First graders arrested, cuffed, and charged for not breaking up a fight off school property

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Mdlbuildr**

Sarcasm on.

Yes, this is exactly what we should be teaching our children. If you see a policeman, expect to be taken away in cuffs and be held without your parents around. Brilliant.

Sarcasm off.

**timetowaste85**

Kanluwen wrote:
Yeah yeah yeah, tough talk and bravado.

Reality is if the cops served a warrant on a 6 year old, there'd be whining about how the kid was a perfect little angel and yet the parents couldn't say where little Jimmy was the day before.
There wouldn't be piles of dead cops or parents going all John Wick on people. They'd be crying and threatening to call a lawyer, but they'd comply.

Additionally, the reality as to why they did the arrests at school?
Because it lets them get all of the kids at once in one place and lets them have an opportunity to talk to the kids with the school administration getting involved as well.
Minors can't talk to cops without a parent; nothing stopping them from talking to a principal.

Dude, Kan, that's a pretty tall pile of bull. Kid doesn't have to be declared a "perfect angel"-the problem is that 6 year olds are so frigging young, they're easily susceptible to peer pressure, can get swept up in it, are afraid of stepping in for fear of being attacked themselves...the idea that all or even most 6 year olds know the serious difference between right and wrong is already a stretch, but the fear of either being attacked or being ostracized at that age is a pretty strong deterrent to doing the right thing, even if they know what it is. Frankly, this is going to get ugly, fast. Even if the kids are the offspring of violent families, they're still 6 year olds who didn't step in to break up a fight. If one had a gun or knife easily visible, I could see him being "arrested" to keep everyone safe. But short of that? No. No way.

And Fraz MIGHT be exaggerating a tiny bit...but not by much. Most decent parents would go to hell and back for their kid(s). Even if it meant jail time to keep them safe. That's kinda what being a parent is. My dad is a pretty damn upstanding citizen, but if I was arrested at 6 years old for not breaking up a fight, the cop would be doing the arrest from his butt-plant on the dirt.

**MrDwhitey**

And your father would be dead.

He would be very protective from the grave.

Or in jail.

**ImAGeek**

treslibras wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Is it weird that before opening this thread I was thinking "Please be in England. Please be in England!". I didn't want this to be yet another boneheaded thing in the US.

My reaction exactly. I am already depressed by the bad stories I get from Germany and France. But the US is just a whole different world in terms of frequency and absurdity of life.

We don't have 'first grade' in England so it was a long shot from the start!

**r_squared**

Why are some people wishing this was England?

It does seem that Police in the US do have a problem with Public Relations. It's a tough job right enough, but things like this make it tougher to maintain any form of credibility.

Regardless of the situation, it should have occurred to some senior management that the mass arrest of primary school children would need to have some pretty serious charges to back them up.
I'm not sure that this charge qualifies. Do US police have no discretion in these matters?

**Vaktathi**

TheMeanDM wrote:
Shouldn't we be asking:
Where was the good guy with the concealed carry to break this up?

That would be illegal brandishing of a firearm in most places.

**timetowaste85**

MrDwhitey wrote:
And your father would be dead.

He would be very protective from the grave.

Or in jail.

From the small amount you posted, it's clear my point (and Fraz's, since his is what mine is based on) went over your head. But to address your post, it's far more likely that he'd be cuffed and in jail with me. Probably not getting shot for using a single fist, no weapon at all, to knock him down. Then again, I also would have never seen this situation appear in real life. So what do I know. This is a very damning situation for America, and it's pretty shameful. I think it'll be hard to find any decent human being supporting the cops from the information we have. I'm sure they have supporters; they just aren't decent people.

**Easy E**

Kanluwen wrote:

Additionally, the reality as to why they did the arrests at school?
lets them have an opportunity to talk to the kids with the school administration getting involved as well.
Minors can't talk to cops without a parent; nothing stopping them from talking to a principal.

So basically they were trying to be sneaky and underhanded to get confessions out of kids to someone who is legally obligated to report it?

Please tell me that is not what you are saying and I am misunderstanding the situation you are presenting.

