****ing Texas

[grumbler]

It looks as much like a fake gun as a hand with a finger pointing out looks like a gun. You liberals love to tell stories. And we love to read them.

It is true that calling a finger a replica gun is as silly as calling a clock a bomb, but what is hilarious is that you think that I, because I don't defer automatically to authority, am somehow "liberal." I'm glad that at least you enjoy reading the truth when I post it.

[grumbler]

I think you should be in charge of checking potential bombs, since you're so all-knowing, grumbler.

Not all-knowing, but knowing. Anyone who knows anything about the law and has read about this incident is knowing enough to see that the cops and school admin screwed the pooch quite badly.

I think that you should not be in charge of checking potential bombs, since you are not very knowing at all.

[grumbler]

Yes, that was my point.

I was agreeing with you.

[grumbler]

If I took my clock apart and put it into a case, even with a shoulder strap attached; I guarantee you I would not be able to carry it onto a plane. I would not meet my flight due to being detained and interrogated. Of course, this kids project looked suspicious! Teachers are not bomb experts and have to follow the safety rule of the many over the embarrassment of one!

If you put your clock in a 5" by 2" by 8" pencil case, no one will likely even notice. If they ask you to look inside, they won't think it is a bomb. This kid's project only looked suspicious for a few minutes. Once the school principal had determined this wasn't a bomb and the kid never claimed it was, the story should have been over. Instead, the police illegally cuffed him and illegally took him into custody (they kidnapped him, under the law, and likely face child abuse charges as well for the cuffs). You can't blow off lawbreaking with the excuse that it was justified to prevent official embarrassment.

[grumbler]

They would have known his intent had they talked to his engineering teacher. Also, if they were so concerned, why did they wait so long to haul him in? If they thought it was important to interrogate him, why didn't they Mirandize him? Also, he asked for his parents, and they wouldn't let him contact them, when the first thing they should have done was contact them.

Yes, that was also almost certainly* a breach of the law by the principal and the cops. Minors cannot be interrogated (except to be asked questions when those are urgent for health or safety reasons) in the absence of the parents or someone acting in loco parentis. Had they charged this kid, the judge would have whacked those cops damned hard. Again, these people knew the law but ignored it.

But, of course, they were enforcing laws, they were punishing a kid they thought they couldn't get at any legal way.



*laws vary by state but I am sure Texas has such a law like every other state

[Elok]

I've met a fair number of incompetent administrators myself, not as a sub but as an education professional myself, having taught at multiple levels of schools (middle, high, and college) in several states. I've never seen one, however, that was "promoted to get them away from teaching." Hell, I don't even know who would be in a position to decide that a teacher needed to be gotten away from teaching by making him or her an administrator.

Okay, strike the hearsay from the record, if you please. Did you have some larger point in mind? Because that was an aside with no major import for what I was saying--that both administrators and children can be jackasses, and that said behavior can allow situations to escalate way out of hand.

[grumbler]

Okay, strike the hearsay from the record, if you please. Did you have some larger point in mind? Because that was an aside with no major import for what I was saying--that both administrators and children can be jackasses, and that said behavior can allow situations to escalate way out of hand.

I had a number of larger points in mind, and explained them in the post that you cropped all the significant arguments out of so you could focus on my little aside.

Your observation that both adults and children can be jackasses seems irrelevant. Authorities have a solemn obligation to exercise their powers within the limits of the law. If they act like jackasses and abuse their authority like these Texas authorities did, they should be punished. False arrest under these circumstances is actually a felony under Texas law, but I don't believe the cops should face criminal charges because their conduct was not aggravated. The principal should be fired, though, and the officers reprimanded.

[grumbler]

DPs are worse than Hitler.

[Elok]

For someone who so frequently bemoans the incivility on this site, you're very aggressive. You accused me of misrepresentations, hearsay and ignorance (for an irrelevant aside) in the middle of a post about people calling the kid a terrorist or excusing the authorities. I have done neither. I believe all parties acted foolishly, but don't think any real harm has been done here. As Dinner noted, the child seems to have done quite well. As to prosecutions, I have no idea how all that works. My uneducated guess is that the dad will ride the cops as high up the legal system as he can, and get a nice settlement out of it.

[The Mad Monk]

I was agreeing with you.

[Kidlicious]

It is true that calling a finger a replica gun is as silly as calling a clock a bomb, but what is hilarious is that you think that I, because I don't defer automatically to authority, am somehow "liberal." I'm glad that at least you enjoy reading the truth when I post it.

Well the police were doing their job, so was the school. Blame the federal government if you like, but I don't see people generally up in arms about this law, except where they can call hard working people child abusers and racists.

[grumbler]

For someone who so frequently bemoans the incivility on this site, you're very aggressive.

I do? Got an example?

You accused me of misrepresentations, hearsay and ignorance (for an irrelevant aside) in the middle of a post about people calling the kid a terrorist or excusing the authorities. I have done neither. I believe all parties acted foolishly, but don't think any real harm has been done here. As Dinner noted, the child seems to have done quite well. As to prosecutions, I have no idea how all that works. My uneducated guess is that the dad will ride the cops as high up the legal system as he can, and get a nice settlement out of it.

I noted your misrepresentation about kids who were in robotics programs, and noted that it was due to obvious ignorance of how those kids behaved. It wasn't an accusation at all, it was an observation. You don't deny the accuracy of the observation, you simply call it "hostile." Okay. Whatever.

As to the law and prosecutions, I do have some idea of how that works, and shared my thoughts on it. If you think that those are "hostile" as well, I can live with that.

[grumbler]

Well the police were doing their job, so was the school. Blame the federal government if you like, but I don't see people generally up in arms about this law, except where they can call hard working people child abusers and racists.

Except, of course, that the police were NOT doing their jobs, so they get full blame for the child abuse and false arrest. They knew they had no probable cause, yet restrained and arrested the kid anyway. Their job isn't to arrest innocent people nor cuff children illegally. The school principal was hired to prevent exactly this sort of child abuse - and you argue that abetting the crime was his job!. I'd argue his offense was worse, because he was the one morally and legally obliged to protect the child.

The reason you don't see people "generally up in arms about" the law against false arrest and child abuse is because no one opposes either one (at least, no one will openly admit they favor false arrest or child abuse).

[Elok]

Seriously? The moment you came back, you told everybody how tiresome it is to wade through endless personal attacks posing as conversations. Multiple times. And now you condescendingly attack my integrity, and act surprised that I should take offense because you used dry, impersonal terms instead of coming right out and calling me a lying idiot. These two things are not consistent.

Just an observation.

[Aeson]

I will drop out of any discussions that devolve into name-calling.

This was in regards to my statement:

"If you don't feel a very real threat is posed by the "cops" in that scenario you're a moron."

Seems very similar to this:

I'd excuse Elok of his misrepresentations because of his ignorance ...