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.

 CptJake wrote:
Regardless of the validity (or not) of the school policy, does it not bother you folks that a man was arrested, went to jail, and now has to go to court because basically he broke a school policy?

A policy.

A school policy.

Not a law passed by some elected legislative body. Not a statute. A policy.

Yeah, the deputy nailed him with ''disorderly conduct' which is a violation of the law, but that is a charge a cop can use because he is having a bad day. And after watching the video if those actions count as 'disorderly conduct' the law covering that needs to be changed.

Pathetic. I can't comprehend how the arresting that guy is remotely acceptable to folks.

I was just about to ask for an explanation on this, because from the looks of this, I guess in the US you can get arrested for things other than breaking the law? I mean, if someone put up a sign saying you have to moonwalk across their property, cops would be obliged to arrest anyone who didn't obey? That's what I'm seeing here.

 Rotary wrote:

I'm not that amazed. The school got angry at my very young cousin because he wouldn't eat the school lunch (hot dogs). They forced him to eat it, which was a horrible idea since the entire family is strict vegetarian.

Hot dog's ain't real meat anyway

 CptJake wrote:
Regardless of the validity (or not) of the school policy, does it not bother you folks that a man was arrested, went to jail, and now has to go to court because basically he broke a school policy?

A policy.

A school policy.

Not a law passed by some elected legislative body. Not a statute. A policy.

Yeah, the deputy nailed him with ''disorderly conduct' which is a violation of the law, but that is a charge a cop can use because he is having a bad day. And after watching the video if those actions count as 'disorderly conduct' the law covering that needs to be changed.

Pathetic. I can't comprehend how the arresting that guy is remotely acceptable to folks.

Not really actually because thats not what its about. He went to jail for distrubing da peace.

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Regardless of the validity (or not) of the school policy, does it not bother you folks that a man was arrested, went to jail, and now has to go to court because basically he broke a school policy?

A policy.

A school policy.

Not a law passed by some elected legislative body. Not a statute. A policy.

Yeah, the deputy nailed him with ''disorderly conduct' which is a violation of the law, but that is a charge a cop can use because he is having a bad day. And after watching the video if those actions count as 'disorderly conduct' the law covering that needs to be changed.

Pathetic. I can't comprehend how the arresting that guy is remotely acceptable to folks.

Not really actually because thats not what its about. He went to jail for distrubing da peace.

Perhaps you should read my whole post and watch the video.

Yeah the Deputy was a bully. A kid shouldn't be kept in the school for 20min+ if a parent is their to collect them.

I cant remember where I read it but the Sherif said something along the line of.

"I havent watched the video and I wont because it would tell the whole story."

I think its ridiculous for a police officer to completely disregard evidence like that. Testimony doesn't tell the whole story of anything yet I bet they take them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Regardless of the validity (or not) of the school policy, does it not bother you folks that a man was arrested, went to jail, and now has to go to court because basically he broke a school policy?

A policy.

A school policy.

Not a law passed by some elected legislative body. Not a statute. A policy.

Yeah, the deputy nailed him with ''disorderly conduct' which is a violation of the law, but that is a charge a cop can use because he is having a bad day. And after watching the video if those actions count as 'disorderly conduct' the law covering that needs to be changed.

Pathetic. I can't comprehend how the arresting that guy is remotely acceptable to folks.

Not really actually because thats not what its about. He went to jail for distrubing da peace.

Since when does disagreeing with a cop = disturbing the peace.

 carlos13th wrote:
Yeah the Deputy was a bully. A kid shouldn't be kept in the school for 20min+ if a parent is their to collect them.

Try 2+ hours... which is how long it takes for the entire 'line' system to clear out. And it is apparently choking the entire town's traffic for that period of time and causing lots of other dangerous traffic incidents.

 Frazzled wrote:


Not really actually because thats not what its about. He went to jail for disturbing da peace.

frazz, he wasnt being any more "disturbing" then the officer, and the officer seemed very rude, more disturbing, and just plaing grumpy, and slapped on the "disturbing the peace" catch 22 clause,

something I see with increasing regularity, and is a disturbing trend of "for every person, a law" so to speak.

the officer even said something to the effect of "I dont want to put up with this today"... since when is talking, or arguing in a normal tone/volume disturbing the peace?

there is nothing that the man did, that the officer is not also guilty of, both argued, both had similar tones/volumes to their speech, if anything the officer seemed to be the one issuing the least amount of respect.

actually disturbing the peace is one thing, but using it as a "catch 22 you go to jail cause I say so" card, as it was in this case, is not ok.

