South Carolina High School Student Dragged From Class

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

So it would be fine just to shoot everyone and arrest no one, wouldn't it? That would offer the quickest result with the least danger to the officer and third parties, and those are the only criteria that matter, according to you.

Security-think, which is what I call the value-set you commonly favor us with here, is basically driven by the criminal = enemy equation, with the instinctive motivation to destroy enemies utterly trumping all other considerations. The ideology concerns itself almost exclusively with technique with the goals of the technique hardly ever questioned, and thus an institutional bias toward brutality becomes codified. The liberal individual rights philosophy embodied in our constitution, that would hold that 'subjects' in the field have rights, and that their welfare matters, is simply off the radar, not a consideration.

I mean, Ike, do you see any drawback to the 'shoot them all' strategy, other than certain hassles with the legacy legal system?

Well, this entire diatribe merely highlights a lack of training in the particular field as well as a well codified misunderstanding of how firearms (not nearly as lethal as you might believe), safety (personal and professional), risk (measurement) and legal culpability (exposure) exist in the Real World.

Security-think is a thing, a thing I favour in warfare, but the fact that officers bother to arrest stands as inherent evidence that it is not utilized as an in-house remedy to crime.

The crux of the matter rests in power to arrest. Once a decision to arrest has been made using a variety of criteria, then doing so as quickly as possible with as little risk evidenced to multiple categories is justified. The more potential risk in the arrest? The more you can bring The Heat(tm). Surrounded by students? Proverbially? Nuke'em. Overwhelm the arrestee. Win. Fast.

That's so easily justified as to not be worth discussing.

Unless you don't believe an arrest necessary after dismissing prior levels of compliance...

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by barbara

I'm taking issue for the reason of accuracy.

In other words you're saying my daughter doesn't know shit about what it's like to be a teacher.

Well maybe you're right Barb.

She's only been teaching for five years.

I'm sure that's nowhere near as long as someone old enough to be your sister.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Boreas

So, tell me this. What justifies the cop's decision to arrest in the first place? What felony or misdemeanor had the girl committed? Given the decision to arrest her, what indications were there in her demeanor that a more tempered response would lead to increased danger?

Please answer, Zeke.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Please answer, Zeke.

Sure.

At this point, you're not reading response beyond compliance due to multiple reports (at least two levels) of prior disruption from empowered scholastic officials.

No immediate compliance with empowered (now up to three tiers) direction = arrest.

Done deal.

Arrest equals as quickly, overwhelmingly, decidedly and immediate as possible.

[barbara]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

In other words you're saying my daughter doesn't know shit about what it's like to be a teacher.



Well maybe you're right Barb.



She's only been teaching for five years.



I'm sure that's nowhere near as long as someone old enough to be your sister.

No, again you have poor reading comprehension.

I'm tired of playing the tutor for someone that is so darn smart. 😉

Scroll back and you will see that you stated an inaccuracy and I corrected you.

I also pointed out that none of us really know the full circumstances since none of us were there and all of our opinions are just opinions without all the facts.

[Tom Joad]

I talked to my daughter.

She convinced me that schools today are much worse for disciplinary problems than they were in my day, or hers (she's 35). She also convinced me that the girl was being an obnoxious brat and deserved to be removed from class. However she also said that Officer Slam's actions were way way out of line and that he made it harder for everyone else that has to deal with disruptive students.

Apparently it's not unusual for kids to be removed from class. She had to remove one today. She just told him to get out and then pushed some button that brings an administrator to come get him. He left the class without resisting, but was cursing her on the way out.

And last week the resource officer escorted a girl that had brought a knife to school out to a waiting police car, again without violence.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by barbara

No, again you have poor reading comprehension.

I'm tired of playing the tutor for someone that is so darn smart. 😉

Scroll back and you will see that you stated an inaccuracy and I corrected you.

I also pointed out that none of us really know the full circumstances since none of us were there and all of our opinions are just opinions without all the facts.

That's it.

I've had it.

I'm going to call Officer Slam to deal with you.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Sure.

At this point, you're not reading response beyond compliance due to multiple reports (at least two levels) of prior disruption from empowered scholastic officials.

I realize you didn't intend this but you just said it in exactly the correct way. The disruption was indeed from the officials. The first was the teacher who escalated the situation by demanding that the girl leave the classroom [i]after the girl had complied by putting her phone away. The second official, the principal, escalated the situation by calling the resource officer.

It should also be noted that the resource officer escalated the situation even further by assaulting the student. We heard his side of the conversation. All he did was order her to stand up or he's make her stand up.He did nothing to try to defuse the situation. He could have said, "Look, (girl's name), you know how this works. If you don't get up and come with me, I'm going to have to arrest you. Neither one of us wants that."

Would it have worked? Maybe or maybe not but it should have been tried. Fields took a school disciplinary matter and turned it into a violent confrontation all by himself.

So now, Fields has lost his job, he'll probably get sued. So will the school and the sheriff's department.

Brilliant.

You still only halfway answered one of my questions.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

And last week the resource officer escorted a girl that had brought a knife to school out to a waiting police car, again without violence.

That's what the resource officers are supposed to be for, not manhandling pouty young girls.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I realize you didn't intend this but you just said it in exactly the correct way. The disruption was indeed from the officials. The first was the teacher who escalated the situation by demanding that the girl leave the classroom [i]after the girl had complied by putting her phone away. The second official, the principal, escalated the situation by calling the resource officer.

It should also be noted that the resource officer escalated the situation even further by assaulting the student. We heard his side of the conversation. All he did was order her to stand up or he's make her stand up.He did nothing to try to defuse the situation. He could have said, "Look, (girl's name), you know how this works. If you don't get up and come with me, I'm going to have to arrest you. Neither one of us wants that."

Would it have worked? Maybe or maybe not but it should have been tried. Fields took a school disciplinary matter and turned it into a violent confrontation all by himself.

So now, Fields has lost his job, he'll probably get sued. So will the school and the sheriff's department.

Brilliant.

You still only halfway answered one of my questions.

The "disruption" was caused by THE STUDENT failing to comply, twice, not by any officials. Not complying with the officer -- ostensibly a crime unto itself if summoned due to disturbance -- was third. (If Vicodin made me unclear, I apologize.)

What's to answer? Failure to comply = arrest. Arrest, among potentially vulnerable minors, is to be accomplished immediately and with overwhelming force.

No issue, move along...