• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the Officer have been fired/suspended?

Should the Officer have been fired/suspended?

  • Total voters
    33
beerftw said:
The answer for me was other, though technically he should have been suspended, not fired atleast until it can be reviewed and proven as misconduct. Most public sector jobs union or not have a policy of suspending someone until proven guilty of a crime or misconduct, but almost never fire someone without good review.

The reason for that is it is very easy to throw things out of proportion, very easy to fire a cop for abuse of power off a whim,but hard to undo the damage if they later decide he acted within his legal limits as the situation dictated.
Click to expand...
Equally valid points. Often, more so than not, an Officer is cleared after an investigation is completed. There may be administrative penalties, but that is normally at the Police Chiefs desk.
 
Alyssa T. said:
Well, we have been over that a whole lot of times in these threads. However, like Sheriff Lott said, what he shouldn't have done is exactly what he did.

Like I said many times before, I disagree with the very notion that this was the only course of action in the first place. I don't think this cop should have been anywhere near that classroom.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking what has been said before, I'm asking what he should have done. It's easy to claim he did it wrong, please educate the class on how he should have done it right.
 
Cephus said:
I'm not asking what has been said before, I'm asking what he should have done. It's easy to claim he did it wrong, please educate the class on how he should have done it right.
Click to expand...

Cleared the classroom, taking her audience away, also removing for her the issue of holding her ground in front of a class of peers, due to the class audience being present.
 
JANFU said:
Cleared the classroom, taking her audience away, also removing for her the issue of holding her ground in front of a class of peers, due to the class audience being present.
Click to expand...

Which certainly ought to be an option. Then what, if she continues to refuse to comply?
 
Cephus said:
I'm not asking what has been said before, I'm asking what he should have done. It's easy to claim he did it wrong, please educate the class on how he should have done it right.
Click to expand...

I don't feel like repeating myself, and then having all the same comments coming back from those who only want to see physical violence used. That is what happened last time. Those who only believe physical force is necessary in this situation won't care about anything I say. They are just waiting to pounce with their comments about how naive I am.

I firmly believe that this incident could have, and SHOULD have, been handled without Rocky in the room. No violence was necessary at all. Period.
 
Cephus said:
Which certainly ought to be an option. Then what, if she continues to refuse to comply?
Click to expand...

Then, with cameras rolling, have her removed.
 
Alyssa T. said:
I don't feel like repeating myself, and then having all the same comments coming back from those who only want to see physical violence used. That is what happened last time. Those who only believe physical force is necessary in this situation won't care about anything I say. They are just waiting to pounce with their comments about how naive I am.

I firmly believe that this incident could have, and SHOULD have, been handled without Rocky in the room. No violence was necessary at all. Period.
Click to expand...
The teacher tried your approach. So did the principle. Guess what? I didn't work. That girl had no respect for authority and no respect for her classmates. She wasn't going to budge until someone forced her to. That couldn't be more obvious. Could the cop have handled it differently? Maybe. But I don't see how. What sucks is that the teacher and the principle refused to take any action and left burden on the cop. That's just cowardice.
 
Fletch said:
The teacher tried your approach. So did the principle. Guess what? I didn't work. That girl had no respect for authority and no respect for her classmates. She wasn't going to budge until someone forced her to. That couldn't be more obvious. Could the cop have handled it differently? Maybe. But I don't see how. What sucks is that the teacher and the principle refused to take any action and left burden on the cop. That's just cowardice.
Click to expand...

Only if you believe it was so important to actually "remove" her in the first place.
 
Cephus said:
I'm not saying blind obedience, but there are acceptable ways to challenge authority and there are unacceptable ways and just ignoring it and hoping it will go away is not an acceptable way. If you want to change the laws, you don't get to just ignore the laws and pretend that there shouldn't be negative repercussions. There are ways within the law to try to get the law changed. Pursue the legally acceptable method. Don't be an asshat.
Click to expand...

A loose cannon was removed from the school. A good result- it could have been much worse.
 
Fletch said:
How do you propose to establish order in a school then? The girl refused to cooperate with the teacher, then refused to cooperate with the principle, then refused to cooperate with the police. What then? Is that cop just supposed to leave and do nothing? What happens in that school (or any other) now? What happens the next time a kid refuses to cooperate with school authorities? You cant have the inmates running the asylum.
Click to expand...

Watch the video again and ask yourself while it's happening, "What's going on in the cop's head? What's motivating him right now?" To me, he's clearly lost it. He's out of control. Get him out of the school before another student defies him and gets hurt for it.
For that matter, what's he doing there? Is it usual for a cop to be stationed in a high school in the US?
 
