SC - Columbia - Sheriff Slams Female Student to Floor In Class - #2

[KaaBoom]

They walked out for a total of ten minutes, then all agreed to return to their classes. I did not see any defiance. Just a quick 'shout out' of support.

If the girl with the phone had agreed to go to the office, and did a quick 10 minute 'rant' in protest, that would have been fine. No need to stretch that whole thing out the way she did. JMO

Students walking out of their class without permission is not defiance, but a student refusing to leave the class room is defiance? :facepalm:

<modsnip>

 

[katydid23]

Students walking out of their class without permission is not defiance, but a student refusing to leave the class room is defiance? :facepalm:

<modsnip>

Yes. Exactly. The student who did not leave he classroom was defiant. She defied her teacher, then the administrator, then the Deputy, as she resisted arrest. Triple defiance over being unwilling to allow the teacher to hold her phone until class was over. That was selfish and silly.

The students who walked were doing so in support of a mentor who they have respect for. If it was an act of defiance it would have continued as they left the campus, broke rules and perhaps even broke some laws.But that never happened In fact, it was only for 10 minutes and then THEY COMPLIED with the request to return to their classes. That is not 'defiance'---that is compliance. JMO

 

[bluesneakers]

Yes. Exactly. The student who did not leave he classroom was defiant. She defied her teacher, then the administrator, then the Deputy, as she resisted arrest. Triple defiance over being unwilling to allow the teacher to hold her phone until class was over. That was selfish and silly.

The students who walked were doing so in support of a mentor who they have respect for. If it was an act of defiance it would have continued as they left the campus, broke rules and perhaps even broke some laws.But that never happened In fact, it was only for 10 minutes and then THEY COMPLIED with the request to return to their classes. That is not 'defiance'---that is compliance. JMO

Nope. Those criminals were breaking the law. I guess they knew they weren't going to be arrested though. Lucky kids.


* SC statute, Sec. 16-17-420
"Disturbing schools; summary court jurisdiction.
(A) It shall be unlawful:

(1) for any person wilfully or unnecessarily (a) to interfere with or to disturb in any way or in any place the students or teachers of any school or college in this State, (b) to loiter about such school or college premises or (c) to act in an obnoxious manner thereon; or
(2) for any person to (a) enter upon any such school or college premises or (b) loiter around the premises, except on business, without the permission of the principal or president in charge.

(B) Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, on conviction thereof, shall pay a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or be imprisoned in the county jail for not more than ninety days.

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c017.php




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Sonya610]

Montjoy wrote:
And presuming you thought the speed at which he got her out of her desk was amusing (though considering his size relative to hers and so forth, I don't see how it's impressive), his throwing her after she was already out of the desk has nothing to do with efficacy, and everything to do with violence.

Perhaps someone that has NEVER had to do an officer's job wouldn't be impressed because they have no idea how difficult that job is.

He did it fast (shock and awe method) so she couldn't wrap her arms/legs around that desk and make it impossible for one person to remove her from it. He flipped it and then pulled her away from the desk quickly to keep her from grabbing/latching on to it. He apparently knew what he was doing and he was VERY efficient!

The other alternative would have been a stun gun however people would complain about that too. Or he could have "called for backup" and wasted the time of a handful of other officers.

 

[katydid23]

How many schools do that today? My guess very few, since metal detectors cost more money then most schools have. Anyway, thats more a response to the gun epidemic in this country, then to the conduct of students.

It is also designed to detect knives, which are quite commonly taken from students.

And about 10% of middle/high schools have metal detectors [in 2006]:

The 2007 Youth Risk Behavior Survey data (YRBS), collected from over 14,000 high school students throughout the United States, indicate that 12% of students reported being in one or more physical fights on school property in the previous 12 months and 6% reported carrying a weapon on school property at least once in the past 30 days. Many students (8%) report being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property at least once in the prior year.7 These exposures contribute to the risk for serious or fatal injury and can result in considerable fear among students, parents, and teachers.
To ensure the safety of students, school districts often institute a variety of measures, including the installation of metal detector systems. Data from the 2006 School Health Policies and Programs Study indicate that approximately 10% of middle and senior high schools use metal detectors, and the proportion of elementary schools using metal detectors more than tripled ...

http://www.edweek.org/media/hankin-02security.pdf

 

[katydid23]

So it&#8217;s just your opinion that HS students are more violent, based off of a handful of media reports?

