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

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The sort of schools the leftists on here are arguing for--where nothing is done about misbehavior.

Maybe you can point out the posts containing such advocacy.

You should join me in holding my breath waiting for him to cite something.

 

[ksen]

reported for advocating suicide

 

[braces_for_impact]

John Pavlovitz, as he often does, sums up my thoughts so well in THIS short article.

It's entitled: "Ben Fields and Many Adults Need A Refresher Course in Being Adults."

I’ve heard all sorts of creative justifications for the classroom body slamming of a 16-year old girl by Deputy Ben Fields; criticizing the student for being rude, disrespectful, and uncooperative (as if such things somehow merit what came to her this week.)

And they’re all flat-out wrong.

Let’s be clear: even if the young girl was acting immature and disruptive and defiant, this is still not a matter of two parties equally guilty of wrongdoing.

This is an unarmed, nonviolent, non-threatening teenage girl doing what troubled teenagers sometimes do (testing adults and posturing for her peers) and an armed, muscle-bound man three times her age, assaulting her because he felt his manhood challenged in public—and his manhood came up short.

I don’t care how “bad” this student wanted to show she was with her attitude and her disrespect, Officer Fields doesn’t get to show her how bad he is, by tossing her across the room like an unwanted stuffed animal. If you believe he does, I’m going to question your maturity, your humanity, and your sense of decency.

One of the saddest things to surface this week is the alarming number of adults who have determined that this 16-year old somehow “deserved what she got”, many of these folks themselves parents. It’s astounding to me that we can be so cavalier and callous with someone else’s daughter.

Well done, John.

 

[atrib]

Most reasonable people will agree that violence is not an appropriate method of disciplining an unhappy teenager who is refusing to comply with the instructions of a teacher or security guard/police, but does not pose a threat to the well being of anyone around them. Then there a few who seem to believe that forcefully throwing said teenager to the floor and dragging her across the room is not just appropriate, it is well deserved. They assert that orders from an authority figure MUST always be obeyed, and any refusal to comply with the instructions of an authority figure can and should be dealt with with violence. Not surprisingly, these are the same people who claim lethal force is justifiable and even preferable against any person who may be refusing an order, lawful or otherwise, from a police officer, whether said person actually poses a grave risk to the officer or the general public or not.

I don't believe it is possible to have any kind of meaningful conversation about this subject with people who so obviously lack any semblance of empathy for their fellow human beings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My wife was one of the rare teachers who could get even the most troublesome children to obey. She taught me many things about children, including what teachers get wrong. Her rules were simple: give them the expected consequences for not following the rules, and ALWAYS follow through. Never get down to their level and argue, or 'negotiate' punishment, or let them off because they beg for an exception.

Yup--childrearing 101, but an awful lot of parents don't seem to understand this basic formula.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Max,
She was not pasive agressive. There was no agreeing to do what was asked of her and no hidden agression. I know because as an Upper Midwesterner passive agressiveness is part of our culture.

No, she was active aggressive--striking the officer.

A video that shows it, albeit not clearly (you'll need to run it in super slow motion):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3T5yVBz5j4

and there's a third we haven't seen yet. Listen to the sheriff:

http://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily/watc...isturbing-553138755716?cid=sm_fb_msnbc_native

Beyond his babbling he does say there's a video from another angle that shows the girl striking him.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

My wife was one of the rare teachers who could get even the most troublesome children to obey. She taught me many things about children, including what teachers get wrong. Her rules were simple: give them the expected consequences for not following the rules, and ALWAYS follow through. Never get down to their level and argue, or 'negotiate' punishment, or let them off because they beg for an exception.

Yup--childrearing 101, but an awful lot of parents don't seem to understand this basic formula.

Thank god neither of you were my parents.

 

[zorq]

Max,
She was not pasive agressive. There was no agreeing to do what was asked of her and no hidden agression. I know because as an Upper Midwesterner passive agressiveness is part of our culture.

No, she was active aggressive--striking the officer.

A video that shows it, albeit not clearly (you'll need to run it in super slow motion):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3T5yVBz5j4

and there's a third we haven't seen yet. Listen to the sheriff:

http://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily/watc...isturbing-553138755716?cid=sm_fb_msnbc_native

Beyond his babbling he does say there's a video from another angle that shows the girl striking him.