Cephus said:
I'm not saying blind obedience, but there are acceptable ways to challenge authority and there are unacceptable ways and just ignoring it and hoping it will go away is not an acceptable way. If you want to change the laws, you don't get to just ignore the laws and pretend that there shouldn't be negative repercussions. There are ways within the law to try to get the law changed. Pursue the legally acceptable method. Don't be an asshat.
Click to expand...


There are also acceptable ways of dealing with those who in-appropriately challenge authority. However, "negative consequences" are the stuff of a judge and jury, not a police officer. They have no mandate to use force to punish.

I did some checking with some colleagues in the VPD, there are several options to what this guy did:

First, he should have warned her that she would be arrested for refusing the reasonable request of a law enforcement officer, and when she did not comply tell her she is being arrested.

From there, one cop suggested using minor pain compliance to free one arm and get a cuff on it, then lift her to cuff the other arm. another is to cuff her to the chair and drag the chair out of the room, a third would be to use pain compliance itself to exit her from the classroom.
 
Cephus said:
I'm not asking what has been said before, I'm asking what he should have done. It's easy to claim he did it wrong, please educate the class on how he should have done it right.
Click to expand...

The deputy shouldn't have been involved in the first place. If the teacher couldn't deal with the issue, then it should have been sent up the chain, as with any organization. The vice-principal was there and couldn't solve the issue, so naturally, the principal needs to be brought in to deal with it. The parents/carers need to be called in and this issue should be raised immediately with them.

Cephus said:
How is that uncivilized? He didn't walk into the room and immediately start beating her with a nightstick, he didn't shoot at her, he asked her politely to get up. She refused. Now tell me what should happen from there.
Click to expand...

The deputy's action wasn't justified. The student posed no threat.
 
Alyssa T. said:
I don't feel like repeating myself, and then having all the same comments coming back from those who only want to see physical violence used. That is what happened last time. Those who only believe physical force is necessary in this situation won't care about anything I say. They are just waiting to pounce with their comments about how naive I am.

I firmly believe that this incident could have, and SHOULD have, been handled without Rocky in the room. No violence was necessary at all. Period.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, some people don't have the intellect to figure this out on their own. They see physical force as the only way to solve these situations. It's quite sad.
 
le bouffon said:
Unfortunately, some people don't have the intellect to figure this out on their own. They see physical force as the only way to solve these situations. It's quite sad.
Click to expand...

You are right, and it is sad. There have been a lot of posts solidly defending this horrific act of violence perpetrated on a non-violent teenage girl in a high school classroom. It boggles the mind, to be sure.
 
Fletch said:
How do you propose to establish order in a school then? The girl refused to cooperate with the teacher, then refused to cooperate with the principle, then refused to cooperate with the police. What then? Is that cop just supposed to leave and do nothing? What happens in that school (or any other) now? What happens the next time a kid refuses to cooperate with school authorities? You cant have the inmates running the asylum.
Click to expand...

The principle wasn't in the room. The vice-principle was. This issue should've been raised to the principle, and not the deputy.
 
Alyssa T. said:
Only if you believe it was so important to actually "remove" her in the first place.
Click to expand...

That's an overly simplistic way of thinking. One based on an invalid sense of entitlement.

Children in grades K - 12 have a right to an education in our society. However, it is a privilege to be taught on school property and that privilege can be rescinded by misbehavior.

You know, suspensions and expulsions?

The purpose of being in a classroom is to participate in the instruction offered by the teacher. If a student acts in any way to disrupt that process, their privilege to participate can be revoked.

At that point they need to leave the room and report to the appropriate school administrator (Principal, Assistant Principal, w/e) so the teacher can continue the class. NOT stay there and disrupt the class.

When the Principal comes and tells you to leave the premises, your privilege has been revoked and you are now trespassing on school property.

Now, following that chain of events, only changing the locale from school property to YOUR property, exactly what do you expect the Police to do when confronted by a trespasser who refuses to leave YOUR property? Tickle them with a feather? :roll:
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
That's an overly simplistic way of thinking. One based on an invalid sense of entitlement.

Children in grades K - 12 have a right to an education in our society. However, it is a privilege to be taught on school property and that privilege can be rescinded by misbehavior.

You know, suspensions and expulsions?

The purpose of being in a classroom is to participate in the instruction offered by the teacher. If a student acts in any way to disrupt that process, their privilege to participate can be revoked.

At that point they need to leave the room and report to the appropriate school administrator (Principal, Assistant Principal, w/e) so the teacher can continue the class. NOT stay there and disrupt the class.