Anyway the only violence in this case was from the cop.

Youth*Violence:
Youth*Violence statistics show teenagers are becoming more violent. This article contains facts and statistics on teen violence across the U.S., risk factors of teens becoming violent, and a profile of a violent child.

http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/YV-DataSheet-a.pdf

&#8226; In 2010, 4,828 young people ages 10 to 24 were victims of homicide&#8212;an average of 13 each day.1
&#8226; Homicide is the 2nd leading cause of death for young people ages 15 to 24 years old.1


SCHOOL VIOLENCE
In a 2011 nationally representative sample of youth in grades 9-12:
&#8226; 12% reported being in a physical fight on school property in the 12 months preceding the survey.2
&#8226; 16% of male students and 7.8% of female students reported being in a physical fight on school property in the 12 months preceding the survey.2
&#8226; 5.9% did not go to school on one or more days in the 30 days preceding the survey because they felt unsafe at school or on their way to or from school.2
&#8226; 5.4% reported carrying a weapon (gun, knife or club) on school property on one or more days in the 30 days preceding the survey.2
&#8226; 7.4% reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property one or more times in the 12 months preceding the survey.2


Teen violence has become an increasing problem in the U.S. Teen violence and teen gang involvement escalated in the 1990s and has remained high. Youth are the most likely group to be victims or perpetrators of teen violence, but the results of teen violence affect everyone.**
&#8226; An average of 15 young people are killed each day in the U.S., and over 80 percent of those are killed with guns.*
&#8226; In 2004, violence statistics report 750,000 young people were treated in hospitals for violence-related injuries.
http://www.teenviolencestatistics.com/content/youth-violence-statistics.html

 

[Sonya610]

Students walking out of their class without permission is not defiance, but a student refusing to leave the class room is defiance? :facepalm:

There is a HUGE difference. Refusing to leave an area or property that "belongs" to someone else can be considered trespassing. That is a criminal offense that can lead to arrest.

The students that walked out of class broke school rules but not the law. If they had been told to leave a certain area OR leave the school grounds and they refused to comply that would have been a violation of the law.

 

[bluesneakers]

Students walking out of their class without permission is not defiance, but a student refusing to leave the class room is defiance? :facepalm:

<modsnip>

They are both equal crimes under the law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Sonya610]

They are both equal crimes under the law.

Please link to a source that states a student leaving class without permission has broken the law.

Failing to go to school for an extended period of time under a certain age (16?) is considered truancy which violates the law but I do not believe walking out of class is a crime in and of itself.

 

[katydid23]

Nope. Those criminals were breaking the law. I guess they knew they weren't going to be arrested though. Lucky kids.


* SC statute, Sec. 16-17-420
"Disturbing schools; summary court jurisdiction.
(A) It shall be unlawful:

(1) for any person wilfully or unnecessarily (a) to interfere with or to disturb in any way or in any place the students or teachers of any school or college in this State, (b) to loiter about such school or college premises or (c) to act in an obnoxious manner thereon; or
(2) for any person to (a) enter upon any such school or college premises or (b) loiter around the premises, except on business, without the permission of the principal or president in charge.

(B) Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, on conviction thereof, shall pay a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or be imprisoned in the county jail for not more than ninety days.

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c017.php




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

BBM

I am going to guess that the 'leader' of the 10 minute protest had already gotten permission from the principal. For them to be so organized, it had to have been communicated widely. So it was probably not actually breaking any laws. JMO

 

[Sonya610]

I am going to guess that the 'leader' of the 10 minute protest had already gotten permission from the principal. For them to be so organized, it had to have been communicated widely. So it was probably not actually breaking any laws. JMO

Even if they didn't have permission for the protest since all participants were students that had the initial right to be on the premises at that time they wouldn't be breaking the law unless they refused to stop the disruption in the common areas or leave as requested.