The video shows the SRO trying to pick up the girl by her neck. We had a form of execution that involved suspending people by the neck and quite a few suicides are still accomplished that way.

The resistance we see the girl engaged in at this point in the video might easily be explained as self defense against a threat on her life.

 

[ksen]

guys, remember, those kent state thugs had it coming

 

[Toni]

Yup--childrearing 101, but an awful lot of parents don't seem to understand this basic formula.

Thank god neither of you were my parents.

Thank god neither of them were anybody's parents.

 

[abaddon]

guys, remember, those kent state thugs had it coming

Couple weeks ago I saw a documentary on Kent State. It made me think of these sorts of threads here. One woman, interviewed on the street just days after the shooting, said “I only wish they shot more of them!" Was she a sociopath? Nah, actually at that time that kind of sentiment was shared by over half the nation.

Teens, blacks, protesters and foreign hordes is what scares these certain sorts. Yes there's a repugnant lack of empathy but it's from abstracting things to where a principle (like Order, Tradition, Duty) takes over all other concerns.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

"You know who else didn't believe in exceptions? The Nazis." --Ben Carson

 

[maxparrish]

John Pavlovitz, as he often does, sums up my thoughts so well in THIS short article.

It's entitled: "Ben Fields and Many Adults Need A Refresher Course in Being Adults."

Let’s be clear: even if the young girl was acting immature and disruptive and defiant, this is still not a matter of two parties equally guilty of wrongdoing.

This is an unarmed, nonviolent, non-threatening teenage girl doing what troubled teenagers sometimes do (testing adults and posturing for her peers) and an armed, muscle-bound man three times her age, assaulting her because he felt his manhood challenged in public—and his manhood came up short.

You present the court with an author who thinks his mix of hostile characterizations, baseless assumptions, loaded speculation on motives, and his occasional use of fact will be mistaken for a coherent argument - it won't.

It is a fact that she was unarmed and did not physically threaten a person.
It is a fact that he had a sidearm.
It is a fact that he had muscles.
It is a fact he was 3.0 times older.

None of these "facts" are relevant to the accusation of actual wrong doing, other than as the tiresome prejudicial red herring - the alluding to a person's looks as "evidence" of wrong doing is disreputable ploy...equivalent to a prosecutor telling a jury "Look at guy with muscles, a gun, and his age...doesn't he look like someone who assaulted the victim without a legal justification?"

Out of order Counselor. Continuing...

It is unsupported and speculative that she was nonviolent - there is some evidence of her hitting the defendant.
It is unsupported prejudicial speculation that she was troubled, or that her purpose was to test authority.
It is an unsupported prejudicial speculation for the author to claim to know what he felt regarding his manhood.
Is is an unsupported, hostile, and a prejudicial characterization that his manhood came up short.

The author "asserts personal knowledge of facts in an issue", where he has no such knowledge. He just makes it up.

Out of order again, Counselor.

I don’t care how “bad” this student wanted to show she was with her attitude and her disrespect, Officer Fields doesn’t get to show her how bad he is, by tossing her across the room like an unwanted stuffed animal. If you believe he does, I’m going to question your maturity, your humanity, and your sense of decency.

The author tells us his feelings about not caring how bad she was (etc), as if emoting is a form of self-validation. Irrelevant.
The author then makes more unsupported and prejudicial inferences about the Officers desire to show how bad he is. Irrelevant.
The author makes the claim that "he (the officer) does not get to" do things that the author has yet to prove he did, using more lurid, exaggerated, and prejudicial characterizations.
The author does not bother to show what an officer legally can/cannot do.
Finally the author expresses his personal contempt of those who disagree - giving us a rhetorical table pounding over "humanity", "decency", etc. (He left out a defense of "the American Way")

Out of order again...sigh.

One of the saddest things to surface this week is the alarming number of adults who have determined that this 16-year old somehow “deserved what she got”, many of these folks themselves parents. It’s astounding to me that we can be so cavalier and callous with someone else’s daughter.

The author seems to think his indignity and disbelief, combined with astonishment, is a form of argument. And then he accuses "we" of being so cavalier and callous because "we" disagree.

Counselor, why did you present this diatribe as "evidence". There is nothing there but histrionics, speculation, mind reading, dubious facts, and legal ignorance of the meaning of assault. Is there a rule of reason, evidence, and debate your author does not violate? Appeals to prejudice, the introduction of facts and speculations outside the scope of the issue, unsupported statements of material fact, attacks on the inhumanity those who disagree, mind reading, and various other ploys are the sort of thing that gets a lawyer disbarred.

In my court, it is merely laughed at.

Dismissed.

 

[bilby]

John Pavlovitz, as he often does, sums up my thoughts so well in THIS short article.

It's entitled: "Ben Fields and Many Adults Need A Refresher Course in Being Adults."

You present the court with an author who thinks his mix of hostile characterizations, baseless assumptions, loaded speculation on motives, and his occasional use of fact will be mistaken for a coherent argument - it won't.

It is a fact that she was unarmed and did not physically threaten a person.
It is a fact that he had a sidearm.
It is a fact that he had muscles.
It is a fact he was 3.0 times older.

None of these "facts" are relevant to the accusation of actual wrong doing, other than as the tiresome prejudicial red herring - the alluding to a person's looks as "evidence" of wrong doing is disreputable ploy...equivalent to a prosecutor telling a jury "Look at guy with muscles, a gun, and his age...doesn't he look like someone who assaulted the victim without a legal justification?"

Out of order Counselor. Continuing...

It is unsupported and speculative that she was nonviolent - there is some evidence of her hitting the defendant.
It is unsupported prejudicial speculation that she was troubled, or that her purpose was to test authority.
It is an unsupported prejudicial speculation for the author to claim to know what he felt regarding his manhood.
Is is an unsupported, hostile, and a prejudicial characterization that his manhood came up short.

The author "asserts personal knowledge of facts in an issue", where he has no such knowledge. He just makes it up.

Out of order again, Counselor.

I don’t care how “bad” this student wanted to show she was with her attitude and her disrespect, Officer Fields doesn’t get to show her how bad he is, by tossing her across the room like an unwanted stuffed animal. If you believe he does, I’m going to question your maturity, your humanity, and your sense of decency.

The author tells us his feelings about not caring how bad she was (etc), as if emoting is a form of self-validation. Irrelevant.
The author then makes more unsupported and prejudicial inferences about the Officers desire to show how bad he is. Irrelevant.
The author makes the claim that "he (the officer) does not get to" do things that the author has yet to prove he did, using more lurid, exaggerated, and prejudicial characterizations.
The author does not bother to show what an officer legally can/cannot do.
Finally the author expresses his personal contempt of those who disagree - giving us a rhetorical table pounding over "humanity", "decency", etc. (He left out a defense of "the American Way")

Out of order again...sigh.

One of the saddest things to surface this week is the alarming number of adults who have determined that this 16-year old somehow “deserved what she got”, many of these folks themselves parents. It’s astounding to me that we can be so cavalier and callous with someone else’s daughter.

The author seems to think his indignity and disbelief, combined with astonishment, is a form of argument. And then he accuses "we" of being so cavalier and callous because "we" disagree.

Counselor, why did you present this diatribe as "evidence". There is nothing there but histrionics, speculation, mind reading, dubious facts, and legal ignorance of the meaning of assault. Is there a rule of reason, evidence, and debate your author does not violate? Appeals to prejudice, the introduction of facts and speculations outside the scope of the issue, unsupported statements of material fact, attacks on the inhumanity those who disagree, mind reading, and various other ploys are the sort of thing that gets a lawyer disbarred.

In my court, it is merely laughed at.

Dismissed.

Who died and made you Judge?

You are outside your jurisdiction, and your presumption in taking the bench is arrogant in the extreme.

Dismissed yourself.

 

[Arctish]

Where is the evidence she hit the SRO? Did it happen before or after he grabbed her?

If she 'hit' him as he was flipping her chair over, or as he was reaching for her so he could fling her across the room, that doesn't count as an attack. That would be a defensive action, and probably a reflexive one, too.

If it happened before he made his move to forcibly eject her from her desk, then it counts as evidence she was being uppity a punk had an attitude aggressive at some point. But it's not apparent she was aggressive at any time in the video I saw, so you'll have to point out where it happened.

 

[abaddon]

Where is the evidence she hit the SRO? Did it happen before or after he grabbed her?

