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

[~n/t~]

I read the responses to your original post at the time - find your summary of what others had to say at that time to be incorrect.

Some posters were appalled at the idea of a student peeking at their phone and a teacher leaving the classroom, suspending the lesson in order to make a call to a parent or guardian. That struck the posters as unwarranted, excessive and unproductive.

Find it interesting that comprehension of what LE has said sometimes only extends to the first reports for some - the follow up LE statements don't seem to register with all. Jmo.

Why won't they release the 3rd. video? They did the first 2........things that make me go hmmmmmm

 

[Woodland]

You can't compare using a cell phone for emergency purposes versus using one to chat with your friends (assuming that is what this student was doing when she was told to put it away). I don't think there is anything wrong with students having cell phones but during class, they should be turned off.

Underlined by me - that is an assumption since there are no updated and final reports that claim she was chatting on the phone at the time. Peeked is the only word used as far as use of the phone goes. Not paying attention is how the police chief described her conduct in the end.

Not sure why some don't take the incident to the next level of what happened - the teacher then wanted her to surrender the phone for the duration of the class - for peeking and or not paying attention. A discussion of that phase would be a reflection of the facts imo.

 

[vestigare]

I don't think it's fb rumour.

=======

A South Carolina school resource officer under fire for body slamming a female student during a classroom altercation may have only been responding to the girl’s punches, a third video ostensibly shows.

The video hasn’t been released to the public but is being discussed and analyzed by law enforcement investigating the incident, including those at the federal level.

Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott said the first two videos that emerged of the scene – where senior deputy Ben Fields yanked the student from her chair and scuffled with her on the floor – seemed clear the officer used overly aggressive tactics. But at the same time, he said a third video has emerged that indicates the student was first punching the officer.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/body-slammed-student-swung-at-cop-first-video/#0H7JBi0E7dejSIj7.99

I am not saying she didn't strike him. But unless she left her seat and punched him and then returned to her seat for him to then lift her and overturn her desk I don't see how it is possible she struck him under any circumstance not consistent with self defense.
You have the right to defend yourself and even throw the first punch if you have a reasonable belief that you are about to suffer bodily harm.
Even against Police officers. I know this isn't a popular legal standing in this day and age and often a jury are incapable of forgetting that a person has a badge but this is legal.

Police will often say the suspect struck them as an automatic response to their escalation of the use of force. In fact they might have to claim it to legally explain some forms of use of force.

What I am interested in is where this video is and who took it and how the police came about having it? Was it confiscated by the police? And if so that might also be a crime.

 

[~n/t~]

I am not saying she didn't strike him. But unless she left her seat and punched him and then returned to her seat for him to then lift her and overturn her desk I don't see how it is possible she struck him under any circumstance not consistent with self defense.
You have the right to defend yourself and even throw the first punch if you have a reasonable belief that you are about to suffer bodily harm.
Even against Police officers. I know this isn't a popular legal standing in this day and age and often a jury are incapable of forgetting that a person has a badge but this is legal.

Police will often say the suspect struck them as an automatic response to their escalation of the use of force. In fact they might have to claim it to legally explain some forms of use of force.

What I am interested in is where this video is and who took it and how the police came about having it? Was it confiscated by the police? And if so that might also be a crime.

Re your last sentence....that is exactly what I am referring to. Why have they NOT released the 3rd. video that allegedly shows the student punching the officer? Allegedly occurring before the officer used force.

 

[CCmakes3]

You can't compare using a cell phone for emergency purposes versus using one to chat with your friends (assuming that is what this student was doing when she was told to put it away). I don't think there is anything wrong with students having cell phones but during class, they should be turned off.

Basically I agree, but....if the teacher is shot dead and everyone's phones are off, it makes it harder/takes longer for students to surreptitiously make a quick call/text for help. I know this is a one in a million situation, but having been there, if students can manage to not abuse the privilege, I say phones on, ringers off, in pocket unless there's an emergency or teacher says it's ok to peek at your phone.

