Cops and teens

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by AlliFlowers, Oct 10, 2014.

  1. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #1
    Yesterday after school, a bunch of our students decided to be stupid. The police were called out (happens regularly where I teach). Two of the students bowed up in front of one of the officers. The officer asked the children (one 18, one 17) to back up and stop what they were doing. They did not stop.

    Not only did they not stop, the 18 year old proceeded to take a swing at the officer at which point 4 other officers gave him a beat down. He wasn't going down without a fight. (More evidence of teens doing stupid things.)

    Had the original officer drawn his weapon in defense, he would have been justified in protecting himself from a grown man who was not listening to what he was being told, not stopping, and coming at the officer with bad intent.

    What's more, had people come upon the scene towards the end, they would undoubtedly have thought the officer was acting irrationally against these "poor little high school boys."

    My principal has requested they be expelled. If they were willing to strike a police officer - imagine what they would do to a teacher.

    And you never know what these kids are really thinking or whether they are going to carry out their threats (usually yes).

    The police deserve higher pay, and teachers deserve combat pay.
     
  2. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #2
    Did this incident happen on school grounds?

    If not, the principal will not have justification for expulsion. Obviously, they may be suspended for not being at school when they are supposed to (by being in jail, unless bailed out), but unless this happened on school grounds, there isn't much further the principal can press this.

    BL.
     
  3. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #3
    :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
     
  4. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #4
    FTFY. At least teachers are doing their jobs and trying to educate our youth.

    BL.
     
  5. impulse462 Suspended

    impulse462

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    #5
    first you call him a teen than an adult. which one is it?
     
  6. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #6
    An 18 or 19 year old would be both.
     
  7. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #7
    This is not always true. I've seen students expelled from school for conduct outside of the school. While it isn't the norm, it happens. We had an 18-year-old student who plead guilty to a sexual crime and got probation. The incident didn't happen anywhere close to the school. He was forced to go to Alternative School for his senior year.

    Our school district has also expelled students that have been convicted of drug offenses that didn't happen at school. I don't know what law, or rule covers it but I've seen it happen several times. It could be state by state.
     
  8. DonJudgeMe macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2014
    Location:
    Arizona
    #8
    That is not accurate. I have had friends get suspended for fighting after they are dropped off from the bus, after school. Bus driver reported what he had seen while driving away, and the kids fighting were suspended the next day. The instigator(my dumbass friend) was expelled.

    He thought what you thought.
     
  9. The Doctor11 macrumors 603

    The Doctor11

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Location:
    New York
    #9
    OP what did they do that was stupid? We want the good juicy story's with lots of detail!
     
  10. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #10
    Not to be repetitive again, but, such things always depend on state and local law as well as policy. In some states, public schools have to keep trying to educate difficult kids until they are 18.

    Also, not to be redundant, but, traditional "in loco parentis" put the school in charge from the time the child leaves home to go to school until the time the child returns home.
     
  11. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #11
    Actually they should subdue him with the least possible force. It's not an excuse to beat someone up. Secondly you think they should pull out weapons when there are four officers to that one kid? The lack of sound reason in your post is astonishing.

    Their pay varies by precinct. In some places they're paid reasonably well.
     
  12. AlliFlowers thread starter Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #12
    They started fighting on campus, drew a crowd, and when the crowd got big enough, dragged themselves and the crowd down the street (yards from the building, but technically off campus).

    ----------

    When someone looking very much like a grown man comes at you swinging, and you don't know if he's going to pull a gun out of his pocket, you do what you can. You don't wait to see if he's going to fire. You've never been around violence, have you.

    If they're paid less than pro athletes and congress, they're underpaid regardless of the precinct.
     
  13. thekev, Oct 11, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2014

    thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #13
    That someone may be armed does not mean that it is okay to assume they are armed and potentially take their life. If it escalates to the point of gunfire, they are going to aim for the chest and possibly shoot several times. The goal should be to stop the threat and take them into custody, at which point they are no longer a threat to the general population. Anything more than that is unjustified unless there is a real threat to the officer, not just the potential for one. As for Congress and pro-athletes, that argument could be applied to many under-appreciated professions.
     
  14. AlliFlowers thread starter Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #14
    So at what point would you say it's ok for an officer to draw his gun? Only after someone has pulled a gun?
     
  15. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #15
    Sorry, law enforcement are trained to pull their weapons out of the holster prior to the situation getting out of hand. Once the subject is cleared, secured, or covered by back up, the weapon gets holstered.
     
  16. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #16
    I wasn't questioning when they pull their weapons. I was saying that officers should not be able to shoot someone not known to be armed, especially when they outnumber the suspect. Depending on the precinct they may have batons, pepper spray, and tasers to defend themselves. If any sign of violence automatically escalates to the use of a firearm even with a group of officers, then they aren't very effective for whatever reason.
     
  17. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #17
    No.

    I don't care how fearful you are, drawing a lethal weapon to use against a fist is over escalation by definition.

    Teenagers are hormone riddled idiots (I was one just a few years ago), not supermen needing to be taken down with a bullet. They're children, what the hell is wrong with you? :mad:

    If you need to use a taser or pepper spray fine, but an unarmed kid swinging fists is NOT grounds for drawing a gun.
     
  18. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #18
    In a nutshell, this is exactly what is wrong with current law enforcement training.
     
  19. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #19
    While you may not agree with it, officers are trained to draw the weapon when they are unsure. You cover the subject until someone else can cover them, they are cleared or secured. Just like when you enter an unknown area, weapon is in your hand.

    Drawing after you see the muzzle flashes is too late.
     
  20. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #20
    You bet your ass I don't agree with it.

    I don't understand why American police are (regardless of what the training says) more prone to escalate situations when the original point of community policing was to DE-escalate.

    Tazing a teenager will be just as quick and less likely to kill him.
     
  21. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #21
    Because law enforcement officers want to be able to go home each night.
     
  22. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #22
    And using a taser instead of a gun prevents this...how?

    *fully expects to hear how tasers don't work 100% of the time* :rolleyes:
     
  23. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #23
    A taser is great IF the subject that you are drawing it on doesn't have a gun. Officers remove their weapon when unsure about the situation. It is a huge deterrent for most. There are still those that will try something but most won't when looking down the business end of a handgun.

    In a perfect world, it would be like Andy Griffith. He didn't carry his weapon except on rare occasions. Those days are gone. You can't wait to remove your weapon until the person is shooting at you. Bad guys don't follow the rules.
     
  24. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #24
    Blah, Blah, Blah.

    The boogeyman is always out to get you, so be sure to have a way to shoot someone dead at any moment.

    Any other tired platitudes for us?

    Police are supposed to be de-escalating situations. I don't see how that can happen when training has a clear emphasis on always starting with the notion that you are likely to get killed, so screw the money we've spent on less lethal means, get that itchy finger ready to go boys. :roll eyes:


    Only this country.
     
  25. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #25
    No, the police are not supposed to be de-escalating situations. The police are there to get the situation under control. That may mean removing someone from that situation. It may mean simply being there. Police always draw their weapons when they are unsure of the situation. As I said, it's too late to draw your weapon when you see the muzzle flash.
     

Share This Page