SC - Columbia - Sheriff Slams Female Student to Floor In Class

[vestigare]

Agreed, and to To say a school can call in LEO or make arbitrary demands because they are loco parenti and children have no rights....

Baffling.

We need to stop treating children like property and treat them like human beings who are expected to grow up to be productive members of society. And the way we treat them directly influences how they develope into adulthood.

A parent telling a child that they must take ballet classes has NOTHING whatsoever to do with whether or not a school-age child should be subjected to a violent assault by an SRO for refusing to leave a classroom.

This discussion has NOTHING to do with whether or not a school-age child has adult rights.

This discussion is about whether or not a school-age child should be violently assaulted for refusing to leave a classroom.

 

[JeannaT]

That's like saying employees don't have constitutional rights because while at work they can't come and go as they please, or say whatever they wish.

Employees can come and go as they please, as long as they aren't military. In which case, they can't come and go as they please legally. But civilian employees can come and go without legal consequences. They might be fired, but that's not a legal issue. That's not a case for the courts.

 

[vestigare]

And when a child comes and goes as they please what is the parental recourse?

Employees can come and go as they please, as long as they aren't military. In which case, they can't come and go as they please legally. But civilian employees can come and go without legal consequences. They might be fired, but that's not a legal issue. That's not a case for the courts.

 

[JeannaT]

And when a child comes and goes as they please what is the parental recourse?

Parents can't allow that, under law. If neighbors notice a child comes and goes as they please, with no parental supervision, they will be visited by CPS.

A parent who wishes a child not to come and go as he pleases has the right to lock doors, put super locks on them, and punish the child who decides to violate that.

Why am I being asked all these crazy questions? These are certainly things everyone knows. SURELY, you know what parent's options are when a child comes and goes as they please. Surely. Or, I guess, maybe I'm the only one here who knows these obvious answers and that's why I'm being bombarded with these absurd questions.

 

[KaaBoom]

This is a very important point. No, school children don't have constitutional rights. If they did, they'd be allowed to come and go freely, leaving school when they felt like it, walking around the classroom at will.

This is just 100% wrong. Of course school children have constitutional rights. All American citizens have constitutional rights. There is nothing in the constitution that exempts children. The right to walk around a classroom at will, is not in the constitution. So it’s not relevant to constitutional rights.

 

[vestigare]

Parents can't allow that, under law. If neighbors notice a child comes and goes as they please, with no parental supervision, they will be visited by CPS.

A parent who wishes a child not to come and go as he pleases has the right to lock doors, put super locks on them, and punish the child who decides to violate that.

Why am I being asked all these crazy questions? These are certainly things everyone knows. SURELY, you know what parent's options are when a child comes and goes as they please. Surely. Or, I guess, maybe I'm the only one here who knows these obvious answers and that's why I'm being bombarded with these absurd questions.

You mentioned CPS which leads me to believe you understand that children have rights that if violated even by parents you get a visit from the govt.

I am not a supporter of schools or police also violating a childs rights that under other circumstances would result in a visit from CPS.

 

[EllieBee]

This is a very important point. No, school children don't have constitutional rights. If they did, they'd be allowed to come and go freely, leaving school when they felt like it, walking around the classroom at will.

I feel like everyone is completely ignoring what I'm saying, and have been saying all day The RO did something completely unexpected, and that's why this has led to this whole case. He was expected to carefully remove her and walk her out - as a parent would - and instead, unexpectedly, he tossed her across the room.

The admin was in their rights to call LE, the teacher was in his rights, and the final error happened when the RO did the unexpected. If she were led out by two adults lifting her by the armpits, as I think everyone kind of expected this to go, we wouldn't be discussing this.

But I think everyone needs to be aware that a 16 year in in school doesn't have rights. In fact, an 18 year in old in public school doesn't enjoy adult rights of being able to come and go at will. That's the school system.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/childrens_rights

 

[KaaBoom]

In Texas, if you're enrolled in school, and you don't attend, you'll be dragged into court for truancy. It's a crime. And your parents will also be charged with the crime of having a child who is truant.

That law has been changed. Truancy is no longer a crime in Texas.

Starting Tuesday, truancy not a crime in Texas

 

[JeannaT]

That law has been changed. Truancy is no longer a crime in Texas.

Starting Tuesday, truancy not a crime in Texas

Thank God for that. I surely wished that had happened 5 years ago. Would have cost me a lot fewer sleepless nights with court summons laying on the kitchen table for a kid who was sick and vomiting and missed school.