 

[~n/t~]

Underlined by me - that is an assumption since there are no updated and final reports that claim she was chatting on the phone at the time. Peeked is the only word used as far as use of the phone goes. Not paying attention is how the police chief described her conduct in the end.

Not sure why some don't take the incident to the next level of what happened - the teacher then wanted her to surrender the phone for the duration of the class - for peeking and or not paying attention. A discussion of that phase would be a reflection of the facts imo.

I used the word "assuming" so yes it was an assumption on my part. IMO, whether she peeked, text, talked......if she disobeyed school rules, the teacher did the right thing. What happened next, is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, there is more to this story. I WANT to see that 3rd. video.

 

[CCmakes3]

I read the responses to your original post at the time - find your summary of what others had to say at that time to be incorrect.

Some posters were appalled at the idea of a student peeking at their phone and a teacher leaving the classroom, suspending the lesson in order to make a call to a parent or guardian. That struck the posters as unwarranted, excessive and unproductive.

Find it interesting that comprehension of what LE has said sometimes only extends to the first reports for some - the follow up LE statements don't seem to register with all. Jmo.

Fair enough, I could have been clearer in explaining how I would've gone about it. . I can see all sides of this.

 

[vestigare]

Why won't they release the 3rd. video? They did the first 2........things that make me go hmmmmmm

I think the other two were released by those who took the video. Legally LEO do not own the video from private citizens. To obtain the video they either had to issue a subpoena or they were given it by the video taker.

I hope for the sake of the Sheriff Dept that they did not in fact illegally confiscate the video from the video taker or in some way intimidate the person to turn it over without proper procedure because that will be another lawsuit.

The fact they won't release it makes me suspect it doesn't show exactly what they say or it contains additional footage that is not positive for them.
Because we all know when video helps exonerate a cop they release it quickly.

 

[~n/t~]

Basically I agree, but....if the teacher is shot dead and everyone's phones are off, it makes it harder/takes longer for students to surreptitiously make a quick call/text for help. I know this is a one in a million situation, but having been there, if students can manage to not abuse the privilege, I say phones on, ringers off, in pocket unless there's an emergency or teacher says it's ok to peek at your phone.

These kids will one day have to go to work. Many work places do NOT allow your cell phones to be on.....especially at conferences/meetings, etc. She would have gotten fired. Would she have punched her boss? (assuming the report of the 3rd. video is true)?

 

[bluesneakers]

These kids will one day have to go to work. Many work places do NOT allow your cell phones to be on.....especially at conferences/meetings, etc. She would have gotten fired. Would she have punched her boss? (assuming the report of the 3rd. video is true)?

If a boss attempts to physically assault an employee the way the officer did I would HOPE the employee defends herself. Though I don't understand what "She will have to get a job some day" has to do with what happened here.

JMO.

 

[Hope4More]

Basically I agree, but....if the teacher is shot dead and everyone's phones are off, it makes it harder/takes longer for students to surreptitiously make a quick call/text for help. I know this is a one in a million situation, but having been there, if students can manage to not abuse the privilege, I say phones on, ringers off, in pocket unless there's an emergency or teacher says it's ok to peek at your phone.

That's what policy typically is. Allowed to carry them but not to pull them out in class. I can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with that. Kids aren't tied to a desk all day. They move from class to class and can check then, or at lunch, or at their lockers, or even in the bathroom if they are so addicted.

 

[Hope4More]

Fwiw, I am totally in favor of kids having cell phones at school and perhaps even having a designated time during each class period to quickly check them. My son survived a school shooting and was in lockdown for 8 hours. He was in the last classroom to be cleared, which was actually the boys locker room, in complete darkness, with no air circulating. The gym teacher did not have a cell phone on him. My son's cell phone was a lifeline for him, the teacher and many other students. Student cell phones were against the rules until that day, but have been allowed ever since. I and many other parents would have feared our children were dead were it not for the few kids who had phones in their pockets when the bullets started flying. The vice principal was killed.

