. That wasn't the case in this instance. The officer had multiple accounts that conflicted with what the student was saying.
FYI, the appropriate response to 'do you know how fast you were going?' is 'how can I help you officer?'. A polite non-response to the question which neither lies nor gives up your 5th amendment rights.
Jherico
What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"
You keep talking about morality, not law.
Law must be something other than the dictates of the toughest, or we wouldn't have bothered giving it a special name. That's not morality, that common-sense. We wouldn't codify that kind of law, it just be whatever the biggest person around wanted at the moment.
And no matter what you want to believe, the British government of the America colonies was as legal as any government.
Rather, what we see as a legal government (the USA) was formed as a direct result of rebellion against the crown. We couldn't see today's government as anything other than a treasonous colony unless we acknowledged the fundamental right to rebel against that old government.
For us to feel that any rebellion is ever justified must mean that there is a measure of legitimacy other than brute force.
And seriously, what standard for illegitimate government is more obvious than "own population is trying to get away"?
If you deny that, you must be an inhabitant of the Kingdom of Heaven, because no real human government is legitimate then.
Right, no existing government is fully legitimate by any standard other than might. Some are much more legitimate than others. North Korea is towards the bottom... But they wouldn't get more legitimate if they got nukes, just more dangerous.
What, to you, other than killing power, produces a legitimate right to rule?
I see your studies, research and science, and raise you 10,000 years of what worked.
You mean the 10,000 years in which humans have generally treated each other like crap (war, abuse, slavery, sexism and racism, predominance of authoritatianism in governments and religions)?
I'm not saying you can't control people through punishment, I'm saying that the control comes through FEAR, and that generally results in 1) a lot of negative psychological effects, and 2) a lack of internalized motivation to do what one is being coerced into doing.
Sorry, spanking works. I don't give a shit what some band of idiots greedy for research grants say.
I was spanked, my parents were spanked, their parents were spanked. It works, and has worked, since forever.
You're right, I concede; anecdotal evidence is far more valid than piles of empirical research. I mistakenly thought I was on a website for geeks who place some value on the scientific method.
I know I'd certainly not turned out as well without it when I was raised. THAT was about the only thing that would get my attention. I wasn't a bad kid...but, mischievous. I didn't get that many spankings, but, the ones I got I deserved, and it certainly modified my behavior in a permanent fashion.
Do you really know you wouldn't have turned out well, though? I mean, maybe you're right, but I've noticed that most people are generally inclined to justify however they were brought up, whether it was with or without spanking. I wasn't spanked (except by one boyfriend my mom had when I was young, who spanked my brother and I maybe 2 or 3 times--I don't remember him fondly, not surprisingly) and I feel like I turned out well. I also feel like I would probably be more resentful and less compassionate toward other people if I was spanked.
But I can't say for sure; it's an educated guess. And I don't think you know for sure that your parents couldn't have come up with a set of privileges that you would have been motivated to earn and keep with "good" behavior.
One thing I do know is that I've seen even kids who were badly abused or molested justify what their parents did, and they will often say "I deserved it". So it doesn't surprise me to see someone justify being spanked a few times, even though the research suggests it's not the healthiest approach.
I guess if I were a kid today....rather than strike my behavior up to just 'being a boy'....they'd just drug me...
The quantity of medication we use, especially with kids, is highly unfortunate. IMO our biggest problem with our kids is that the knowledge of how to do things right really hasn't been passed on to the general public well enough for parents to make use of it. (And, in some cases, parents are a bit too lazy--doing things right requires planning ahead and being proactive.)
What is this fixation with a gun? I really don't see that as relevant since the weapon was not pulled, used, or threat of it's use implied. We don't even know if he had one, do we?
It was an onsite police officer - it's not like the school called the local PD and had them send someone out. They started the practice to keep discipline in the worst of cases, like kids bringing guns to school and to discourage drug trafficking.
I was surprised years ago to hear that police were now in the halls of my old high school. Back in my day, there were no cops in school. I don't think it's because times are more Orwellian, in general, but because school is more dangerous these days.