This whole situation could have been avoided by simply letting a parent take their kids home from school,

which may be "crazy" talk to some, since apparently schools have more right to children then parents,

but to me, the guy may dress and look like a douche, but he did absolutely nothing illegal/arrestworthy.

411 im not anti cop by any means, I have actually done a fair amount of work with LE, and highly respect how awful their job can be, and how often they are treated abusively.



but this is not one of those cases,

had the man been swearing, yelling, then fine, book him... but he wasnt, and its not illegal to argue with police, nor is it illegal to pick your kids up after the bell rings.

from the article, the cop did NOT arrest him for DTP< he arrested him for not complying with school policy, and used DTP as an excuse

Policy dictates that parents such as Howe (right) wait in their vehicles to pick up their children. School Resource Officer Avery Aytes (left) warned Howe that he would be going to jail if he didn’t comply.

right there, comply with school policy, or go to jail, not "stop disturbing the peace"

last I checked, schools didnt write laws.

Admittedly I am just reading the text submitted, as the video is blocked. Who did the video?

The guys wife I believe.

Why is she in there with a video? Why is he looking to start something? Whats all the drama? Why not just sign the form?

Is the deputy a prick? I don't doubt it (as noted I can't see the video), but there's no reason for the deputy to have to be there in the first place. This stinks of hothead.

I got the impression the deputy was there because that was his place of duty.

The video was recorded because the father could see that his wanting to avoid the policy was going to cause a problem and he wanted evidence of what happened (and I don't blame him). As for why he refused to sign the form, who cares? It has nothing to do with the fact the deputy arrested him for violating a policy. And another answer, because a signature on that form would have allowed the school to take actions which he as a parent did not want them to be allowed to take.

I personally have refused to sign forms from school which asked me to either allow actions I did not want the school to take or asked me to waive my right to hold them accountable for various actions.

he isnt looking to start anything,

he just wanted to pick up his kids, after the bell rang, as per state law.

someone challenged him that state law is over ruled by school policy, that is who started it, not him.

we hear the bell ring in the video, and that should be the end of it, here's your kids, have a good day.

I see no legal reason, after the bell rings, to detain children, once you have confirmed the person picking them up is their parent.

could have just let him walk his kid home, that would be the obvious "cooler heads prevail" solution.

instead the LEO kept insisting a silly policy overrules state law, which is very wrong, and confrontational. He also kept insulting the man, calling him childish, which is also confrontational.

not to mention the unsafe conditions this policy creates...
or the huge inconvenience an extra hour or two picking your kids up, 5 days a week, would cause.


edit: the deputy is the school resource officer, he is ALWAYS there, there is not need/reason/cause to "call" him, hes always there. if its anything like my school was, his office is inside/next to the main school office too.

Well without the video I don't know what the rent a cop is doing so and what the vibe is so will back off. That appears to be a big component here.

Reading this thread makes me very happy to live in the Netherlands, where kids of that age would simply ride their bike or walk home on their own.

The parent had previous called the Sheriff about the deputy and gotten agreement that he was 'fine' to do what he was doing, IE: making his kids walkers. This video is the parent 'CALLING THE SHERIFF' again so he could say 'Hey Sheriff, we spoke yesterday, your deputy is bothering me.' The video was of him calling the dude's boss which drove the dude to arrest him.

It is very hard to make out what is happening as everyone there seems to speak some dialect of 'Derterkerjerbs' it seems.

 CptJake wrote:
Regardless of the validity (or not) of the school policy, does it not bother you folks that a man was arrested, went to jail, and now has to go to court because basically he broke a school policy?

Do we know he's actually going to court? Not everyone arrested is formally charged.

 Frank&Stein wrote:
Reading this thread makes me very happy to live in the Netherlands, where kids of that age would simply ride their bike or walk home on their own.

Please take your common sense elsewhere. Kids have to be picked up by cars lined up like customers at a drive-thru. I just wonder if the parents get fries with their kids, I think they should.

 Frazzled wrote:
Why is she in there with a video? Why is he looking to start something? Whats all the drama? Why not just sign the form?

Is the deputy a prick? I don't doubt it (as noted I can't see the video), but there's no reason for the deputy to have to be there in the first place. This stinks of hothead.

I believe the form allowed his children to walk home alone without the parents there to pick them up which is why he didn't sign it. He was looking to pick up his children not start anything. She was there to pick up the children along with him.