 

[EllieBee]

Thank God for that. I surely wished that had happened 5 years ago. Would have cost me a lot fewer sleepless nights with court summons laying on the kitchen table for a kid who was sick and vomiting and missed school.

I had a child in Texas public schools and she was out for 2 weeks with mono. Followed by another week of strep.

I called the school each day to update them, and when I sent her back, provided doctors' notes.

Perhaps you did not follow procedure? We all know what happens when we assume the rules do not apply to us. I just followed the ISD rules and we were golden.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Well, she is a math teacher in high school, which is a rare commodity. She may be an excellent teacher of the subject, and well-respected by the students but not someone who has magnetic personality skills who is able to inspire excellent behavior. Teachers like that aren't common - and shouldn't be the standard for who has a job, IMHO. It's always refreshing to find some of those inspired individuals who are both personally charismatic and know their subject well, but with a shortage of math and science teachers, it seems she might need help with a very defiant student. I don't know if this school has "levels" - level one math vs. on grade level math, but she may need to be in a classroom where students want to achieve and not disrupt.

Again I'm way behind on this thread so I apologize if this has already been posted, but I respectfully suggest that you might want to read up a bit further on this case since the teacher was a he and not a she.

 

[EllieBee]

Again I'm way behind on this thread so I apologize if this has already been posted, but I respectfully suggest that you might want to read up a bit further on this case since the teacher was a he and not a she.

Who needs to read? That is for losers who haven't already made up their minds.

 

[Montjoy]

We all know what happens when we assume the rules do not apply to us.

(rsbm)

Slammertime!

(sorry!)

 

[sorrell skye]

Why are Texas truancy laws being brought into the discussion? Not only is this not a Texas truancy case, this isn't a truancy case at all.

This is a South Carolina case that has nothing to do with truancy.

 

[CoolJ]

Let's say that girls parent came into the classroom and did the exact same thing to her. Pretty sure that parent would get arrested for child abuse by this very same former officer. JMO

 

[al66pine]

Apparently, under some vague law in SC, it is a crime to be disruptive in class. I think one of the definitions was being "obnoxious"....

^ sbm I have not yet checked SC statutes for ^, but school district info refers to possible arrest. Another handbook discusses crim activity like drugs, weapons, etc for bases for arrests, suspensions, and expulsions.
"VERBAL CONFRONTATION"... "1-3 days suspension, may be arrested" bbm

Was that ^ the reason teacher & admn'r summoned LEO/SRO. If others below, nothing about arrests for them.
IDK.

__________________________________________________________________
Suspension/Detention in "StudentHandbook" page 41-43 https://www.richland2.org/svh/pages/Default.aspx
Other actions teacher or admin'r might have thought student did.
"DISOBEDIENCE"............ "Minimum 6 hours detention, may be suspended."
"DISRESPECT" ................"To Faculty or staff: Minimum 1-5 days suspension, may berecommended for expulsion."
"DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR" "Minimum 3 hours detention, may besuspended. (Includes promoting a fight.)"
"POORATTITUDE"........... "Minimum 3 hours detention, may be suspended."
"REFUSAL TO OBEY"........."1-3 days OSS"

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Yes, they are "lesser beings" with respect to rights. They don't have the right to self-determination. They don't have the right to strike out on their own and be free of adults who are their conservators. They do not have adult rights. If a 12 year old's parents say you're taking ballet classes, sorry chick, you're taking ballet classes.

Post kind of landing at random in the midst of the debate, just chose this post to respond to.

I think the point isn't that children have the same rights as adults.

I think the point is that children have the same equal protection under the law (Constitution) as adults.

Just my two cents.
Carry on.

 

[CoolJ]

You just don't treat a child that way for not doing what you say. It is straight up abusive behaviour no matter how you slice it.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Link to press conference with Sheriff Lott

http://www.wistv.com/clip/11956546/raw-sheriff-lott-announces-firing-of-spring-valley-sro

The firing of Officer Fields is what I expected. The case will be investigated by the FBI and US Department of Justice to see if criminal charges will be filed.

 

[al66pine]

If all she did as peek at a cell phone, that hardly qualifies as disruptive in my book. And definitely not criminal. ...

^sbm Yes, agreeing - sneaking a peek seems inconsequential and very quiet. But that has a very big IF. IDK

OTOH what if she had bn talking on cell, playing noisy games, streaming movie, etc. That cd/create noise & distraction to other students & teacher. That also is a big IF. IDK.
Just a possibility, not my theory.