Eta: disclaimer-- It is probably because of this experience that I am very wary and suspicious of students who express defiance toward teachers and authority figures. The shooting was committed by a student who was unwilling to accept a suspension for vandalizing school property. I am sorry for my bias.

What bias? And why apologize? You have a perfectly reasonable POV, presented...old fashioned as it may seem to some....respectfully.

 

[~n/t~]

If a boss attempts to physically assault an employee the way the officer did I would HOPE the employee defends herself. Though I don't understand what "She will have to get a job some day" has to do with what happened here.

JMO.

I'm going on the assumption that she punched the officer first........sorry you missed the connection to this story.

 

[bluesneakers]

Why won't they release the 3rd. video? They did the first 2........things that make me go hmmmmmm

I count three different points-of-view in the link I posted.

Hmmmm.

 

[kareylou]

These kids will one day have to go to work. Many work places do NOT allow your cell phones to be on.....especially at conferences/meetings, etc. She would have gotten fired. Would she have punched her boss? (assuming the report of the 3rd. video is true)?

I have worked in a large number of places--farm, factory, retail, professional, and educational. I have never seen anyone fired in such a manner as was displayed in the video, even for the most egregious infractions. It is always handled in a much more dignified and much less disruptive fashion.
I don't think that what happened to that girl will prepare her for a career in any way, unless she goes into mixed martial arts cage fighting.
I will admit that I wrote my first post or two in this thread without watching the video. I am a teacher; I know what a disruptive student looks like. I decided I should watch it since I was pontificating so much and I actually gasped loudly and said "oh my God". And I'm alone. It was worse than I imagined.
I struggle to think of any circumstances under which the actions of that officer would be the appropriate response. She was clearly not posing a threat to herself or to anyone nearby. Even if she had a weapon, say a firearm, the manner in which he tossed her around would seem to endanger those around her. I think the students nearby were in much more danger of being clocked by a flying desk than from the defiant texter, for lack of a better term. And as others have pointed out, the whole incident was extremely disruptive. I doubt that anyone was able to focus on their Algebra right after. Probably it will continue to be a distraction for a long time. Trust in, and respect for, the teachers and officers in the school has been further eroded. Even if it had served a positive purpose, I think that what I saw was morally reprehensible, but I believe that it didn't even further the intended purpose of calming the classroom environment or instilling respect for authority. Lose-Lose IMO

 

[bluesneakers]

I'm going on the assumption that she punched the officer first........sorry you missed the connection to this story.

I said "If a boss attempts to physically assault an employee." You think she should wait until her boss assaults her to defend herself?

 

[vestigare]

If a boss attempts to physically assault an employee the way the officer did I would HOPE the employee defends herself. Though I don't understand what "She will have to get a job some day" has to do with what happened here.

JMO.

I have found very few work places in my travels that ban cell phones. Every store employee is using them often to my annoyance when I want you to be scanning my merchandise not seeing the latest msg from your friends.

But I even noticed the other day in one of the huge warehouse stores the employee was using his personal phone to check whether something was in stock.
He said it was easier than trying using the store computers.

 

[vestigare]

These kids will one day have to go to work. Many work places do NOT allow your cell phones to be on.....especially at conferences/meetings, etc. She would have gotten fired. Would she have punched her boss? (assuming the report of the 3rd. video is true)?

She didn't punch the teacher. At least that is not what I have heard.
So that is a false analogy.

 

[Woodland]

These kids will one day have to go to work. Many work places do NOT allow your cell phones to be on.....especially at conferences/meetings, etc. She would have gotten fired. Would she have punched her boss? (assuming the report of the 3rd. video is true)?

Maybe she will go on to become a famous actress or singer and able to have a dozen phones on at all times if she chooses - assuming the report of the 3rd. video is true? On and on without any knowledge.

 

[Hope4More]

Seriously...is there an actual debate going on here or a punch fest without regard to what is actually being said? One is worth spending time on, the other, never mind.