Many many years ago when I was in junior high school there was a similar incident, the teachers went on strike and were picketing along the school fences. Some of the students used that as an excuse to "run wild" and stay out of class. I remember one of the female gym teachers yelling through the fence at the students saying "Don't go to class! Support us!".

I was only 12 or 13 at the time yet I lost all respect for that woman in that moment, she expected everyone to respect her authority yet she sat there and told the students to break all of the rules and even risk disciplinary action when it furthered her personal agenda.

 

[bluesneakers]

BBM

I am going to guess that the 'leader' of the 10 minute protest had already gotten permission from the principal. For them to be so organized, it had to have been communicated widely. So it was probably not actually breaking any laws. JMO

They were disrupting class and depriving other students of valuable education time. I haven't seen anything saying they got permission first. If they did? Why does the principal think these entitled (modsnip) are above the law? Does the principal somehow outrank state law? It's not okay some students get to decide when disruption is appropriate. I don't see any special conditions mentioned.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[KaaBoom]

There is a HUGE difference. Refusing to leave an area or property that "belongs" to someone else can be considered trespassing. That is a criminal offense that can lead to arrest.

The students that walked out of class broke school rules but not the law. If they had been told to leave a certain area OR leave the school grounds and they refused to comply that would have been a violation of the law.

No, there is zero difference. The only difference is that you agree with the student&#8217;s that walked out, you don&#8217;t agree with what the girl did.

 

[EllieBee]

Hmm, wonder why the students who walked out of class, causing a disruption were not manhandled by the SRO like the student who was using her phone in class? Odd that there should be such a disparity in the treatment of children who are equally in violation of school rules? What is the thought process there?

 

[Trident]

They were disrupting class and depriving other students of valuable education time. I haven't seen anything saying they got permission first. If they did? Why does the principal think these entitled criminals are above the law? Does the principal somehow outrank state law? It's not okay some students get to decide when disruption is appropriate. I don't see any special conditions mentioned.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Do you have a link that these students are either "entitled" or "criminals"?

 

[Nana]

Hmm, wonder why the students who walked out of class, causing a disruption were not manhandled by the SRO like the student who was using her phone in class? Odd that there should be such a disparity in the treatment of children who are equally in violation of school rules? What is the thought process there?

Because the SRO lost his job, and maybe another SRO didn't want the job. JMO

 

[popsicle]

They were disrupting class and depriving other students of valuable education time. I haven't seen anything saying they got permission first. If they did? Why does the principal think these entitled (modsnip) are above the law? Does the principal somehow outrank state law? It's not okay some students get to decide when disruption is appropriate. I don't see any special conditions mentioned.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

How did they disrupt class and deprive other students of anything? They sat in the Atrium and either you participate or stay in class and learn. Their original plan was to walk out of school but they decided to sit in the Atrium instead. They didn't disobey any orders, they returned to class when told to. jmo

 

[Sonya610]

No, there is zero difference. The only difference is that you agree with the student&#8217;s that walked out, you don&#8217;t agree with what the girl did.

Students can't be accused of a crime by "disrupting" the class unless they are told to stop disrupting.

Once they are told if they refuse to stop or leave then they could be accused of violating the law.

According to your definition every student that ever asked to use the restroom or even just sneezed could be accused of criminal activity for "disrupting class" and that is just ridiculous. If the students initial action wasn't illegal (i.e. they weren't assaulting someone or vandalizing property nor were they trespassing outside of school hours) then they aren't breaking the law until they are TOLD to stop the disruption.

 

[bluesneakers]

Hmm, wonder why the students who walked out of class, causing a disruption were not manhandled by the SRO like the student who was using her phone in class? Odd that there should be such a disparity in the treatment of children who are equally in violation of school rules? What is the thought process there?

My guess is the group of lawbreakers were mostly athletes. Officer Fields did a lot of work with the football team and in my experience athletes get away with a lot of crap. Teachers and admin look the other way.

It's also possible the teachers and admin think the beating was necessary and the firing unfair.

Those poor kids.

JMO.

 

[bluesneakers]

No, there is zero difference. The only difference is that you agree with the student’s that walked out, you don’t agree with what the girl did.

Yeah, the law is well-defined and those kids were clearly violating it. The only difference is the reaction they got.