In any case, I'm not going to be so quick to judge against the school, there's more to this story than a quick newsblurb and one shot disciplinary scenario. None of us were there. I'm certainly not saying school authority is always right, but this chick sounds really obnoxious and unmanageable. I'd be pissed if I had my kid in that class and she caused that kind of disruption - and multiply that by 25 or so.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Would you rather a nation of people that are liable to kick your ass when you do something wrong, or a nation that just sits on their hands and watches as someone else does something wrong?
I'd rather a nation of people who understand the difference between a misbehaving child and a situation that actually requires violence to resolve.
Since you opened this door, lemme ask you: which was more disruptive FOR THE ENTIRE CLASS, the student texting, or the teacher making an authoritarian control issue of it and dragging police and others into the classroom? You don't seem to recognize the very real possibility that this was authoritarianism run amok. The teacher and school officials reacted emotionally to their loss of control to this "disruptive" student, got angry, and reacted very disproportionately.
People in positions of authority over others, from parents on up to emperors, as well as their enforcers by proxy, are sadly still human; their reasoning falls victim to their emotions ALL THE TIME. It shouldn't happen, but it does; this shouldn't be what we value in leaders, but all too often it actually is, because citizens are also mentally frail humans.
Sometimes "disobedience" isn't harmful to the greater good at all: sometimes it's really dissent against selfish or tyrranical authority figures doing more harm than good to the Greater Good. Disobedience and dissent are the EXACT same behaviors, the only difference being whether they have a beneficial or detrimental effect on the greater good.
I was a child basically from mid 60's - 1981 or so.....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I kinda doubt it.
You don't spank a kid first offense....My parents would tell me no...don't do that...etc.
It is after I didn't listen to them and change behavior that I got my ass spanked.
For some reason, I think many out there think that you spank as the first and only line of discipline. It is the last resort one.....after other ways fail.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Like the abusers whose children you worked with, you seem to not understand the difference between a spanking and a beating.
No, you completely missed the point. I'm not saying abuse and non-damaging corporal punishment are the same, I'm saying that the threat of pain for being bad (and, yes, most physical abuse is a (over)response to the kid being "bad"--it's not just random) generally does not result in kids gaining any kind of internal desire to be good. It results, if anything, in escape and avoidance behaviors, and often psychological problems. Obviously, there is a difference in the likelihood and degree of problems that might arise from spanking, vs. slapping, vs. punching, vs. covering someone's arm in cigarette burns.
Your ignorance is part of what's wrong with today's society.
You know, it's subtle and certainly not something you would end up in a mental hospital for, but if you were spanked then I'm not surprised that you are inclined to handle our disagreement by personally insulting me. Mild corporal punishment--mild social problems.
Anyway, I've had my share of experience with altering the behavior of kids that terrorized foster parents (not to mention my coworkers), so I suspect I'm not as ignorant as you would like to think.
Cops are allowed to lie to people, but it's somehow illegal to lie to them? Sounds like a bullshit double standard to me.
You assume incorrectly.
What would have been done when I was in school, a kid who absolutely refused to submit to school authority would likely be expelled, and then the burden would be on the parents to find another school that would take her. It happened more than a few times, though none that I remember were for anything so trivial as this incident. Also note this was long after corporal punishment had been banned in public schools (appox. 25-30 years ago). And I have absolutely no problem with that, if she won't submit to their legal authority, I think it's fair to say that they can't have keep that student on school grounds.
If she is not doing anything that would merit her arrest outside the school walls (and I don't know of any case where a cop could arrest you for not handing over your cellphone outside of suspicion it was used in a crime), I see no reason why the police needed to be involved. If she was under suspicion of hiding drugs or a gun in her asscrack, then bringing in the police is warranted, but refusing to relinquish a cellphone simply doesn't cross that threshold.