The deputy seemed like a prick who didn't like the fact the other guy knew the law and wouldn't agree to everything he said. He also seemed annoyed that the man had complained about him to the sheriff. When the man who got arrested asked if he could give his keys to his wife the deputy said no you cant until the wife argued "you are really going to lock me out of my own house" or something similar.

I think the deputy is a police officer who cant understand that you do not have to instantly agree to everything a police officer says. He arrested him mostly it seems because he lost an argument and it was his trump card. The father was calm and polite throughout. The officer was not.

at the school across the street a lot are coming from more then close walking distance for the littleins. Mind you K-2 is pretty young. Also a lot of parents are coming in from school.

But they just park and walk over.

 Frazzled wrote:
at the school across the street a lot are coming from more then close walking distance for the littleins. Mind you K-2 is pretty young. Also a lot of parents are coming in from school.

But they just park and walk over.

Now what if the school said you must line up to get your kid, no more parking and walking over. Like this school did, or you can sign a form to let your 8 year old to leave school alone after school.

 Frank&Stein wrote:
Reading this thread makes me very happy to live in the Netherlands, where kids of that age would simply ride their bike or walk home on their own.

i think in most of the states this is still true is it not?

I know it is up here... at least once they are past 11 or 12 or so, but not 8 years old. they cant really walk/bike/take the bus by themselves the distances between some homes and schools.

I certainly HOPE its not this bonkers all over.

Now what if the school said you must line up to get your kid, no more parking and walking over.

That actually how the Jr. high does it, but unofficially. Everyone parks and does a Conga Line for the little snowflakes (the ones not walking or taking the bus)

Like this school did, or you can sign a form to let your 8 year old to leave school alone after school.

Does the form specifically say the parent can't meet them? If so thats - agreed - on those terms its utter bullocks.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Regardless of the validity (or not) of the school policy, does it not bother you folks that a man was arrested, went to jail, and now has to go to court because basically he broke a school policy?

Do we know he's actually going to court? Not everyone arrested is formally charged.

Going by the article, yes, we do know:

True to his word, Aytes eventually did handcuff Howe and charged him with disorderly conduct as he was led into a county sheriff's vehicle. Howe told The Daily News Wednesday he was released and faces a Dec. 2 court date.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Now what if the school said you must line up to get your kid, no more parking and walking over.

That actually how the Jr. high does it, but unofficially. Everyone parks and does a Conga Line for the little snowflakes (the ones not walking or taking the bus)

Like this school did, or you can sign a form to let your 8 year old to leave school alone after school.

Does the form specifically say the parent can't meet them? If so thats - agreed - on those terms its utter bullocks.

Again, what the form says makes no difference. The guy was arrested for violating a school policy and annoying a deputy.

I am replying directloy to the question boyo.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Regardless of the validity (or not) of the school policy, does it not bother you folks that a man was arrested, went to jail, and now has to go to court because basically he broke a school policy?

Do we know he's actually going to court? Not everyone arrested is formally charged.

Even though he has a court date, the whole thing should be thrown out as he was not read his rights right then and there on the spot. old fart mcBadgey pants decided it was better to get a guy into the car and down to the station quick like.


Ohh and, judging from what we see of the video, I think the wife probably started recording as soon as she realized things were going south, I mean, the guy was basically in the middle of or at the end of his business with the front office lady, but I think we get the argument early enough to see who was the instigator, and ultimately is in the wrong with this situation.

 easysauce wrote:
your words would justify any repressive act by governments, not just this particular event...

"Won't somebody think of the civil liberties!"

A guy had a dispute over the method used to pick up kids from school. The dispute got heated, and the cuffs got put on. It's not good at all that it happened, but in discussing this issue you immediately reference the Nazis... get some perspective, please.

if you dont draw the "human rights line" well before we get into "the right to my children" territory... thats just crazy... you either didnt think it through, or dont really consider children to be important to you, or that you have a right to them.

Thanks to a powerful and independant court system these issues are regularly resolved without the involvement of the media. They don't even need the 'help' of people arguing about it on the internet.

the news needs to report abusive/stupid/unnecessary laws or policies and treatment by officers/schools...

THAT IS THE MEDIAS JOB, for once it did it.

or would you rather hear about kim kardashian and the latest big brother show on the news? [/quuote]

If the media has Kim Kardashian or some guy getting arrested by an over-zealous deputy as the only news stories that could be covered, then you live in the most peaceful utopia man has ever created.