I absolutely agree that there was no justification for the police to interview the kid without his parents present. There was no emergency that necessitated that, and absent an emergency they legally have to at least make efforts to contact the parents prior to a police interview. This was an abuse. The outcome, of course, was unpredictable and completely unexpected, but even if the kid had done nothing afterward and was still alive and walking around, it would still have been an abuse.
If you guys had any idea the depth of research on false confessions and manipulated evidence when police deal with minors or other vulnerable individuals, I'm guessing you would also be concerned.
I absolutely agree that there was no justification for the police to interview the kid without his parents present. There was no emergency that necessitated that, and absent an emergency they legally have to at least make efforts to contact the parents prior to a police interview. This was an abuse. The outcome, of course, was unpredictable and completely unexpected, but even if the kid had done nothing afterward and was still alive and walking around, it would still have been an abuse.
If you guys had any idea the depth of research on false confessions and manipulated evidence when police deal with minors or other vulnerable individuals, I'm guessing you would also be concerned.
Except in this case, there was no false confession.
The kid turned his phone over to the authorities and the damaging audio was seize dead before it was transferred to someone else or erased- saving the kid from facing the consequences of his actions which were nothing outside of some stern words.
It is challenging to control events such as these so that people involved are not hurt (see any number of the teen suicide cases where girls have killed themselves for the shame and abuse they receive having been the subject of such material). So, sorry for not jumping on board with a lengthy legal process to procure a phone and stop a kid from sharing a sexual encounter with his buddies.
Don't turn my comments into something they are not, Thirty.
I am fine with the kid being called to the office. I'm fine with him being told he is going to be questioned by police. I'm fine with him being told to hand over the phone. All of that stops any further sharing in its tracks. What I am absolutely not fine with is him being questioned and threatened by police without his parents' knowledge and without then being given the opportunity to be present to help deal with this.
Some of you are so awfully cavalier about the authority of police.
In an earlier post, I mentioned the fact that the media tends to illustrate these events colourfully. This story painted the police and school administration as slightly Gestapo. If we focus on the result: phone turned in and boy released without consequence... they did their job.
Informing the boy of possible legal ramifications for doing what he did is not a crime and if the kid felt the weight of such on his conscience... that is on him. As I said... nobody wanted or even thought the kid was going to jump of a structure afterwards, but the situation demanded the authorities intervention- which they provided.
For the record, I think the kid was probably a very good kid. His crime is becoming somewhat a pastime as sad as that is to say. It is not easy being a kid these days- this generation has it pretty rough.
I also think that this event alone was not the single triggering mechanism for taking his life.
I absolutely agree that there was no justification for the police to interview the kid without his parents present. There was no emergency that necessitated that, and absent an emergency they legally have to at least make efforts to contact the parents prior to a police interview. This was an abuse. The outcome, of course, was unpredictable and completely unexpected, but even if the kid had done nothing afterward and was still alive and walking around, it would still have been an abuse.
If you guys had any idea the depth of research on false confessions and manipulated evidence when police deal with minors or other vulnerable individuals, I'm guessing you would also be concerned.
I think the real failure came when they left him unattended. They clearly didn't think that he was a threat to himself, but that's a lot of weight to leave on a 16 year old. Based on the school resource officer's role at the school, this isn't out of the norm, nor should it be. If they didn't have an SRO and a police officer showed up to interview him from outside the school, different story. Then legally they'd need a parent or guardian present.
I absolutely agree that there was no justification for the police to interview the kid without his parents present. There was no emergency that necessitated that, and absent an emergency they legally have to at least make efforts to contact the parents prior to a police interview. This was an abuse. The outcome, of course, was unpredictable and completely unexpected, but even if the kid had done nothing afterward and was still alive and walking around, it would still have been an abuse.
If you guys had any idea the depth of research on false confessions and manipulated evidence when police deal with minors or other vulnerable individuals, I'm guessing you would also be concerned.
Except in this case, there was no false confession.
The kid turned his phone over to the authorities and the damaging audio was seize dead before it was transferred to someone else or erased- saving the kid from facing the consequences of his actions which were nothing outside of some stern words.
It is challenging to control events such as these so that people involved are not hurt (see any number of the teen suicide cases where girls have killed themselves for the shame and abuse they receive having been the subject of such material). So, sorry for not jumping on board with a lengthy legal process to procure a phone and stop a kid from sharing a sexual encounter with his buddies.
Don't turn my comments into something they are not, Thirty.
I am fine with the kid being called to the office. I'm fine with him being told he is going to be questioned by police. I'm fine with him being told to hand over the phone. All of that stops any further sharing in its tracks. What I am absolutely not fine with is him being questioned and threatened by police without his parents' knowledge and without then being given the opportunity to be present to help deal with this.
Some of you are so awfully cavalier about the authority of police.
In an earlier post, I mentioned the fact that the media tends to illustrate these events colourfully. This story painted the police and school administration as slightly Gestapo. If we focus on the result: phone turned in and boy released without consequence... they did their job.
Informing the boy of possible legal ramifications for doing what he did is not a crime and if the kid felt the weight of such on his conscience... that is on him. As I said... nobody wanted or even thought the kid was going to jump of a structure afterwards, but the situation demanded the authorities intervention- which they provided.
For the record, I think the kid was probably a very good kid. His crime is becoming somewhat a pastime as sad as that is to say. It is not easy being a kid these days- this generation has it pretty rough.
I also think that this event alone was not the single triggering mechanism for taking his life.
You didn't address the points raised. I am not weighing in on what reasons he may have had for taking his life. I am weighing in on police not following the law and their own procedures.
And do you seriously believe that it's okay not to follow the law and police procedure just because some occasions don't seem like a big deal?
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I absolutely agree that there was no justification for the police to interview the kid without his parents present. There was no emergency that necessitated that, and absent an emergency they legally have to at least make efforts to contact the parents prior to a police interview. This was an abuse. The outcome, of course, was unpredictable and completely unexpected, but even if the kid had done nothing afterward and was still alive and walking around, it would still have been an abuse.
If you guys had any idea the depth of research on false confessions and manipulated evidence when police deal with minors or other vulnerable individuals, I'm guessing you would also be concerned.
Except in this case, there was no false confession.
The kid turned his phone over to the authorities and the damaging audio was seize dead before it was transferred to someone else or erased- saving the kid from facing the consequences of his actions which were nothing outside of some stern words.
It is challenging to control events such as these so that people involved are not hurt (see any number of the teen suicide cases where girls have killed themselves for the shame and abuse they receive having been the subject of such material). So, sorry for not jumping on board with a lengthy legal process to procure a phone and stop a kid from sharing a sexual encounter with his buddies.
Don't turn my comments into something they are not, Thirty.
I am fine with the kid being called to the office. I'm fine with him being told he is going to be questioned by police. I'm fine with him being told to hand over the phone. All of that stops any further sharing in its tracks. What I am absolutely not fine with is him being questioned and threatened by police without his parents' knowledge and without then being given the opportunity to be present to help deal with this.
Some of you are so awfully cavalier about the authority of police.
In an earlier post, I mentioned the fact that the media tends to illustrate these events colourfully. This story painted the police and school administration as slightly Gestapo. If we focus on the result: phone turned in and boy released without consequence... they did their job.
Informing the boy of possible legal ramifications for doing what he did is not a crime and if the kid felt the weight of such on his conscience... that is on him. As I said... nobody wanted or even thought the kid was going to jump of a structure afterwards, but the situation demanded the authorities intervention- which they provided.
For the record, I think the kid was probably a very good kid. His crime is becoming somewhat a pastime as sad as that is to say. It is not easy being a kid these days- this generation has it pretty rough.
I also think that this event alone was not the single triggering mechanism for taking his life.
You didn't address the points raised. I am not weighing in on what reasons he may have had for taking his life. I am weighing in on police not following the law and their own procedures.
And do you seriously believe that it's okay not to follow the law and police procedure just because some occasions don't seem like a big deal?
How about you not turning my words into something else?
I have said this was a serious situation. For clarification, can you please direct me to a link which defines how school officials must conduct themselves when interviewing kids- in particular, when they need to include parents when questioning a kid?
Why is it ok to harass a kid without his parents present?
Harass a kid?
He had an audio of him having sex with a classmate and was showing it to his friends. I'm pretty sure the classmate was unaware of the audio and reported it- looking for the damaging clip to be controlled so that it didn't ruin her socially (at least to some degree).
This case represents why authorities are necessary, Unsung.
The kid seems fine, but as I'm well aware of in incidents such a situation these... the media portrays the offender as an angel. He likely was a good kid, but don't hook, line and sinker buy the persona the story wishes to sell you. Ultimately, he produced child pornography and was showing it to his friends. If I'm the parent of the girl (assuming it was a girl)... I want something done about that.
Nobody wished for the kid to go jump off a parkade, but geezuz... authorities can't even question a kid at school without an attorney or parents there? You are the one demanding less bureaucracy in our lives, yet here you're insisting on more.