After. She first grasped the wrist that was wrapped around her neck, then as he lifted her that hand went up and struck his neck.

 

[maxparrish]

But as you repeatedly ask for my background I will relent.
[...]
I am very aware that there are many methods of getting compliance, and have been in several classrooms where the teacher has serious authority. On the other hand, I have also seen or heard of classes where the "special ed" students (the emotionally troubled sections) are in chaos...with students throwing desks and the teacher being little more than a hands off zoo keeper.

Yet, in my wife's last elementary school, in spite of an excellent teaching staff (mostly african American teachers) there was always several times a year that the police had to be called. And even my wife had a knife put to her throat and threatened with death by a defiant 15 year old student.

So yes...sometimes force is needed - not every child or school is from "Leave it to Beaver" or "The Brady Bunch".

Well that is quite a lot of detail and I appreciate the insight very much. Genuine thanks for sharing what forms your POV.

It's surprises me a little that you and I are not on the same page. Because I'm reading about an experience that shows non-police, non-physical discipline is quite effective and can be used in the vast majority of cases, and only in extreme cases - which do happen, but are not every case - require an actual arrest of physical interaction.

And then I thought I saw you arguing here that physical force was necessary over a cell phone text. THIS LEVEL of physical force.

To me, your experience matches my knowledge and my conclusion is different. There is no way this case was one of the ones that needed a police officer, and once called, no way he needed to act as he did.

Most times force is not needed IF teachers are highly skilled. However, sometimes even the best teacher is out of options. In my experience, and from the many stories from my wife, it is rare that in the face of an administrator a child will remain stubbornly defiant. Most times when you told a child to "go to the timeout" room they did (of course, attendent with much protest and pleading).

But even the adult administrator cannot physically engage a child. In the end, usually once or twice a year, the police came to handcuff the child and haul his/her ass away...and this was a school where the maximum grade level was 6th.

This girl was determined to make her own rules, and refused to leave. Perhaps 'a slip' might have worked, or perhaps she would ignore it's discipline and return the next day as she pleased. I am not saying that it was not worth trying. But I am saying that once the school decided she was not to be in their classroom (or on their property), an officer of the law has the right and duty to remove a person from part or the whole of the property.

It isn't a difficult concept. People ask police to enforce the law of property and trespass all the time. It does not matter if a girl, boy, woman, or man is asked by a legal authority to leave someone's house, a mall, a store in a mall, a stadium, or a government building the next step is physical force - it is inherent to making people follow lawful rules.

Why is a shock that a basic institution, conceived and ran to use its legal social monopoly on the use of force, actually does so?

There is no difference between using force on her, than it is for tossing any bar drunk, home squatter, or rowdy fan. She is not special because she is 15.

 

[abaddon]

She is not special because she is 15.

Why not?

 

[maxparrish]

She is not special because she is 15.

Why not?

Because equality under the law, and equal treatment, is the general rule of law...unless otherwise excepted. She can be arrested, tried, and sentenced as an adult...the only punishment "special treatment" is that as a minor, she cannot be executed.

 

[Arctish]

This girl was determined to make her own rules, and refused to leave.

You believe the girl was determined to make her own rules. You don't actually know her frame of mind. She might have simply wanted to get on with class and be left alone.

Perhaps 'a slip' might have worked, or perhaps she would ignore it's discipline and return the next day as she pleased. I am not saying that it was not worth trying. But I am saying that once the school decided she was not to be in their classroom (or on their property), an officer of the law has the right and duty to remove a person from part or the whole of the property.

But this is the crux of the dispute. Giving her a detention slip might have worked and it was worth trying. Immediately resorting to the nuclear option when met with token resistance was a huge mistake, and the violent treatment of the student for the very minor offense of refusing to stand up was inexcusable.

It isn't a difficult concept. People ask police to enforce the law of property and trespass all the time. It does not matter if a girl, boy, woman, or man is asked by a legal authority to leave someone's house, a mall, a store in a mall, a stadium, or a government building the next step is physical force - it is inherent to making people follow lawful rules.

Yes, we ask them to enforce the rules. And we provide them with guidelines and training on how to do that effectively and with the least amount of danger to themselves and others. We do not give them carte blanche to manhandle citizens, especially not the juvenile ones.