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.

 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?

Yea thats complete and utter garbage. Someone had to go before a judge with multiple warrant requests. I'd love to see a copy of that affidavit, and how Little Timmy - aka Billy the Kid - somehow violated a law you couldn't prosecute adults for. This argument carries no weight.

You're arguing that if there is any charge they must arrest, that if there is any charge no warning can be given. Thats patently false.

You also have a legal standard for arrest-what the Fuch legal standard did they think they'd make CHARGING A SIX YEAR OLD for not stopping a gang fight.
People should be fired and driven out of town on a railroad tie, but this is the government. Nothing ever happens.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

The school/district doesn't have a choice. School districts do have policies in place that cover required "cooperation" with law enforcement. The intent of laws that require schools to cooperate is based in good faith, assuming the absence of judges so lost to reality that they would stamp such warrants...we can see where that assumption gets us.

The policy in my district is:

If the investigating officer feels it is necessary to take the student from the school during school hours, the principal or the principal's representative shall ensure that the student has been placed under arrest (no document to show) or that a warrant or a court order for pick up has been served (document to show) or that the student has been placed under protective custody (no document to show) before allowing the student to leave the school without permission of the parent or legal custodian. The principal or the principal's representative shall make a reasonable effort to contact the parent/ legal custodian to advise them of an arrest or of a warrant or court order for pick up being served. However, if a student is picked up by court order or is placed in protective custody because of being a victim of child abuse, the agency official will notify the parent /legal custodian of the situation.

If a “Court-Related” Community Service official wishes to remove a student from school during school hours, he/she must have written or verbal permission (given to the school) from the parent/legal custodian, unless the student is being arrested, placed in protective custody, or a court order has been issued to pick up the student.

 Kanluwen wrote:


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.

Which the police then choose how to handle.... correct?

I think I am going to go sit this one out until we find out more. Kan is doing a lot of speculation at the moment and I really, really hope there is more to the story, because what Kan is saying is not reflecting really good on the Law-Enforcement types in this situation.

Edit: On a related note, I am glad I never moved to TN for that great job offer I had. After checking it out in person, I knew this blue-bellied, carpet-bagger wasn't going to be a good fit.

School did not call the children's parents correct?

Thats where the lawsuit against the school is won.

 Kanluwen wrote:
....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.

I agree, it has been made a Police issue, but it should be down to them to decide how to handle it appropriately. I'm guessing that you are a police officer or at least have some knowledge of US Police procedures. Could they have not dealt with this complaint in another way?
I would have thought that they would want to talk to the parents in the first instance, and then later decide on an appropriate course of action.
I would also have thought that actually arresting anyone in these circumstances should be at the very bottom of a list of potential actions.
I don't think the Police should be "obliged" to arrest anyone immediately, it would quickly lead to an untenable situation where they would court hostility from almost every member of society, that's without considering the enormous pressure it would induce on them through sheer lack of resources to do so.

 Easy E wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


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.

Which the police then choose how to handle.... correct?

To an extent, yeah. There's other factors in play(District Attorney's office being a big part of it as well, Social Services could play in as well etc) that could have influenced the police response.

I think I am going to go sit this one out until we find out more. Kan is doing a lot of speculation at the moment and I really, really hope there is more to the story, because what Kan is saying is not reflecting really good on the Law-Enforcement types in this situation.

I really appreciate you making sure to note that I'm doing speculation here.

To an extent, yeah. There's other factors in play(District Attorney's office being a big part of it as well, Social Services could play in as well etc) that could have influenced the police response.

Then sue them too.

 r_squared wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
....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.

I agree, it has been made a Police issue, but it should be down to them to decide how to handle it appropriately. I'm guessing that you are a police officer or at least have some knowledge of US Police procedures.

I'm not a cop. I wanted to be a cop for a long time, but then this whole nonsense started happening and I realized that I would rather try to work on the civil side rather than the LEO side. I like to think that I can see it for both angles.

Could they have not dealt with this complaint in another way?
I would have thought that they would want to talk to the parents in the first instance, and then later decide on an appropriate course of action.

They probably could have dealt with this complaint in another way--but again, it might not necessarily have been in their hands.

The first article I posted makes a mention of a social worker in the area saying that these kinds of fights are really common, and it could be that this was a case that they could actually follow up on.

I would also have thought that actually arresting anyone in these circumstances should be at the very bottom of a list of potential actions.

Like I said, there's a lot of different factors that could have been in play. A decision to 'make a stand' with a case that could be considered a slam dunk (in terms of prosecuting the case, not public reaction) could have been made here.

I don't think the Police should be "obliged" to arrest anyone immediately, it would quickly lead to an untenable situation where they would court hostility from almost every member of society, that's without considering the enormous pressure it would induce on them through sheer lack of resources to do so.

They're not really "obliged" to arrest anyone immediately. Sorry if that's what my post came across as.

If they're given evidence of a crime having been committed, they're obliged to open an investigation. Sometimes those investigations end up just being mere formalities and a fast-track to an arrest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

To an extent, yeah. There's other factors in play(District Attorney's office being a big part of it as well, Social Services could play in as well etc) that could have influenced the police response.

Then sue them too.

Unfortunately, if they were "acting in good faith" at the time the arrests were made? You and I both know that they can't be sued.

They can still be sued. They have to defend themselves.

Sue them for federal violations of the Civil Rights Act.

Its even more interesting now that i think about. Courts have ruled the police have no duty to protect you. Yet, evidently that standard does not apply to 6 year olds.

No way this is allowed to happen in Sherman Oaks.

 Frazzled wrote:
School did not call the children's parents correct?