Calling it child porn is a bit of a stretch. It's a sex act between two consenting teens. If you or I possess that video/audio, yep, sick disgusting child porn. It's no different than when we were in high school except now everything is easily recorded. How many naughty pictures were exchanged and/or shared by friends at that age. Dumb decisions abound, but can you imagine being accused of child pron for showing a picture of your naked 16 year old GF to your 16 year old friends? He definitely shouldn't have recorded it or shared it with his friends, but the child porn accusation is a huge stretch.
Why is it ok to harass a kid without his parents present?
Harass a kid?
He had an audio of him having sex with a classmate and was showing it to his friends. I'm pretty sure the classmate was unaware of the audio and reported it- looking for the damaging clip to be controlled so that it didn't ruin her socially (at least to some degree).
This case represents why authorities are necessary, Unsung.
The kid seems fine, but as I'm well aware of in incidents such a situation these... the media portrays the offender as an angel. He likely was a good kid, but don't hook, line and sinker buy the persona the story wishes to sell you. Ultimately, he produced child pornography and was showing it to his friends. If I'm the parent of the girl (assuming it was a girl)... I want something done about that.
Nobody wished for the kid to go jump off a parkade, but geezuz... authorities can't even question a kid at school without an attorney or parents there? You are the one demanding less bureaucracy in our lives, yet here you're insisting on more.
Calling it child porn is a bit of a stretch. It's a sex act between two consenting teens. If you or I possess that video/audio, yep, sick disgusting child porn. It's no different than when we were in high school except now everything is easily recorded. How many naughty pictures were exchanged and/or shared by friends at that age. Dumb decisions abound, but can you imagine being accused of child pron for showing a picture of your naked 16 year old GF to your 16 year old friends? He definitely shouldn't have recorded it or shared it with his friends, but the child porn accusation is a huge stretch.
The law sees it different than you. Legally, it is the production of child pornography- like it or not.
I remember what it was like to be 16. I'm not sure how I would fare in is era. As I said before... it is tough for teens. Really tough.
I didn't see anything wrong. I've always been under the impression police are allowed to question kids and don't know what they did wrong. I did a brief search and found that to be true in most cases. By reading several sources here is what I found. In most cases with this age parents don't have to be present or even notified. If parents are notified, they can request to be present just like a lawyer. The kids are still read their Miranda rights and have the same rights as someone who is 21. The few examples where parents must be present I read it was for children under 16 or younger.
I really saw nothing that would indicate they did anything wrong. Its not like they beat the kid or forced him into a false confession. They told him what the accusations were and what the consequences would be if they are true, and they didn't question him for an unreasonable amount of time. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
The only thing they could or should have done better is notify the parents to pick him up so he wasn't walking home alone. But there doesn't seem to be any policy about that, and is probably more the school's fault than the police. Not following a policy that doesn't even exist doesn't constitute police abuse or failure.
Why is it ok to harass a kid without his parents present?
Harass a kid?
He had an audio of him having sex with a classmate and was showing it to his friends. I'm pretty sure the classmate was unaware of the audio and reported it- looking for the damaging clip to be controlled so that it didn't ruin her socially (at least to some degree).
This case represents why authorities are necessary, Unsung.
The kid seems fine, but as I'm well aware of in incidents such a situation these... the media portrays the offender as an angel. He likely was a good kid, but don't hook, line and sinker buy the persona the story wishes to sell you. Ultimately, he produced child pornography and was showing it to his friends. If I'm the parent of the girl (assuming it was a girl)... I want something done about that.
Nobody wished for the kid to go jump off a parkade, but geezuz... authorities can't even question a kid at school without an attorney or parents there? You are the one demanding less bureaucracy in our lives, yet here you're insisting on more.
Calling it child porn is a bit of a stretch. It's a sex act between two consenting teens. If you or I possess that video/audio, yep, sick disgusting child porn. It's no different than when we were in high school except now everything is easily recorded. How many naughty pictures were exchanged and/or shared by friends at that age. Dumb decisions abound, but can you imagine being accused of child pron for showing a picture of your naked 16 year old GF to your 16 year old friends? He definitely shouldn't have recorded it or shared it with his friends, but the child porn accusation is a huge stretch.
The law sees it different than you. Legally, it is the production of child pornography- like it or not.
I remember what it was like to be 16. I'm not sure how I would fare in is era. As I said before... it is tough for teens. Really tough.
The letter of the law may give them the legal standing to conduct the interview and investigate this incident, but you'd be hard pressed to find a prosecutor willing to charge this case out. The cop knew that, which is why the intent wasn't to charge in this instance, but correct the behavior and teach a lesson.