Bottom line, I did not see anything in the complaint that would have merited police involvement back when I was in school, and they seemed to handle such things pretty effectively without either the police or corporal punishment. I see no reason why this would be any different today. I'd further add that, as a taxpayer, I see this as a pitiful waste of police resources.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
I don't recall seeing research specifically on that subject. The closest thing I can think of is hearing (indirectly--I didn't see the research myself) that, in terms of crime and punishment, the chance of getting caught seems to have more of an effect on deterring crime than the severity of the potential punishment. Of course, I'm sure there's some threshold of severity that needs to be reached for someone to care about being caught; the point was being made in the context of arguing against the efficacy of capital punishment.
From a pure behavior modification standpoint, I would guess that the threat of punishment for certain behaviors (by seeing others receive the punishment) would have an effect similar to receiving the punishment oneself--escape and avoidance behaviors.
Does the rule of inclusion elude you? Fraud is performed through lying, but lying does not necessarily imply fraud.
Does context elude you? This woman was attempting to deceive for personal gain. According to wikipedia, that's fraud in general.
A few people think that lying/fraud for personal gain is okay if they can get away with it. They're sociopaths and they're likely to get caught if they make a habit of it.
---
Marketing talk is not just cheap, it has negative value. Free speech can be compromised just as much by too much noise as too little signal.
Exactly what personal gain do you believe the woman was attempting to receive? Even if she was using the phone to cheat on a test, I doubt the score on a single high school test would be enough to constitute a high enough gain to warrant a fraud charge.
Now if she was copying work off of a third party (website, etc), you may be able to use copyright fraud, but that's a bit of a push given the details supplied about the incident.
For some reason, I think many out there think that you spank as the first and only line of discipline. It is the last resort one.....after other ways fail.
Well, I think that spanking for the first offense is how it worked in the "good 'ol days", but I certainly agree that spanking for any infraction is terrible parenting.
Even you spoke about how any adult would take care of whuppin' any child who needed it. That's not how I grew up.
I was only spanked a few times as a kid, and I really can't remember any rhyme or reason for which infractions would yield a spanking. I think it was just how bad of a day my parents were having, which I also thinks sends the wrong message. The punishment should be about instructing the child, not the parent's mood.
What I've found works best with my kids, and I always have to remind folks that every child is different, so what works for my kids may not work at all for yours, is that punishments don't result in any behavior modification at all. The real behavior modification comes with teaching them how to behave in a wide variety of situations--before they are in a position of acting out.
Obviously I still use punishments, because all the instruction in the world will do nothing without enforcement. But my punishments tend to be immediate, quick, and light. It's more to call the kid's attention to the fact that he screwed up.
So after you got spanked, did you really make a concerted effort to change your behavior? Or did you just try to avoid your parents?
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
This is just another case of the same thing. If I refused to stop texting at work, I'd be fired. They couldn't call the police before even taking that step.
In America, you don't have a right to work, but you do have a right to education (at least, that is the general consensus). By that reasoning, you can be 'just fired', but not 'just expelled'.
Of course it is. It's what the legislature says it is, after going through its specifed procedures. And at the time, that legislature was the (British) parliament.
For us to feel that any rebellion is ever justified...
I give up. You are AGAIN talking about morality. Law is not morality.
I'd ask the same thing, but that's the sad state of parenting these days. There are many parents who either don't care or who actively avoid being involved in the raising of their children. There might be a connection between parents who don't keep their emergency contact information up to date and parents who don't raise their children to follow the rules.
No, as I stated, because there's no reason to assume that it would have made a difference, we shouldn't assume that it would have made a difference.
I think that's pretty fair.
This whole thing is a horrible indictment on the state of society as a whole in America at the moment.
Here in Australia this acceptance of police officers at schools and metal detectors is so... so foreign.
It absolutely comes down to creating at least some sort of respect in the classroom to begin with, and part of that is SOOOO to do with the parents.
It's a breakdown from the home onwards.
Sad
Agreed. You are not responsible for knowing where your friends are at all times. If your lawyer were good, you would have gotten a payout for false arrest on top of having all the charges dropped.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Maybe if the girl were texting death threats on that phone.... Otherwise, AFAIK, the courts have generally ruled that schools do not have the right to arbitrary searches without cause to believe that a law is being violated, and most state laws are consistent with that view. Unless a cell phone constitutes a weapon or has been used in a crime, I'd be absolutely shocked if a court considered it acceptable for a school to search someone for it. Reasonable suspicion of possessing a cell phone simply does not meet the necessary legal standards for a search.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
And at the time, that legislature was the (British) parliament.
