South Carolina police officer investigated after slamming student to ground at Spring Valley High

[Derec]

And, frankly, it doesn't matter why this teenager was non-compliant. The police officer assaulted her even though she posed no physical threat to anyone.

A police officer is authorized to use force to arrest a resisting subject, even if they pose no physical threat to anyone. That is not assault.

Why don't you do an experiment. Get one of those school desks, sit down somewhere where you are trespassing and resist the eventual arrest. Let's see if the cop uses force and whether anybody buys your claim that you are being assaulted.

 

[Derec]

Alright, so we've entered the point in American history where texting in class, not putting the phone away can lead to arrest? An actual arrest? And you don't find that in any way asymmetrical?

She wasn't arrested immediately. There were several steps of escalation there, and at each one of them she could have complied, even after Officer Slam was called in.

I wouldn't doubt the teen thought the guy was bluffing about arresting her. Who would possibly think that would be true?

It's generally not smart to assume a police officer is bluffing when he tells you that you will be arrested.

You know, typically teachers are hated by the right-wing. But when it comes to the use of force and putting teens in their place, they become very well aligned with the teachers.

Well I am not on the right-wing and neither do I hate teachers. That said, he didn't use force on her. He called an administrator who called the SRO in.

 

[scombrid]

A police officer is authorized to use force to arrest a resisting subject,

There are no restrictions on the amount or type of force?

 

[Derec]

There are no restrictions on the amount or type of force?

It's not like he shot her. We can debate whether tasing her or physically extracting her from the desk is more appropriate or safer but face it, either option would have caused the outrage we are experiencing right now. I mean, some posters can not even say that she did anything wrong, instead they say that anybody not misbehaving like that is a "Stepford child".

 

[AthenaAwakened]

And, frankly, it doesn't matter why this teenager was non-compliant. The police officer assaulted her even though she posed no physical threat to anyone.

A police officer is authorized to use force to arrest a resisting subject, even if they pose no physical threat to anyone. That is not assault.

Why don't you do an experiment. Get one of those school desks, sit down somewhere where you are trespassing and resist the eventual arrest. Let's see if the cop uses force and whether anybody buys your claim that you are being assaulted.

Is a thing right because it is legal?

Todd Rutherford says no.

Rutherford, who serves as the Democratic Minority Leader of the South Carolina House of Representatives, also blames a state law that allows the arrest of students who are disruptive in class.

"We passed that law several years ago and when we did arrests of students shot through the roof," he said. "They were getting arrested for everything because it meets with the statute. The statute is unconstitutionally broad, and everyone knows it. The legislature needs to take action, and make sure our students are not the targets of rogue police officers called “Officer Slam” who are going to walk in and brutalize them at a moment’s notice."

Rutherford says he is calling for a change in policy and policing in South Carolina.

"School Resource Officers are there to protect the children from outsiders. To protect the children from threats that involve guns and knives. Not because they’re not getting out of their chair when a student asks them to do so," he said. "Law enforcement officers simply need to establish a line that they can not cross. Unfortunately that line is blurry, and it leads a lot of people to believe that if you don’t do exactly what a law enforcement officer asks, that he gets to brutalize you and beat you up in front of other people. And that’s not true."

http://www.wltx.com/story/news/loca...eputy-video-has-cast-other-injuries/74735608/

 

[ksen]

And, frankly, it doesn't matter why this teenager was non-compliant. The police officer assaulted her even though she posed no physical threat to anyone.

A police officer is authorized to use force to arrest a resisting subject, even if they pose no physical threat to anyone. That is not assault.

Why don't you do an experiment. Get one of those school desks, sit down somewhere where you are trespassing and resist the eventual arrest. Let's see if the cop uses force and whether anybody buys your claim that you are being assaulted.

Why don't you do an experiment: stop posting.

 

[Derec]

Todd Rutherford says no.

So is he her lawyer now in addition to being in the legislature? Or is he just commenting on the story?

Rutherford, who serves as the Democratic Minority Leader of the South Carolina House of Representatives, also blames a state law that allows the arrest of students who are disruptive in class.

So arresting her is perfectly legal. You can't blame the guy for not conforming to the law as you want it to be.

- - - Updated - - -

Why don't you do an experiment: stop posting.

After you.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

There are no restrictions on the amount or type of force?

It's not like he shot her. We can debate whether tasing her or physically extracting her from the desk is more appropriate or safer but face it, either option would have caused the outrage we are experiencing right now. I mean, some posters can not even say that she did anything wrong, instead they say that anybody not misbehaving like that is a "Stepford child".