I know the story paints a great picture of him as a happy go lucky kid, but the majority of parents have no idea what is really going on with their 16 year old son. My parents never had a clue about the struggles and depression I was feeling and would have thought the same thing these parents did. I'm sure this wasn't the first time he had thought about hurting himself. It doesn't mean they're bad parents or that the police and school are responsible for his death. Everything about this story is a bit too coincidental, which makes it all the more tragic. I can't imagine what his mother is going through knowing she was so close to being there before he left the school.
I am not looking forward to my sons being teenagers.
I didn't see anything wrong. I've always been under the impression police are allowed to question kids and don't know what they did wrong. I did a brief search and found that to be true in most cases. By reading several sources here is what I found. In most cases with this age parents don't have to be present or even notified. If parents are notified, they can request to be present just like a lawyer. The kids are still read their Miranda rights and have the same rights as someone who is 21. The few examples where parents must be present I read it was for children under 16 or younger.
I really saw nothing that would indicate they did anything wrong. Its not like they beat the kid or forced him into a false confession. They told him what the accusations were and what the consequences would be if they are true, and they didn't question him for an unreasonable amount of time. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
The only thing they could or should have done better is notify the parents to pick him up so he wasn't walking home alone. But there doesn't seem to be any policy about that, and is probably more the school's fault than the police. Not following a policy that doesn't even exist doesn't constitute police abuse or failure.
Did you or anyone defending this read to the end of the article? It clearly says that Illinois law requires that law enforcement immediately attempt to contact a minor's parents prior to interviewing them. It also says that the school policy requires school officials to contact parents before allowing police to interrogate a minor at school.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I absolutely agree that there was no justification for the police to interview the kid without his parents present. There was no emergency that necessitated that, and absent an emergency they legally have to at least make efforts to contact the parents prior to a police interview. This was an abuse. The outcome, of course, was unpredictable and completely unexpected, but even if the kid had done nothing afterward and was still alive and walking around, it would still have been an abuse.
If you guys had any idea the depth of research on false confessions and manipulated evidence when police deal with minors or other vulnerable individuals, I'm guessing you would also be concerned.
the article states the quote below. i imagine that kid would have walked out of there and deleted that file pretty damn quickly. so now you'd have to get warrants to do forensic tests on the phone for evidence. did you want them to do that?
"According to the guidelines, schools can skip parental notification in cases where there is imminent danger or if officers need to act promptly to prevent the destruction of evidence in a serious crime."
No links from unsing about how cops are with teens on Chicago's Southside? (I'm open to allowing that the story about a suburban white kid is random chance).
I didn't see anything wrong. I've always been under the impression police are allowed to question kids and don't know what they did wrong. I did a brief search and found that to be true in most cases. By reading several sources here is what I found. In most cases with this age parents don't have to be present or even notified. If parents are notified, they can request to be present just like a lawyer. The kids are still read their Miranda rights and have the same rights as someone who is 21. The few examples where parents must be present I read it was for children under 16 or younger.
I really saw nothing that would indicate they did anything wrong. Its not like they beat the kid or forced him into a false confession. They told him what the accusations were and what the consequences would be if they are true, and they didn't question him for an unreasonable amount of time. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
The only thing they could or should have done better is notify the parents to pick him up so he wasn't walking home alone. But there doesn't seem to be any policy about that, and is probably more the school's fault than the police. Not following a policy that doesn't even exist doesn't constitute police abuse or failure.
Did you or anyone defending this read to the end of the article? It clearly says that Illinois law requires that law enforcement immediately attempt to contact a minor's parents prior to interviewing them. It also says that the school policy requires school officials to contact parents before allowing police to interrogate a minor at school.
Often...
I guess I didn't. Sorry.
I'll just say this: schools are operating in uncharted territories in this era. Things have changed dramatically with regards to what they are forced to deal with on a daily basis. I can tell you unequivocally that school officials and school liaison officers speak to kids without parents in many situations in schools in our areas. And, in general, the school's intentions are for kids to learn from their mistakes versus pay for their mistakes.
From my way of thinking, the school 'seemed' to have tried to handle the situation internally without making too much noise. Such a tactic minimizes the notoriety of the act and prevents further embarrassment/shaming. From my way of thinking... if the school had intentions of pursuing this matter to the point of legal action... steps would have been taken to include parents in the process.
There's no way they would have though the kid would have taken his life after the meeting. They may have 'heavied out' on him which might have elevated his anxiety... but they may have just been informative- informing the kid about the legal ramifications for what he was involved in.