Why would the cops want to bypass the kids talking to their parents? That right there reeks of the "Us against Them" ethos that is driving so much hostility between the Public and Law-Enforcement.

**Kanluwen**

Vaktathi wrote:

That said, stuff involving US public schools always borders on the absurd, with braindead zero tolerance policies and schools assuming they are in control of children from when they leave their door in the morning to when they step back through the door in the evening, and gobs of internal and mainstream politics involved

Speaking broadly, schools are considered "to be in control of children from when they leave their door in the morning to when they step back through the door in the evening". There's even a term used for it, in loco parentis.

If something happens to the child while they're under the supervision of the school and it can reasonably be proven? The school can and likely will be held responsible.

Part of the issue here is that people are conflating what purportedly are the charges("criminal responsibility for conduct of another") with their own ideas as to what that actually means, and the fact that we have very little information beyond:
A) The arrests were made on Friday.
B) They consisted of 10 kids, between the ages of 6-11.
C) Parents and community leaders were "outraged".

However, this incident is *far* beyond the norm even for the US and the reason its making news is exactly because it is so absurd.

Well, to an extent it's also possibly making the news because of the fact that half the kids arrested were black and there's a lot of traction right now for any story relating to issues between local law enforcement and communities of color.

**MrDwhitey**

timetowaste85 wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:
And your father would be dead.

He would be very protective from the grave.

Or in jail.

From the small amount you posted, it's clear my point (and Fraz's, since his is what mine is based on) went over your head. But to address your post, it's far more likely that he'd be cuffed and in jail with me. Probably not getting shot for using a single fist, no weapon at all, to knock him down. Then again, I also would have never seen this situation appear in real life. So what do I know. This is a very damning situation for America, and it's pretty shameful. I think it'll be hard to find any decent human being supporting the cops from the information we have. I'm sure they have supporters; they just aren't decent people.

From what is currently known yes, no-one decent will support this action. They'll especially be disgusted by potential tactic of trying to get the kids to talk without the parents present.

Still, the emotional reaction you and Frazzled espouse would do the opposite of helping the situation. So please, explain the point to me.

**Frazzled**

lord_blackfang wrote:
Unless there's something more about this, sounds like some cop just really, really, really wanted to arrest a bunch of (black) kids for kicks.

And a judge signed off. And A school administration let them in the school.

**jmurph**

Clearly, the only logical solution with such spotty information is to draw conclusions, become outraged, and extrapolate this to all law enforcement and/or children/POC/etc.

**Frazzled**

MrDwhitey wrote:
timetowaste85 wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:
And your father would be dead.

He would be very protective from the grave.

Or in jail.

From the small amount you posted, it's clear my point (and Fraz's, since his is what mine is based on) went over your head. But to address your post, it's far more likely that he'd be cuffed and in jail with me. Probably not getting shot for using a single fist, no weapon at all, to knock him down. Then again, I also would have never seen this situation appear in real life. So what do I know. This is a very damning situation for America, and it's pretty shameful. I think it'll be hard to find any decent human being supporting the cops from the information we have. I'm sure they have supporters; they just aren't decent people.

From what is currently known yes, no-one decent will support this action. They'll especially be disgusted by potential tactic of trying to get the kids to talk without the parents present.

Still, the emotional reaction you and Frazzled espouse would do the opposite of helping the situation. So please, explain the point to me.

Of course its emotional. I can't explain it to you because you aren't a parent. You literally can't get it. I am not being critical, just realistic.
If these were wealthy parents, the cops wouldn't have made it in the door before prosecutors called it off because their bosses had already been called.

**r_squared**

I'd just like to offer some perspective. In my school years I saw plenty of fights in school and out, I was involved in a handful myself, but imagine that if back in the 80s a van of police officers turned up and arrested every child involved on similar charges.
I would expect that my opinion of the police would be very different from it is now, it is also possible that I may have been disbarred from serving in the military if I left school with a criminal record.
My whole life could have been very different to how it is now, and I almost certainly would have a distrust of the police.

I'm not sure exactly what outcome those authorising this action thought they would achieve.

**Frazzled**

jmurph wrote:
Clearly, the only logical solution with such spotty information is to draw conclusions, become outraged, and extrapolate this to all law enforcement and/or children/POC/etc.

I call Shenanigans! Everyone got your Shenanigans sticks?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:

Additionally, the reality as to why they did the arrests at school?
lets them have an opportunity to talk to the kids with the school administration getting involved as well.
Minors can't talk to cops without a parent; nothing stopping them from talking to a principal.

So basically they were trying to be sneaky and underhanded to get confessions out of kids to someone who is legally obligated to report it?

Please tell me that is not what you are saying and I am misunderstanding the situation you are presenting.

Why would the cops want to bypass the kids talking to their parents? That right there reeks of the "Us against Them" ethos that is driving so much hostility between the Public and Law-Enforcement.

That is exactly what he is saying.

**Kanluwen**

Easy E wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:

Additionally, the reality as to why they did the arrests at school?
lets them have an opportunity to talk to the kids with the school administration getting involved as well.
Minors can't talk to cops without a parent; nothing stopping them from talking to a principal.

So basically they were trying to be sneaky and underhanded to get confessions out of kids to someone who is legally obligated to report it?

Please tell me that is not what you are saying and I am misunderstanding the situation you are presenting.

That's exactly what I'm saying, and you're not misunderstanding me at all. However there is something that you might not have considered, which a lot of community oriented policing programs do encourage school resource officers to consider.

Why would the cops want to bypass the kids talking to their parents? That right there reeks of the "Us against Them" ethos that is driving so much hostility between the Public and Law-Enforcement.

The reason the cops might want to bypass the kids talking with their parents present is that there:

A) Might have been concerns that the parents were involved somehow.
or
B) They wanted to ensure that the kids got to talk to someone who is effectively a neutral party before they went beyond just hauling the kids out of class to talk to them.
or
C) They were concerned that the kids might not admit to knowledge of the events(which in and of itself isn't a crime BTW) if the parents were present.

Like I've said repeatedly, there's not a whole hell of a lot of information to go on and I'm running off a lot of speculation and theory at this point.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

r_squared wrote:
I'd just like to offer some perspective. In my school years I saw plenty of fights in school and out, I was involved in a handful myself, but imagine that if back in the 80s a van of police officers turned up and arrested every child involved on similar charges.
I would expect that my opinion of the police would be very different from it is now, it is also possible that I may have been disbarred from serving in the military if I left school with a criminal record.
My whole life could have been very different to how it is now, and I almost certainly would have a distrust of the police.

I'm not sure exactly what outcome those authorising this action thought they would achieve.

Okay, so.

From the way this seems to be(as mentioned repeatedly), it's not a charge against kids simply having knowledge that the fight occurred or was going to occur.
It's a charge against kids who were present at the fight.

**MrDwhitey**

Frazzled wrote:

Of course its emotional. I can't explain it to you because you aren't a parent. You literally can't get it. I am not being critical, just realistic.
If these were wealthy parents, the cops wouldn't have made it in the door before prosecutors called it off because their bosses had already been called.

No, Frazzled. If the emotional response is to get killed/jailed for life murdering cops (which is what you said a lot of dads would do), your kid still gets arrested, no longer has a father and grows up without their protection.

Well done.

**Frazzled**

No they were concerned their parent would immediately shut down this gak show.

Good to see you admit they were trying to end run the Bill of Rights with CHILDREN.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrDwhitey wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Of course its emotional. I can't explain it to you because you aren't a parent. You literally can't get it. I am not being critical, just realistic.
If these were wealthy parents, the cops wouldn't have made it in the door before prosecutors called it off because their bosses had already been called.

No, Frazzled. If the emotional response is to get killed/jailed for life murdering cops (which is what you said a lot of dads would do), your kid still gets arrested, no longer has a father and grows up without their protection.

Well done.

Like I said, you don't have children.

How about this to avoid the topic spinning off.. Now that the police and judge have completely destroyed police relations in that area, post lawsuits against the police, the prosecutor, the school district, and now a potential Fed investigation (and those always go well for the locality) what possible benefit was achieved by ARRESTING CHILDREN.

Note I am not saying convicting. No way anyone in this circumstance gets convicted.

As noted they all now have nice records, so when they trump up another charge, they can ruin the kids' futures forever. Way to go. Makes you want to send money to the Black Panthers. Now pick up that can Citizen.

**MrDwhitey**

So basically you consider abandoning your kids to the mercy of the law without you is the right course. Ok.

**A Town Called Malus**

In response to Kan: So the police were denying the children the right to have effective legal counsel.

**Howard A Treesong**

Teachers are so in disempowered against taking action against aggressive behaviour that if children refuse to comply there's little they can do in the heat of the moment, sure they can exclude the next day, but when something bad happens your choices are limited. Calling the police seems extreme but it's about teachers protecting themselves while doing something to protect other students. Gone are the days a teacher could wade in and drag them apart by the scruff of the neck, that could end with you in court with litigious parents. Very little good can come of physically intervening with children fighting. You face all sorts of possible complaints and if you are injured yourself, very possible with fists flying, you are unlikely to get recompense because you chose to put yourself in that situation. Best case scenario is that no one gets seriously hurt, other scenarios are mostly worse for the teacher, the pupils, being minors, face very few real consequences. I really can't stand all this 'gangsta' nonsense kids want to get emulate with that leads to fighting and aggression, but little kids copy big kids and they encourage them to carry knives and drugs.

**Frazzled**

MrDwhitey wrote:
So basically you consider abandoning your kids to the mercy of the law without you is the right course. Ok.

You're trying to have a person think, when you have people trying to arrest your child. You are not going to think. So then the PoPo get to have a bunch of funerals and people all over them demanding-why did you ARREST A SIX YEAR OLD.
Again,, lets get back to topic.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
In response to Kan: So the police were denying the children the right to have effective legal counsel.

Exactly.

**MrDwhitey**

There's going to have to be some fairly amazing circumstances not yet revealed for this to approach being "ok".

**Kanluwen**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
In response to Kan: So the police were denying the children the right to have effective legal counsel.

Once again:
We don't have enough knowledge about what happened to say one way or the other.

For all we know, police got a tip or complaint from a parent that a fight had occurred and the administration called in every kid between the ages of 6 and 11 and sat down with them. The ten that got arrested could have been the only ten actually involved.

**r_squared**

Kanluwen wrote:
......Automatically Appended Next Post:

r_squared wrote:
I'd just like to offer some perspective. In my school years I saw plenty of fights in school and out, I was involved in a handful myself, but imagine that if back in the 80s a van of police officers turned up and arrested every child involved on similar charges.
I would expect that my opinion of the police would be very different from it is now, it is also possible that I may have been disbarred from serving in the military if I left school with a criminal record.
My whole life could have been very different to how it is now, and I almost certainly would have a distrust of the police.

I'm not sure exactly what outcome those authorising this action thought they would achieve.

Okay, so.

From the way this seems to be(as mentioned repeatedly), it's not a charge against kids simply having knowledge that the fight occurred or was going to occur.
It's a charge against kids who were present at the fight.

You're kind of missing my point. Unless the charge is a very serious one, what consequences did the senior officer authorising the arrest of these children envisage? Is there no other possible effective route they could have explored before making these arrests?
They must have known that unless there was a very serious crime involved, the outcome would make the police appear to be over zealous, bullying and insensitive whilst causing enormous damage to public relations and potentially damaging the lives of these children in the future, alongside irreparably negatively influencing the opinion these children would hold of the police for decades to come.

Nuances about the nature of the charge are completely irrelevant in these circumstances.

**Kanluwen**

r_squared wrote:

You're kind of missing my point. Unless the charge is a very serious one, what consequences did the senior officer authorising the arrest of these children envisage? Is there no other possible effective route they could have explored before making these arrests?

And what charge do you think is "a very serious one"?

Go out and get into a fight as an adult. It's not something that will get waved away unless the other party decides not to press charges.

They must have known that unless there was a very serious crime involved, the outcome would make the police appear to be over zealous, bullying and insensitive whilst causing enormous damage to public relations and potentially damaging the lives of these children in the future, alongside irreparably negatively influencing the opinion these children would hold of the police for decades to come.

Oh please. It doesn't matter the "seriousness of the crime". People ALWAYS will moan about the police doing their job, as long as the police are doing their job to them or those that they concern themselves with.

Spoiler:

Nuances about the nature of the charge are completely irrelevant in these circumstances.

Unfortunately, given the lack of information they're as relevant as talking about the motivations of the senior officers "authorising the arrest of these children".

With that in mind, I did find another article from the "Daily News Journal" which discusses the case:

MURFREESBORO — More than 150 people called for action Sunday after parents said at least five students, ages 6 to 10, were handcuffed at Hobgood Elementary School on Friday.

The students were arrested, accused of not stopping a fight that happened earlier off-campus and later released from the juvenile center on Friday, said the Rev. James McCarroll, pastor of First Baptist Church on East Castle Street in Murfreesboro. The church hosted a community meeting Sunday afternoon about the incident. In addition to angry parents and supporters, Murfreesboro Police Chief Karl Durr and City Manager Rob Lyons were in the crowd.

"There are innocent kids that have been arrested that have been entered in a system they have no business in," said Zacchaeus Crawford, who said three of his children were handcuffed at the school.

"If something needs to be corrected, it will be," Lyons told the crowd."Out of this, we want to learn and make things better so they don't happen again," Durr said. Durr said the city's police department will review the situation, though he did not go into specifics in front of the standing-room-only crowd at the First Baptist Church fellowship hall.

Parents and community members sharply criticized the arrests of the students. They were taken into custody after they did not intervene in an incident that took place in their neighborhood, the parents said.

"This is nonsense, and it is nonsense in the fullest definition," Crawford said.
A video was taken of the incident and officers later obtained arrest warrants for students who did not break up the disturbance, McConnell said in an interview before the Sunday meeting. Information about who took the video and how the police obtained it were not made clear Sunday.

Director of Schools Linda Gilbert and a Murfreesboro City Schools spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment about the incident over the weekend.

Christopher Williams, the school safety and education officer at Hobgood on the day of the incident, said that the Hobgood administration and office staff "handled the situation as wonderfully and as good as they could have."

Williams, a First Baptist youth pastor who did not speak for the Murfreesboro Police Department, apologized for what happened and said he still gets emotional about the arrests as the father of a 9-year-old girl.

"I hope we're not setting a precedent where there's a fight and we send everyone and their mom to jail," he said.

I would link to it, but it's one of those sites where it constantly begs you to subscribe and gives you X number of free articles.

There is one thing I want to point out though:

"There are innocent kids that have been arrested that have been entered in a system they have no business in," said Zacchaeus Crawford, who said three of his children were handcuffed at the school.

So at least 3 of the 10 kids arrested/handcuffed were from the same family.

Oh and here's another article:

Spoiler:

MURFREESBORO, TN (WSMV) -

Students as young as 8 were arrested at Hobgood Elementary School in Murfreesboro because of what they allegedly didn’t do during a fight.
Zacchaeus Crawford said anger is an understatement for how he is feeling after his children were arrested.

“It makes me want to fight. I’m not going to lie and say it doesn’t,” Crawford said. “How would you feel if it was your child? I’m frustrated.”

His children, ages 9, 10 and 11, were arrested at Hobgood Elementary last Friday, along with an 8-year-old and a 13-year-old.

Crawford said a 5-year-old and a 6-year-old were fighting over a basketball game in his backyard while another child recorded it.

Police saw the video and showed up at the school. They handcuffed the students and drove them to the juvenile detention center, where they were charged with criminal responsibility of another.

Others said the children who were arrested were not in the fight and were not the ones who recorded it.

Murfreesboro police said legally they cannot discuss investigations involving children, but police discussed this issue on Saturday night at a community meeting at First Baptist Church.

“Our chief, who is brand new, was very apologetic and he is very committed to making sure that this gets handled properly and in a timely manner,” Crawford said.

Crawford said he wants the charges against his children dropped immediately.

“If I got to show up to court on June 28, that is not going to be good,” he said.

Juvenile Judge Donna Davenport said everything in juvenile is confidential and she cannot comment on specific cases, but said, “We are in a crisis with our children in Rutherford County. I’ve been in officer 17 and a half years and I’ve never seen it this bad.”

Channel 4 reached out to officials at Hobgood Elementary, but they denied requests for an interview but released the following statement:

The arrests that occurred at Hobgood Elementary last week were not a result of any behavior that occurred on school property. The school was merely the location of the arrests.

Read more: http://www.wsmv.com/story/31755971/parent-wants-answers-after-children-arrested-at-murfreesboro-elementary-school#ixzz46ORisKmv

So, according to Crawford it happened on his property and it was between a 5 and a 6 year old, while another kid recorded it.

**r_squared**

Kanluwen wrote:
r_squared wrote:

You're kind of missing my point. Unless the charge is a very serious one, what consequences did the senior officer authorising the arrest of these children envisage? Is there no other possible effective route they could have explored before making these arrests?

And what charge do you think is "a very serious one"?

Go out and get into a fight as an adult. It's not something that will get waved away unless the other party decides not to press charges.

They must have known that unless there was a very serious crime involved, the outcome would make the police appear to be over zealous, bullying and insensitive whilst causing enormous damage to public relations and potentially damaging the lives of these children in the future, alongside irreparably negatively influencing the opinion these children would hold of the police for decades to come.

Oh please. It doesn't matter the "seriousness of the crime". People ALWAYS will moan about the police doing their job, as long as the police are doing their job to them or those that they concern themselves with.
[spoiler]

Nuances about the nature of the charge are completely irrelevant in these circumstances.

I think more serious than this one that has been presented would be a good start. Especially if you felt the need to arrest primary school age children. Do you feel it is always appropriate to arrest children for minor offences? Do you feel that it serves the community interest to always do so? Do the police not have to consider, and use discretion?
These weren't adults fighting, they were very young children. However, the intervention of the police in this manner, after the fight, is completely inappropriate.

You're right, people will ALWAYS find reasons to complain about the police, and instances such as this prove that they are right to complain. The Police are not by and large fools, but in this instance they most definitely were.

**Kanluwen**

Unfortunately, if someone makes a complaint to the police--which is what it sounds like here as the police aren't saying how they obtained the video--then the police are obliged to become involved if there's evidence for an arrest.

Police have the ability to use discretion, but that's when they are the ones who actually observe the crime or action.

**Ouze**

Kanluwen wrote:
Unfortunately, if someone makes a complaint to the police--which is what it sounds like here as the police aren't saying how they obtained the video--then the police are obliged to become involved if there's evidence for an arrest.

Police have the ability to use discretion, but that's when they are the ones who actually observe the crime or action.

If I report someone jaywalking, the police are obliged to issue them a summons like powerless automatons, but if they see it, they have the discretion to ignore it, huh?

**Kanluwen**

Ouze wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Unfortunately, if someone makes a complaint to the police--which is what it sounds like here as the police aren't saying how they obtained the video--then the police are obliged to become involved if there's evidence for an arrest.

Police have the ability to use discretion, but that's when they are the ones who actually observe the crime or action.

If I report someone jaywalking, the police are obliged to issue them a summons like powerless automatons, but if they see it, they have the discretion to ignore it, huh?

Ostensibly, yes.

However back in reality land unless you had some kind of evidence showing someone jaywalking and the information necessary for them to issue a summons, it probably wouldn't happen.

Additionally please note that I'm not saying that this was a "great idea!" or any garbage like that. Taking kids in handcuffs to a juvenile correctional center is dumb as hell, as is the police getting involved in a fight between kids.

However if a parent or someone forwarded the video and information about the kids in it to the police, then it becomes a police issue.