And you assume they're a legitimate government to exercise power over who? Anyone they can through force of arms? Anyone born in the territories they claimed?
You are AGAIN talking about morality. Law is not morality.
I'm talking about legitimate government. Define that however you will. But if all legitimate means is force then you'd find North Korea to be a valid country...
Are you immune to questions?
What, to you, other than killing power, produces a legitimate right to rule?
Anyways, whatever you think makes a legitimate government is irrelevant to the original thread. At issue is the motivations of the founding fathers, who one can safely assume did not respect the king's claimed divine right to rule even if you do.
Hence my addition to the "game". They had "rejected representation" in a form they felt disenfranchising, under a foreign government whose legitimacy they didn't recognize. The piece I replied to implied their decision to opt out of the British empire was one made purely on the tax issue. If you understand their view of Britain their decision seems more understandable.
I NEVER SAID THAT.
The Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)".
It's been a long time.
And neither owning a cell phone nor texting with a cell phone are crimes.
It's been a long time.
I NEVER SAID THAT.
Then how about you actually try ANSWERING? HUH?
What would make a government legit? You keep saying some are.
Absolutely YES....!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
How, in your eyes, can someone not allowed to leave a group or stop funding all the actions of that group, be considered responsible in the same fashion, and to the same degree, as someone who signs up to take a more active part?
You're standing by and allowing it to happen. Let's for a second leave the whole libertarian foam-at-the-mouth "i'm being forced to pay taxes or they will shoot me" debate out of it and focus on the 3 other ways in which one can influence the direction a nation is headed.
1. Voting. You have 1 vote, just like every other member of the electorate, so there's only so much any single individual can do from that angle.
2. Informing and lobbying. Get the word out. Participate in protests. Create websites to provide information. Scream from rooftops. Whatever.
3. Run for office. Pretty self-explanatory.
And before everyone starts screaming...take a look at those pirate party guys in Sweden. They're not rich, they're not influential, and yet somehow they manage to have a serious impact on a political subject they feel strongly about...and all that in one of those evil socialist hippy countries in Europe. If they can do it, why can't you?
My answer would be that a good chunk of the US folks posting here on slashdot might pretend to be some sort of intellectual elite, but when push comes to shove it all boils down to simple selfish greed. It doesn't matter what's good for the country or good for the people, it matters what's good for *you*, and that's how the jackasses in washington manage to keep the country neatly divided into 2 camps, both of which house a huge chunk of people completely unwilling to what the other side has to say and find some sort of compromise in the middle.
As for the DEA officer being more responsible than someone who votes against the drug laws...what makes you think someone with his insider knowledge didn't vote against it as well? /rant
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Not on their face, but if the allegation is disorderly conduct, the tool that is used to commit the disorderly conduct is evidence. A more extreme and compelling example would be if someone was blasting an air horn continually so that class could not even proceed. The teacher cannot locate the device in the classroom but you notice this girl looking mighty uncomfortable and when she stands up she has a canister poking out her ass. Owning or operating an air horn is not a crime, but the search would be legally justified because it is evidence that she committed the disorderly conduct.
Of course this all depends on the premise that the texting was disorderly conduct. This is where we get into guessing at the details of the situation and I'd rather not. I agree with you that the posted police report could be more compelling, but I think there is probably more to it.
How many times do you suppose you were spanked before you started to behave yourself?
Do you think the spankings ended when you started behaving? Or when you reached a certain age/size?
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
You don't seem to realise how much police are used as enforcers in today's schools.
We used to give kids ritalin. Then that turned out to be immoral. Now we get cops to arrest kids.
It's been a long time.
what makes you think someone with his insider knowledge didn't vote against it as well?
I'd expect someone with actual knowledge of criminal actions by an organization to make these things known and leave the organization if they weren't fixed, not sit quietly by merely voting for someone who might act.
