The statement from the school suggests she was told to remove the boy from school, and the police failing to make contact or being unable to are both different than the mom actively evading the police.

I didn't see the details in the article that would be necessary to shift the blame onto the choices made by the parent.

"the police are made to look like the bad guys for simply doing their job"

Whether it was the actions of the parent, a failure of the bureaucracy in the school or court, or a system that has made these things so routine or that prevents the police from exercising some judgment, I'm glad we agree it shouldn't have been part of the job for the police in the first place.

A

I agree, but in this case the mother immediately pulled the kid out of the school which pretty much prevented any consequences from occurring. Some parents do far more damage by their attempts to protect their children than the child would have faced on their own.

Warrants do not typically get written in cases like this unless the police are unable to make contact because the person is evading their attempts. Had they just dealt with the issue when it occurred, this wouldn't have had to occur. And again, because of the choices made by the parent, the police are made to look like the bad guys for simply doing their job.

I hear you on the two incidents bit.
We don't know if there was a pattern of prior behavior that is questionable or not.

But in a case decided on a "he said, he said" basis, when one of those involved does this two weeks later, it makes me wonder.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on the autistic boy.
A trip to the principle and a suspension used to be a sufficient consequence and future deterrent, and I don't support making these things police matters.

I wish there was reporting on what, if any, injuries were sustained by the teacher in the incident. That would help clarify a few things.

A

You cannot look at only two incidents and think that somehow shows the character of the officer while ignoring their handling of the other ten thousand incidents that they responded to without any issues. That's like someone taking only two of your posts on here and deciding what kind of person you must be from them. How fair is that?

As for the ten year old, charges had to be pressed by the teacher he kicked for those charges to be filed. It also sounds like the police attempted to contact the parents of the boy and they refused, thus a warrant was issued. The family took the kid out of the school the day he kicked the teacher and did not return according to the first version of the article. Warrants are not issued unless someone is evading contact with the police.

If the kid is autistic, then the court will take that into consideration. It isn't the job of the police to make that call, especially since the person who wanted the charges knew of the boy's condition.

Personally, I have no issue with the boy being arrested if he kicked his teacher. That's how people learn that there are consequences for their actions. It's easy to excuse the actions of those with medical/mental disabilities as not being their fault, but that does nothing to help them. It's pity. Who likes being pitied?

Yeah, the details are few.
The cop who was only reassigned had just been involved but cleared in a shooting incident that seemed a little sketchy... a witness saying one thing, the cops another and the cops version being believed... hardly unusual, but the kicking incident does make you wonder if that decision was correct.

As far as the kid goes, it sounds like they may have updated the article since I read it too.
Third degree felony assault for a ten year old boy with autism?

Does that make sense to you?

Are court ordered warrants for ten year old kids so routine that nobody asks questions?
And it means the teacher had to have pressed charges right? Or could this have happened without her knowledge too?

A

Again, don't know all the details on the case to know why one is fired and the other wasn't if they did, in fact, commit the same crime. Just a guess, the one fired had previous discipline actions against him as most guild contracts call for progressive discipline except for the most extreme instances.

They'd updated the article on the autistic kid, as it did not have all of that info when I first read it. But as to his being arrested:

According to her, deputies arrested the child after a school resource officer identified him as having an outstanding warrant for assault ? something that Haygood is heard saying in the video that they weren’t aware of.

A court ordered warrant will be enforced as it is written. The charge is third degree felony assault.

Thank you.
What do you think about one cop getting fired while the other was just reassigned though both did the same thing?

12

The article provided a bunch of those details.
The school and teacher knew the boy is autistic, the "attack" was a kick in the legs which is a common reaction by autistic kids, the mother didn't pull the kid out of school he was kicked out, and then the school asked her to bring him back.
They even issued a statement to the effect that they didn't ask her to bring him back in order to arrest the boy... his suspension was just up.

The prosecutor didn't know the details and is ultimately to blame.
But the cops arresting a ten year old boy after being informed he was autistic and not stopping to question the situation is odd.
It shouldn't be so routine.

I am generally opposed to having police stationed in schools and the way kids are frequently being arrested now, when in the past a kid having a temper tantrum (or getting into a fight or whatever) would have just resulted in a suspension.
But since this new approach doesn't seem to be going anywhere, at the very least it should be handled competently.

A

As for the Florida kid being arrested, the mother claims the boy is autistic. It seemed odd that the school was not aware of that fact. Where is the proof that he is?

If the boy was trespassed from the school after he physically attacked a teacher - which usually happens - if that trespass order was still good and the boy returns to the premises, then arresting the child when he showed back up and violated the trespass order is what the law requires the officers to do.

If the mother had not cleared up the issue with the school prior to taking the boy back up there, then that is on her! The mother supposedly pulled the kid out of school following the attack on the teacher and didn't bother to have any further communication with them regarding the incident.

Didn't comment because I did not see it. Any officer who assaults someone in their custody that is not resisting or combative should face disciplinary action and possibly criminal charges, if they are warranted. Once a person is under police custody, the penalties for brutality by an officer should be much greater.

Looks like someone started his Weed Day celebration early!

Happy Weed Day! Or as it could be called in my house, "Act like a Jellyfish Day"...(that is, jellyfish with WiFi and a kickin prog rock playlist)... I'll think of y'all whilst I soak up tunes and smoke in a well-bubbled bath.

Also, for the rest of today, I will refer to Jeff Sessions only as "Blunt", because he's short, powerful, and confuses people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/04/19/11-charts-that-show-marijuana-has-truly-gone-mainstream

Got it.
Response in Georgia is up.

A

I noticed that neither of you took the opportunity to condemn the cops who were filmed kicking handcuffed suspects in the head when I posted the link last week.

Our little trumpling assured us he would do so when it was merited.

Does this mean neither of you consider the acts worthy of condemnation?

How about this for a bit of highly trained professional behavior by our law enforcement gang-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/boy-with-autism-arrested-at-school_us_58f754dde4b05b9d613eac5f?3m&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

Just following orders... can't assess the situation for themselves.

A

I can't find Neilm's take on this - the threads are getting tangled.

I believe in a previous column you mentioned that the Feds would need a court order to get participation from the state.

But our courts are packed with drug warriors, appointed and supported by drug warriors, so this doesn't seem like much of a burden. If the tangible and symbolic benefits can easily be er, um, nullified, isn't the whole idea a bit like political lip service?

I support the idea, but feel compelled to play devils advocate due to a decent grasp of how drug warriors wield their power.

A