And who said that?

Who said, and I quote, "that anybody not misbehaving like that is a 'Stepford child'"

Those exact words, and in a context that backs up those exact words.

Show it or STFU.

Oh, and don't get upset. "It's not like I shot you."

- - - Updated - - -

So is he her lawyer now in addition to being in the legislature? Or is he just commenting on the story?

Rutherford, who serves as the Democratic Minority Leader of the South Carolina House of Representatives, also blames a state law that allows the arrest of students who are disruptive in class.

So arresting her is perfectly legal. You can't blame the guy for not conforming to the law as you want it to be.

- - - Updated - - -

Why don't you do an experiment: stop posting.

After you.

Derec,

is a thing right because it is legal?

Scared to answer?

 

[Derec]

And who said that?

It was actually you who made reference to "Stepford children".

Who said, and I quote, "that anybody not misbehaving like that is a 'Stepford child'"

Those exact words, and in a context that backs up those exact words.

Your exact words were

because kids across all social strata have bad days, have behavioral issues, and feel the need to assert themselves.

Because kids in the REAL WORLD are not STEPFORD CHILDREN

I.e. if you are not "asserting yourself" through misbehaving to the extent that an administrator calls the SRO in you are a "Stepford child".

So you stand by that or do you think this girl did anything wrong?

is a thing right because it is legal?

Not necessarily. But you can't blame a SRO for following the law either even if you think the law is wrong.
Also, a politician being against the law doesn't necessarily make the law wrong either.

 

[Rhea]

There are no restrictions on the amount or type of force?

It's not like he shot her. We can debate whether tasing her or physically extracting her from the desk is more appropriate or safer but face it, either option would have caused the outrage we are experiencing right now. I mean, some posters can not even say that she did anything wrong, instead they say that anybody not misbehaving like that is a "Stepford child".

It's true. I cannot say that I think texting in a classroom is a matter that should result in an arrest. And therefore any argument that using force in an arrest is reasonable doesn't apply.

 

[Rhea]

Rutherford, who serves as the Democratic Minority Leader of the South Carolina House of Representatives, also blames a state law that allows the arrest of students who are disruptive in class.

So arresting her is perfectly legal. You can't blame the guy for not conforming to the law as you want it to be.

is a thing right because it is legal?

Not necessarily. But you can't blame a SRO for following the law either even if you think the law is wrong.
Also, a politician being against the law doesn't necessarily make the law wrong either.

Did he actually say, "you are under arrest for disrupting a classroom?"

And really, did SHE disrupt that classroom? Or did the teacher? And if so, perhaps the SRO arrested the wrong person? All she did was text. Is that "disrupting a classroom" now?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There are no restrictions on the amount or type of force?

It's not like he shot her.

And there you have it. A post I made in jest, actually made seriously by Derec.

We can debate whether tasing her or physically extracting her from the desk is more appropriate or safer but face it, either option would have caused the outrage we are experiencing right now.

Yes because the student wasn't causing much of a distraction and didn't need to be forceably removed from the classroom in the first place.

I mean, some posters can not even say that she did anything wrong...

Who?

 

[Derec]

Who?

Those who say that not misbehaving makes one a "Stepford child" or those who say that the teacher should have been arrested instead.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

It was actually you who made reference to "Stepford children".

Who said, and I quote, "that anybody not misbehaving like that is a 'Stepford child'"

Those exact words, and in a context that backs up those exact words.

Your exact words were

because kids across all social strata have bad days, have behavioral issues, and feel the need to assert themselves.

Because kids in the REAL WORLD are not STEPFORD CHILDREN

I.e. if you are not "asserting yourself" through misbehaving to the extent that an administrator calls the SRO in you are a "Stepford child".

So you stand by that or do you think this girl did anything wrong?

is a thing right because it is legal?

Not necessarily. But you can't blame a SRO for following the law either even if you think the law is wrong.
Also, a politician being against the law doesn't necessarily make the law wrong either.

READ WHAT I SAID!!!

I did not AS YOU STATED say that "that anybody not misbehaving like that is a 'Stepford child'"

So what you said was an untruth.

Quote me fine, but do not lie about what I said.

I did not call anyone a stepford child. IN FACT what i said was that kids in the real world WERE NOT stepford children, which is the exact opposite. But that may too complicated a statement for you to understand.