Thats where the lawsuit against the school is won.

I don't know if they did or not and the laws in that state could very well be different from Oklahoma (where I live).

 Kanluwen wrote:

THEY ARRESTED A SIX YEAR OLD.

What, six year olds can't commit crimes?

In most of the world, they indeed can't. In a lot of countries the age of criminal responsibility is 12 or 14. Children under that age are not legally capable of committing crimes.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

THEY ARRESTED A SIX YEAR OLD.

What, six year olds can't commit crimes?

In most of the world, they indeed can't. In a lot of countries the age of criminal responsibility is 12 or 14. Children under that age are not legally capable of committing crimes.

Just to be clear:
What you're referring to isn't about ARRESTING them, but rather you're referring to CHARGING them.

Kids can be arrested and then not be charged.
Being arrested != being charged

In some countries, 6 year olds are carrying guns and smoking cigarettes.... :(

 agnosto wrote:
In some countries, 6 year olds are carrying guns and smoking cigarettes.... :(

Hey lets leave Louisiana and New Jersey out of this.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

THEY ARRESTED A SIX YEAR OLD.

What, six year olds can't commit crimes?

In most of the world, they indeed can't. In a lot of countries the age of criminal responsibility is 12 or 14. Children under that age are not legally capable of committing crimes.

Just to be clear:
What you're referring to isn't about ARRESTING them, but rather you're referring to CHARGING them.

Kids can be arrested and then not be charged.
Being arrested != being charged

True, but I thought in this case they were also charged?

Some parents said their kids were charged but we can't get that confirmed.

 agnosto wrote:
In some countries, 6 year olds are carrying guns and smoking cigarettes.... :(

See!! Good kids with concealed carry would have put an end to it!

Can't tell if this is a good or bad kid....


edit


wait...

 Jihadin wrote:


Can't tell if this is a good or bad kid....

Obviously the kid is an Anti-Villain meant to symbolize the childish nature of violence

It will probably turn out that the 6 year old was the ring leader of an illegal fighting/gambling circuit at the elementary school that involved a black-market Cuban candy trade.

First rule of Fight Club....you don't talk about fight club.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Wait, so kids get taught that getting involved in a fight will get you thrown out of school, even if you're trying to stop it.
But now the "law" is saying 11 year-olds have to try to stop fights, or they'll be arrested. First of all, neither of these rulings make sense. And all they're doing is confusing the hell out of the kids (and parents, and people on the Internet, and probably the animals).

This kind of flip-flopping has been going on since "zero tolerance" went into effect in school districts across the country. The schools will punish the student(s) that didn't start the fight or anybody else involved, not just the aggressor(s). When these kids decided not get involved, they were complying with this policy of overreaction. And they still get shafted just because they might happen to be near the scene of the fight.


I have no issue with the actual combatants being handcuffed if that's the department's SOP, regardless of age. But arresting the kids that didn't make any moves to stop it? That's patently ridiculous.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:



I have no issue with the actual combatants being handcuffed if that's the department's SOP, regardless of age. But arresting the kids that didn't make any moves to stop it? That's patently ridiculous.

Again, I haven't seen this video, but from what I understand now, there were two smaller kids fighting and older kids in attendance.
If they were just passers-by who were rubbernecking or took out phones to collect evidence, that's different than a bunch of preteens encouraging younger kids to fight.

Handcuffing children is hilarious. US coppers are beyond parody.

Hey, they have to justify that budget request for "150 really tiny handcuffs" somehow!

 jmurph wrote:
Hey, they have to justify that budget request for "150 really tiny handcuffs" somehow!

That made me stop and think that traditional handcuffs probably wouldn't work so they used zipties?

 agnosto wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Hey, they have to justify that budget request for "150 really tiny handcuffs" somehow!

That made me stop and think that traditional handcuffs probably wouldn't work so they used zipties?

Oh they definitely would have used zipcuffs. Unless they had a corresponding number of officers or some way of restraining the kids before they got extra handcuffs from the car, zipcuffs are the best solution.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Hey, they have to justify that budget request for "150 really tiny handcuffs" somehow!

That made me stop and think that traditional handcuffs probably wouldn't work so they used zipties?

Oh they definitely would have used zipcuffs. Unless they had a corresponding number of officers or some way of restraining the kids before they got extra handcuffs from the car, zipcuffs are the best solution.

Would they need to even handcuff 1st graders? I wonder if a child welfare worker was on hand to ensure the safety of the kids.

 agnosto wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Hey, they have to justify that budget request for "150 really tiny handcuffs" somehow!

That made me stop and think that traditional handcuffs probably wouldn't work so they used zipties?

Oh they definitely would have used zipcuffs. Unless they had a corresponding number of officers or some way of restraining the kids before they got extra handcuffs from the car, zipcuffs are the best solution.

Would they need to even handcuff 1st graders?

Honestly? Probably not. But rules is rules, and sometimes they get followed more stringently in instances where the arresting officers are doing things that they might have argued with their bosses about behind closed doors.

That way the officers can be as protected as possible by the fact that the exact procedures were followed and things didn't get omitted or altered and present either side an argument as to "Officer Soandso didn't do/did do X, Y, or Z".

I wonder if a child welfare worker was on hand to ensure the safety of the kids.

Not necessarily, but the school resource officer(read: a police officer whose entire job is to be on hand at the school and kinda/sorta ends up being a weird mix of CPS and LEO) is likely the one who made the arrests but would not have done the transportation to the juvenile correctional facility where the kids supposedly were charged.

School Resource Officer must be one of the most thankless jobs in the world.