And as for that libertarian craziness you decry, it's only the whole problem. Even if you vote not to spend money killing people, people will come drag that money out of you. We're only lucky they don't drag us off to war anymore (we're not losing badly enough yet).
Let's say everyone got together and voted to kill you. What could someone do to avoid your anger.
Simply vote not to, but go along with the mob killing? ... ...
Campaign loudly not to, but go along in the end?
Abstain from voting claiming moral problems, but let it happen?
Say no, but end up funding killers because tax-avoidance is libertarian?
Say no. Call the police. Threaten to stand against any would-be killers?
Where in there would you say their culpability goes from shared to non-existant? Which of those would you expect from someone who didn't want you to see them as an attempted murderer?
Are you going to be satisfied that they went to a few rallies and voted no?
There are people in Iraq asking themselves this question. And innocent victims of no-knock DEA raids that targeted the wrong people, or hit the wrong house.
Perhaps their answers to the question carry a bit more weight than your dismissive ones.
Well, even a decade ago when I was in high school (and ritalin was going out like candy as a sidebar, I think more than 50% of my friends were hopped up on some behavioral modification) we were seeing the beginning of it with Columbine used as a justification for putting our school on lockdown and adding an on-site police officer. The campus was completely closed (previously, at least juniors and seniors had been allowed to leave for lunch), all the doors were locked, teachers were stationed at every corner of the hallway to look for hall passes and there were teachers patrolling the parking lot just in case you managed to slip by. This was in liberal whitebread suburbia, so we were not worried about gang violence, people weren't carrying guns around, there were no incidents to my knowledge of creepy strangers on campus. There weren't even really fights at school. The biggest event I can remember was some former student, a sadly depressed drug addict, that wrote some crap emo poetry that sympathized with the Columbine shooters (no mention of our school made, he was detained on 4/20 pretty much at the behest of the PTA, that was a pretty big civil rights travesty right there).
We have to look back to where all this started though, and you could trace almost everything to the PTA and valid concerns about liability from the school administration. I am positive that our school district would rather not have had to organize the teachers into a hall monitor militia. It's more work for them. But there were very real cases popping up where little Johnny manages to drive out for lunch, gets into a fender bender and mommy successfully sues the school or politics in the PTA for the school "allowing" Johnny to do so. It wasn't just the school either, I remember that's when movie theaters started getting anal about letting us into R-rated movies. They wouldn't even let our parents buy the tickets for us, they checked at the entrance to the theater itself to make sure us 16-year-olds had our hands held by an adult. It's to the point where kids coming into college have to be coddled like infants to make the transition from this high school environment because they had no freedom there.
It's a shitty state of affairs with kids trapped in the middle of all these "well-meaning" adults, but I am sympathetic to the reason why schools are turning more to the authorities than resolving matters internally these days.
She doesn't have to be accused of a crime to impede a police investigation. Thanks for for playing.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
You put words in my mouth and then argue with them. So just go ahead and make up the answers too. You don't need me at all.
Sure sure. What a loser. I only asked four times. It's pretty obvious you have nothing, after all you avoided ALL of my questions.
I could make up the answers, but nothing I'd make up could make you seem as dumb as you do now and I'm not sure I want to do you the favor.
I was trying to fish for what you do believe... Nobody whose name isn't Kim Yong-il thinks the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is anything but a slave camp.
And I can't imagine that you believe only the ability to perpetrate violence makes a legitimate government because I suppose you'd mind if I came by and 'governmented' your computer, TV, etc.
But you certainly don't seem to have any reasons for anything you believe. Leading me to believe that whatever you do believe you do so because your pappy done believumikated teh same stuffs, likely causa his pappy.
That's sure to find it's way to eBay.
And if the arrest was invalid, evidence collected from it will be thrown out, otherwise...
Fixed that for you, since you couldn't read "that's the catch all excuse they use when they don't have an actual crime on their hands" the first time.
Repeat K-12 and try to pick up basic reading comprehension the second time around.
Which is completely batshit irrelevant to a search and arrest, as having a cell phone is not a crime.