When the Principal comes and tells you to leave the premises, your privilege has been revoked, and you are now trespassing on school property.

Now, following that chain of events, only changing the locale from school property to YOUR property, exactly what do you expect the Police to do when confronted by a trespasser who refuses to leave YOUR property? Tickle them with a feather? :roll:
Click to expand...

Yeah, see, this is exactly the kind of thing I was putting up with the last time I dared to say non-violent methods could have been employed. This time, I am not naive, though it is what again.... (scrolling up).... "overly simplistic" and based in a, well, you can read it. This is why I didn't want to get back into those other older posts about using non-violent methods.

It sure didn't take long.
 
Captain Adverse said:
That's an overly simplistic way of thinking. One based on an invalid sense of entitlement.

Children in grades K - 12 have a right to an education in our society. However, it is a privilege to be taught on school property and that privilege can be rescinded by misbehavior.

You know, suspensions and expulsions?

The purpose of being in a classroom is to participate in the instruction offered by the teacher. If a student acts in any way to disrupt that process, their privilege to participate can be revoked.

At that point they need to leave the room and report to the appropriate school administrator (Principal, Assistant Principal, w/e) so the teacher can continue the class. NOT stay there and disrupt the class.

When the Principal comes and tells you to leave the premises, your privilege has been revoked and you are now trespassing on school property.

Now, following that chain of events, only changing the locale from school property to YOUR property, exactly what do you expect the Police to do when confronted by a trespasser who refuses to leave YOUR property? Tickle them with a feather? :roll:
Click to expand...

So the school was trying to take her property and she wouldn't leave their property? :lamo

Oh and btw, the state doesn't own anything.
 
Cephus said:
Yes. Legitimate authority. I know you libertarians are delusional and think no such thing exists, but that's your problem.
Click to expand...

Oh, legitimate authority can in fact exist, but no one here is a legitimate authority.
 
Alyssa T. said:
Yeah, see, this is exactly the kind of thing I was putting up with the last time I dared to say non-violent methods could have been employed. This time, I am not naive, though it is what again.... (scrolling up).... "overly simplistic" and based in a, well, you can read it. This is why I didn't want to get back into those other older posts about using non-violent methods.

It sure didn't take long.
Click to expand...

Sorry miss, but that is a straw man side track. Your post I responded to was:

Alyssa T. said:
Only if you believe it was so important to actually "remove" her in the first place.
Click to expand...

I did not respond to the methodology used, which I have not condoned.

Nope! I responded to your thesis that it may not be "important" to remove a disruptive student in the first place.

Perhaps you can return to the point YOU made and explain why a disruptive student should be entitled to remain in the classroom?
 
Henrin said:
So the school was trying to take her property and she wouldn't leave their property? :lamo
Click to expand...

Actually, she was given the option to leave property intact, several times. Politely. Starting with the teacher and moving right up the chain to the Principal.

Henrin said:
Oh and btw, the state doesn't own anything.
Click to expand...

You keep thinking that when you try to enter school property without a valid reason for being there. (Or a military base, or any other secured property).
 
Captain Adverse said:
Sorry miss, but that is a straw man side track. Your post I responded to was:

I did not respond to the methodology used, which I have not condoned.

Nope! I responded to your thesis that it may not be "important" to remove a disruptive student in the first place.

Perhaps you can return to the point YOU made and explain why a disruptive student should be entitled to remain in the classroom?
Click to expand...

What you did post was 'Exhibit A' to another poster here who was demanding I repost earlier suggestions on how this should have been handled. I said I didn't want to get back into that, because it is an invitation for those who only believe physical force was necessary to resolve the issue here. I have said soooooo many times now that physical force was absolutely NOT necessary in this very non-violent situation. Well, non-violent up until the adults in the room decided it was time to bring in the violent man.

So, you see, sir, we are looking at this from entirely different angles. If you want to talk down to me because I believe, wholeheartedly, that violence was certainly NOT the answer here and ABSOLUTELY unnecessary in this situation. Have at it.

I never would have physically removed this girl from the class. Nor would I have given her all that negative attention in the first place to cause such a situation.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Actually, she was given the option to leave, several times. Politely. Starting with the teacher and moving right up the chain to the Principal.
Click to expand...

That's nice. I just think the way you explained it is funny.

You keep thinking that when you try to enter school property without a valid reason for being there. (Or a military base, or any other secured property).
Click to expand...

I will. Public property is an oxymoron and the notion that an abstraction can own anything is shear nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom