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

[JeannaT]

Did you read the transcript I provided ? He did not say that.'
Every student interviewed has said she was not talking or saying anything other than to answer the teacher that she would not hand over her phone and would not leave the class.

The disruption started after the teacher made a ludicrous request.

No, I haven't read the transcript. The first several paragraphs of the PC were the sheriff saying she is totally at fault for starting this, she was in the wrong and continued to disrupt class and was unacceptably disrespectful to the teacher.

 

[EllieBee]

Civil disobedience is a revered part of American History and Culture. Well...it was, not sure anymore.

Lol, if our forefathers blindly "respected" (not really, but feared) authority, we'd have a Queen, drive on the left side of the road and probably still be taxed without any representation.

And that brings me to another issue. Fearing repercussions and beat downs is NOT showing respect. Respect is not earned by repressing people and threatening them with physical harm or jail time. Respect is earned by doing what is good and right and living what you preach. By working hard towards positive outcomes and stopping to listen BEFORE you talk. By assuming positive intent and when a situation becomes sketchy, by being the one who acts responsibly rather than REACTING with anger and prejudice.

And a bully is NEVER respected, only feared.

I suspect for some folks, they are just fine with people not actually respecting them but fearing them. And those people have major insecurities. So by all means, give them a badge and a gun. Murrica.

 

[EllieBee]

No, I haven't read the transcript. The first several paragraphs of the PC were the sheriff saying she is totally at fault for starting this, she was in the wrong and continued to disrupt class and was unacceptably disrespectful to the teacher.

Link?

 

[vestigare]

There are two things here. I don't know why this has to always be treated as one thing - like, you have to find either the girl or the RO guilty.

They're both guilty. That girl's behavior was not appropriate for a public school setting, and she needed to be removed for her behavior. You can't allow that to go unpunished/unresolved in a classroom or it would be bedlam by the end of the school day.

The RO was also very wrong. He was right to attempt to remove her, as was his job, but wrong in how he carried out that effort and now he's been fired.

There is more than one thing here. We aren't required to find one of the other at fault. Both are. The RO's completely unacceptable behavior in removing her doesn't wipe clean her completely inappropriate behavior in class, that still needs to be addressed if she is to return to public school classes. That behavior is intolerable.

Again. Why did she need to be removed from the classroom? What was she doing that required her to be removed? And don't say she was disrespecting the teacher by not studying or breaking some "policy" by texting or whatever. Those aren't actual legal reasons for removing someone off of a public property where by law she is supposed to be.

This has become an issue where people think the reasoning behind the school handbook is somehow valid. Sorry but it is not. Anyone can write any nonsense in a handbook and it does not make it legal.

And you can't say she was disturbing schools if she was in fact not doing anything other than texting. How is that disturbing anyone.
The teacher is the one who escalated this to where she was then in defiance.
A grown adult, supposedly with training allowed a 16 year old child to one up him to the point where he had to call in reinforcements and use some ambiguous and probably unconstitutional law to have any sort of cause for his immature actions.

I think the fault lies with the teacher before the RO even got involved. They are two different problems as far as I see.
The teacher is completely to blame for this getting out of hand.
The Admin was impotent.
And the RO was just a bully with a badge who got himself fired over his immature reaction to this child.

 

[Woodland]

The sheriff, in the PC said she had a prolonged period of disrupting the class. It was in the first 2 minutes or so of the PC. She was disruptive, in an ongoing way, and continued to be disrespectful. She wasn't sitting there quietly saying oh sorry.

Chief Lott's spokesperson initially said there were no injuries sustained. That's not correct.

Fwiw, not buying everything Lott or any spokesperson said about events inside the class room - will make up my mind from other sources on that. I respect Lott's actions with Fields and that he admits he needs to address when a response to a classroom is required and not required.

 

[EllieBee]

The sheriff, in the PC said she had a prolonged period of disrupting the class. It was in the first 2 minutes or so of the PC. She was disruptive, in an ongoing way, and continued to be disrespectful. She wasn't sitting there quietly saying oh sorry.

Link, please and thanks?

 

[vestigare]

No, I haven't read the transcript. The first several paragraphs of the PC were the sheriff saying she is totally at fault for starting this, she was in the wrong and continued to disrupt class and was unacceptably disrespectful to the teacher.

So, you conveniently disregarded what I provided in post #463 even after hitting thanks?

 

[vestigare]

Again for those who missed it the first time.
12:20 est

Question: You said her actions were very disruptive; can you give specifics on how she was being disruptive?

Sheriff: She wasn't following the instructions of the teacher. There were certain things the students were supposed to be doing. They had chromebooks they were supposed to be studying from or something educationally related. She wasn't doing that. She was using her phone and he asked her to put it up. She continued to do it. She wasn't doing what the other students were doing. He as trying to teach. The teacher was trying to teach; that is his job. She was preventing that from happening because she wasnot paying attention. She was verbally disrespective [sic] would not do what he asked her to do. When he wrote her up and told her to leave and go to the office she refused to do it and she continued to disrupt the class. So, she prevented what is supposed to happen in a classroom which is teacher to teach and students to learn so she prevented that from happening by her actions.

 

[nomoresorrow]

(BBM)

There are two things here. I don't know why this has to always be treated as one thing - like, you have to find either the girl or the RO guilty.

They're both guilty. That girl's behavior was not appropriate for a public school setting, and she needed to be removed for her behavior. You can't allow that to go unpunished/unresolved in a classroom or it would be bedlam by the end of the school day.

The RO was also very wrong. He was right to attempt to remove her, as was his job, but wrong in how he carried out that effort and now he's been fired.

There is more than one thing here. We aren't required to find one of the other at fault. Both are. The RO's completely unacceptable behavior in removing her doesn't wipe clean her completely inappropriate behavior in class, that still needs to be addressed if she is to return to public school classes. That behavior is intolerable.

Trust me, I actually deal with this in the "real" world nearly everyday working in alternative incarceration groups with teens and bedlam doesn't break out - lol. Bedlem breaks out - as it did in this case - when adults (1) personalalize it and (2) make it a power struggle. That only escalates the situation, whereby the adults main objective becomes establishing that they have all of the power and control. Kids who've lost parents and are in foster care already feel about as disempowered and without control over their own lifes as one can possibly be/feel. Knowing this young lady's situation and circumstances, and understanding her behavior from that perspective, would have been the place to start - NOT calling in the SRO to brutally arrest her.

 

[lonetraveler]

So blame the victim. :facepalm:

I disagree. There are two parts of this story, ie., first is that there is a girl disrupting the classroom and refusing to obey the teacher and the vice principal causing the law enforcement officer to be called in where she totally refused to follow orders for the third time. That doesn't go away just because the officer used excessive force. Her actions still remains and should be addressed. The officer was definitely in the wrong. That said, her actions were also in the wrong,.

 

[bluesneakers]

I'm not making a joke. But I have to wonder if you are. I wouldn't have to explain the obvious to a critical thinker.

I thought maybe your joke was: Accept the ridiculous. Critical thinking skills not required.

I see nothing ridiculous about my original statement and I stand behind it.

"Critical thinkers don't make loyal Fox news viewers. They also turn into voters who want more than just jingoism and promises. Critical thinkers rock the boat."

I'm not sure what you find ridiculous. Care to explain?

 

[vestigare]

The sheriff, in the PC said she had a prolonged period of disrupting the class. It was in the first 2 minutes or so of the PC. She was disruptive, in an ongoing way, and continued to be disrespectful. She wasn't sitting there quietly saying oh sorry.

Because you also seem to have missed this quote I provided:
Sheriff Lott:
"Too often, these teachers in these schools are calling on the cops because they have a disruptive student in the classroom. This is not a cop's job. Unfortunately, our Legislature passed a law that's called 'disturbing schools,' If a student disturbs school -- and that's a wide range of activities, 'disturbing schools' -- they can be arrested. Our goal has always been to see what we can do without arresting the kids. We don't need to arrest these students. We need to keep them in schools."

 

[EllieBee]

Again for those who missed it the first time.
12:20 est

Question: You said her actions were very disruptive; can you give specifics on how she was being disruptive?

Sheriff: She wasn't following the instructions of the teacher. There were certain things the students were supposed to be doing. They had chromebooks they were supposed to be studying from or something educationally related. She wasn't doing that. She was using her phone and he asked her to put it up. She continued to do it. She wasn't doing what the other students were doing. He as trying to teach. The teacher was trying to teach; that is his job. She was preventing that from happening because she wasnot paying attention. She was verbally disrespective [sic] would not do what he asked her to do. When he wrote her up and told her to leave and go to the office she refused to do it and she continued to disrupt the class. So, she prevented what is supposed to happen in a classroom which is teacher to teach and students to learn so she prevented that from happening by her actions.

Thank you. And if true, yes, she was not being respectful of her fellow students or her teacher. I teach younger children, but they are often disrespectful. My job, and every adult's job is to show, through our own actions, what it means to be respectful.

Beating down a child in her desk is not a good example of respect to model for impressionable young people. But he sure shut her up! Woo hoo!!!

 

[kimlynn]

The sheriff, in the PC said she had a prolonged period of disrupting the class. It was in the first 2 minutes or so of the PC. She was disruptive, in an ongoing way, and continued to be disrespectful. She wasn't sitting there quietly saying oh sorry.

It would depend on if you consider her actions disruptive or the reaction to her actions disruptive.
In this article she does say sorry according to other student.

http://www.denverpost.com/nationwor...rl-who-texted-class-prompts-civil-rights-case

Tony Robinson Jr., who recorded the final moments, said it all began when the teacher asked the girl to hand over her phone during class. She refused, so he called an administrator, who summoned the officer.

"The administrator tried to get her to move and pleaded with her to get out of her seat," Robinson said. "She said she really hadn't done anything wrong. She said she took her phone out, but it was only for a quick second, you know, please, she was begging, apologetic."

 

[vestigare]

I disagree. There are two parts of this story, ie., first is that there is a girl disrupting the classroom and refusing to obey the teacher and the vice principal causing the law enforcement officer to be called in where she totally refused to follow orders for the third time. That doesn't go away just because the officer used excessive force. Her actions still remains and should be addressed. The officer was definitely in the wrong. That said, her actions were also in the wrong,.

Please, explain to me how her actions were in the wrong. Try doing it without referencing that she wasn't "paying attention" to the classwork or some handbook. That is not disruptive nor is it wrong. I can not pay attention all I like. All that should result is I get an F for the day.
So again how were her actions wrong?

Once you, or gosh anyone at all, explain that I will address how her reactions to that apply.

Because you can not jump from point A to point D without first explaining how the reaction of B was at all acceptable under the circumstances.
Reaction of B would be the teacher's reaction to her "not doing what the other students were doing i.e., studying her Chrome book.

People seem to be conflating her defiance to a totally ridiculous punishment with what she did to warrant the initial punishment.

 

[vestigare]

It would depend on if you consider her actions disruptive or the reaction to her actions disruptive.
In this article she does say sorry according to other student.

http://www.denverpost.com/nationwor...rl-who-texted-class-prompts-civil-rights-case

You are so correct. How are people not understanding the difference here between reaction and initial action on her part?

 

[bluesneakers]

I disagree. There are two parts of this story, ie., first is that there is a girl disrupting the classroom and refusing to obey the teacher and the vice principal causing the law enforcement officer to be called in where she totally refused to follow orders for the third time. That doesn't go away just because the officer used excessive force. Her actions still remains and should be addressed. The officer was definitely in the wrong. That said, her actions were also in the wrong,.

No. She did not cause them to call in law enforcement. She didn't make anyone do anything, in fact. She was the victim of a brutal assault and she in NO WAY brought it upon herself. I think we can freely condemn her attacker without adding any "But she asked for it" or "But it was really her fault" disclaimers.

JMO.

 

[lonetraveler]

Critical thinkers don't make loyal Fox news viewers. They also turn into voters who want more than just jing!oism and promises. Critical thinkers rock the boat.

Why feel the need to bash Fox News?

 

[Woodland]

Again for those who missed it the first time.
12:20 est

Question: You said her actions were very disruptive; can you give specifics on how she was being disruptive?

Sheriff: She wasn't following the instructions of the teacher. There were certain things the students were supposed to be doing. They had chromebooks they were supposed to be studying from or something educationally related. She wasn't doing that. She was using her phone and he asked her to put it up. She continued to do it. She wasn't doing what the other students were doing. He as trying to teach. The teacher was trying to teach; that is his job. She was preventing that from happening because she wasnot paying attention. She was verbally disrespective [sic] would not do what he asked her to do. When he wrote her up and told her to leave and go to the office she refused to do it and she continued to disrupt the class. So, she prevented what is supposed to happen in a classroom which is teacher to teach and students to learn so she prevented that from happening by her actions.

It's amusing imo that some ignore what is known regarding facts of this case from LE, which changed with various updates, yet also insist this student committed a grave infraction if not crime for not paying attention in class and should be punished.

 

[EllieBee]

Because you also seem to have missed this quote I provided:
Sheriff Lott:
"Too often, these teachers in these schools are calling on the cops because they have a disruptive student in the classroom. This is not a cop's job. Unfortunately, our Legislature passed a law that's called 'disturbing schools,' If a student disturbs school -- and that's a wide range of activities, 'disturbing schools' -- they can be arrested. Our goal has always been to see what we can do without arresting the kids. We don't need to arrest these students. We need to keep them in schools."

And as an educator, I echo those sentiments.

Are children, by nature, always testing boundaries? Yes.

Are children, by nature, looking to adults for cues on appropriate behaviors? Yes.

I did not become a teacher for the awesome pay, the amazing perks or the never-ending gratitude. (Kidding, see, because teachers get none of those things)

But I take my job seriously. And my job is to be there for EVERY child. Not just the "perfect" model students. Those children who are the hardest to love are the ones who need love the most.

When children make poor choices, it is my job to show them what a GOOD choice looks like. I do not have school cops on my campus and I would be dismayed if I did. We are in a "bad" neighborhood, but we have amazing parent involvement and every single member of our faculty and staff is there for one reason; to touch the lives of these children in POSITIVE ways, to make school a safe, happy place where they WANT to be, and want to learn. Not a police state ruled by fear of misstep.

Sorry for the diatribe. This is very dear to my heart.