I stand by what I said. maybe it is you who need step back since you are the one calling kids in the real world stepford children.

And yeah, I can blame a SRO for following a bad law, just as I blame Mississippi State troopers on that bridge in Selma for trampling people under horses' hooves simply because they wanted their rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Minority Leader in the State House of Representatives being against a law doesn't necessarily make the law right either.

 

[Rhea]

Who?

Those who say that not misbehaving makes one a "Stepford child" or those who say that the teacher should have been arrested instead.

You are incorrect to conclude that is a statement that she did "nothing wrong."

I have said she did nothing worthy of an arrest for disrupting a classroom.
Yes it was wrong to text. No it does not rise to the level of "disrupting a classroom."

Saying the teacher should have been arrested instead was (obviously) a look at who did the "disrupting" which is the wrong action that (foolishly) rises to the level of an arrestable offense.

Nice straw man.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It was actually you who made reference to "Stepford children".

Who said, and I quote, "that anybody not misbehaving like that is a 'Stepford child'"

Those exact words, and in a context that backs up those exact words.

Your exact words were

because kids across all social strata have bad days, have behavioral issues, and feel the need to assert themselves.

Because kids in the REAL WORLD are not STEPFORD CHILDREN

I.e. if you are not "asserting yourself" through misbehaving to the extent that an administrator calls the SRO in you are a "Stepford child".

So you stand by that or do you think this girl did anything wrong?

AA's statement was pretty clear. Teens will be teens. That doesn't excuse it, but what it does it establish certain thresholds of what their behavior will entail and teachers should know how best to deal with different behaviors. AA has made no statement indicating the student may not be subject to punishment for texting in class and ignoring the teacher.

 

[Derec]

AA's statement was pretty clear. Teens will be teens. That doesn't excuse it, but what it does it establish certain thresholds of what their behavior will entail and teachers should know how best to deal with different behaviors. AA has made no statement indicating the student may not be subject to punishment for texting in class and ignoring the teacher.

Is that true Athena? Do you think the student should be facing consequences for her non-Stepfordish assertiveness?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Those who say that not misbehaving makes one a "Stepford child" or those who say that the teacher should have been arrested instead.

You are incorrect to conclude that is a statement that she did "nothing wrong."

I have said she did nothing worthy of an arrest for disrupting a classroom.
Yes it was wrong to text. No it does not rise to the level of "disrupting a classroom."

Saying the teacher should have been arrested instead was (obviously) a look at who did the "disrupting" which is the wrong action that (foolishly) rises to the level of an arrestable offense.

I can't even believe we are going here.

Texting in class isn't being "disruptive" in a classroom. That doesn't make it okay. However, a class can go on without much of a bump due to texting.

Yelling out loud, starting fights, throwing things, those are disrupting the classroom and class is difficult to continue until and the disruption must be dealt with.

A teacher can deal with a texter without disrupting the class (it would appear the teacher was the one who was disruptive). You can give a detention, pull the student aside after class, any number of things... after class.

- - - Updated - - -

AA's statement was pretty clear. Teens will be teens. That doesn't excuse it, but what it does it establish certain thresholds of what their behavior will entail and teachers should know how best to deal with different behaviors. AA has made no statement indicating the student may not be subject to punishment for texting in class and ignoring the teacher.

Is that true Athena? Do you think the student should be facing consequences for her non-Stepfordish assertiveness?

The punishment would be in context with the conditions at the time. If the student had recently lost her mother and was now in foster care, the teacher's response should be different than if the student is continually dismissive of the teacher and shows little interest in class.

Context, you should look the fucking word up.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Derec,
I for one am shocked by your insistance that the officer is blameless and should not have been fired. What is it that you harboring to take such a position? Especially since this officer has a history of such behavior. There are many more important things out there to champion. Why chose this one?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

AA's statement was pretty clear. Teens will be teens. That doesn't excuse it, but what it does it establish certain thresholds of what their behavior will entail and teachers should know how best to deal with different behaviors. AA has made no statement indicating the student may not be subject to punishment for texting in class and ignoring the teacher.

Is that true Athena? Do you think the student should be facing consequences for her non-Stepfordish assertiveness?

I know you have never sat behind the big desk with many pencils.

I have.

Here is what you do

You talk to the student, you take the phone

You write the student up

Depending on the rules in the Student Handbook, The student is punished accordingly.

YOU DON'T CALL THE SRO, YOU DON'T THROW THE STUDENT.