The cop and the school are free to kick her out of class and suspend her. They are not free to invent crimes and physically search students any time they wish.
Unlikely to merit either, as possessing a cell phone is not a crime. Unless the girl was actually engaging in "disorderly conduct" by say, screaming and getting violent during questioning, they didn't have cause to arrest and then search her.
This was just dumb on the school's part, as they could have avoided the whole mess by simply suspending her for violating school rules based on the teacher's say-so alone, and avoided the arrest drama.
But that's not a justification for an arrest and a search, as possessing cell phones is not a crime, nor is being a brat. The school should have just suspended her based on the teacher's say-so alone, as they are perfectly entitled to do. But by starting with a dubious search and arrest, they've open themselves up a lawsuit for violating her Constitutional rights.
And if the arrest was invalid, evidence collected from it will be thrown out, otherwise...
Of course it would be. That happens all the time. If an officer performs a search without probable cause, that evidence is inadmissible. What is your point?
...the cops would just arrest anyone for "disorderly conduct" with or without probable suspicion, and you'd kiss your 4th amendment rights goodbye.
This is a fair criticism, and I think it is an unfortunate, but true observation. Courts have routinely held up the privilege of officers to arrest just about anybody for any reason, with the only recourse for the victim being suppression of the improperly-obtained evidence. Every once in a while, you'll see a civil rights lawsuit succeed against the most egregious offenders, but I think you'll find that if a cop randomly arrests you with no probable cause to make the arrest, you will not find any relief in the court system.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Considering the fact that it is..
Yeah, I'd say it's the government's job, to some extent, to stop those fights (which, incidentally, seem to often be gang related?).
But I guess "boys will be boys" and "kids will be kids" and we have to "let them grow up on their own" and "do what they want to do" and not "force morality on them." If they want to beat up some other kid, why should the State are? So what if it's public property?
Parental responsibility? I'm all for it. Public schools that teach something, even if that means teaching them that beating up another school kid is not the way to get even? I'm all for that, too. And if that means arresting the kid and kicking them out of the public schools, then that's fine with me. If the kid is old enough to wail on someone with "sporting goods" then he is old enough to go to jail and/or not get free lunch at school.
Also, I do find it interesting that you claim that there's no defense to a teenager armed with "sporting goods." I'm not a parent, but I'm guessing both of our views might change a bit if it was your kid that comes home (or goes to the hospital, either way) beaten with baseball bats on the school soccer field.
Disrupting a class is a crime. You do not have a right to disrupt the class any more than you have a right to drive the wrong down a one way street. If you don't like those rules you are perfectly free to get your parents to excuse you from school.
The student was formally arrested for a crime, and her parents were notified before any search took place. The student's actions left the school administration and law enforcement authorities with little choice but to do precisely what they did.
The only reason that we are even discussing this, is that we all know that if the girl had turned over the phone voluntarily at any time before she was formally arrested that she would have got off with little more than a warning (and a confiscated phone). She called the school administration's bluff and she lost.
Disrupting a class is a crime.
Then just about everyone that's ever gone to school is a criminal. How much time did you serve in jail for chewing bubble gum or talking in class?
You do not have a right to disrupt the class any more than you have a right to drive the wrong down a one way street.
But you wont get arrested for driving down a one way street (unless you're drunk). You'll get a ticket. Just as this student have been given detention or suspended, not searched and arrested.
Stop defending authoritarianism.
OK, first off, it's "your view," not "you're view." Your is a possessive, and you're is a contraction of "you are."
Secondly, it's called civil disobedience, not "civil disorder" as you put it — that means something totally different.
If it's one thing I can't stand, it's petty moralizing and condescension from someone who can't construct a sentence. And the fact remains, just because something is illegal doesn't make the law just; by the same token, something might be perfectly legal, yet morally or ethically reprehensible.
From my understanding, they did not call up the police station to get an officer to arrest the student. They initially had a Hall Monitor/Security type interacting with the student, and when she would not cooperate, an in-school police officer was called on for further assistance. A minor point, but a difference nonetheless.