I didn't see anything wrong. I've always been under the impression police are allowed to question kids and don't know what they did wrong. I did a brief search and found that to be true in most cases. By reading several sources here is what I found. In most cases with this age parents don't have to be present or even notified. If parents are notified, they can request to be present just like a lawyer. The kids are still read their Miranda rights and have the same rights as someone who is 21. The few examples where parents must be present I read it was for children under 16 or younger.
I really saw nothing that would indicate they did anything wrong. Its not like they beat the kid or forced him into a false confession. They told him what the accusations were and what the consequences would be if they are true, and they didn't question him for an unreasonable amount of time. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
The only thing they could or should have done better is notify the parents to pick him up so he wasn't walking home alone. But there doesn't seem to be any policy about that, and is probably more the school's fault than the police. Not following a policy that doesn't even exist doesn't constitute police abuse or failure.
Did you or anyone defending this read to the end of the article? It clearly says that Illinois law requires that law enforcement immediately attempt to contact a minor's parents prior to interviewing them. It also says that the school policy requires school officials to contact parents before allowing police to interrogate a minor at school.
The law says that, but only implies if he is in custody and not free to leave. It doesn't appear he was in custody, he hadn't been arrested. Was probably free to leave the police questioning and although probably was too frightened to he did have the right to stop any and all questioning, even many adults think they can talk their way out of a police investigation. Although I'm sure the school had other policies and was keeping him detained, but that's the school. The police have certain rules and procedures, and the school probably has different ones. He wasn't in police custody, so by law they did not have to notify parents. School policy may have been different, but that's the school and up the the school to follow, not police. You can't fault police for not following school policing and call is police abuse.
So when you get information that a student has possession of and distributing child pornography and you question that child, that is running it like a prison? What should the school do, ignore it and hope the parents of the girl don't sue you, and you as the principal don't lose your job and/or wind up in jail for ignoring it? Because that is exactly what would happen if they did. Not questioning the kid involved seems like a very appropriate start.
I absolutely agree that there was no justification for the police to interview the kid without his parents present. There was no emergency that necessitated that, and absent an emergency they legally have to at least make efforts to contact the parents prior to a police interview. This was an abuse. The outcome, of course, was unpredictable and completely unexpected, but even if the kid had done nothing afterward and was still alive and walking around, it would still have been an abuse.
If you guys had any idea the depth of research on false confessions and manipulated evidence when police deal with minors or other vulnerable individuals, I'm guessing you would also be concerned.
Totally agree with you, Often. When my kids were younger I told them that they should always be respectful and comply with orders from the police, but before any sort of conversation with them, and before consenting to anything (like a search), they needed to inform the officer that they would comply once their parents were notified. I didn't want them defying the police, but I didn't want them talking to them, either. I let them know that in situations like that, the police are absolutely not their friend, and that it is very easy to get caught up in something beyond your control by having something misinterpreted. Luckily we only had one instance where that was put to the test. My daughter was called by a friend who was at a party who needed a ride home. My daughter hadn't been partying, and was always willing to help out a friend who was, so she swung by to pick up her friend just as the cops came to bust the party. They stopped her and talked to her for a minute. She let them know why she was there, and said that if they wanted to talk to her further she or they would have to call me first. The cop grunted, told her to get her friend and get out of there. And she was safely on her way. It could have been just as likely that if she had talked to the cop she would have been swept up in something she didn't have anything to do with. I appreciate that cops have a tough job to do, and made sure to teach my kids respect, but I also didn't want to ever see them become a victim of any sort of police abuse of power. Search my car? Sure thing, just get a warrant first. Enter my home? Sure thing, just get a warrant first. Show respect and willingness to comply, but protect yourself and don't give any information beyond what is requested.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
How much responsibility would you put on the kid in this situation?
100% of it. Nobody is obligated to not confront a person about possibly illegal behaviour. If the person has a way overly dramatic reaction to that, that is nobody else's fault. Cops dealing with possible sex crimes in high schools aren't psych ward employees or whatever, where they have to avoid loud noises and big movements so as not to stress out the patients. IMO, they don't seem to have overstepped in a way to encourage this kid's suicide. I don't think the police did anything wrong in this instance. But it's a weird story. Did I miss the part where he told someone he was going to kill himself, or where someone saw him purposefully jump to his death? Why couldn't it have been an accidental fall? Shit happens.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I absolutely agree that there was no justification for the police to interview the kid without his parents present. There was no emergency that necessitated that, and absent an emergency they legally have to at least make efforts to contact the parents prior to a police interview. This was an abuse. The outcome, of course, was unpredictable and completely unexpected, but even if the kid had done nothing afterward and was still alive and walking around, it would still have been an abuse.
If you guys had any idea the depth of research on false confessions and manipulated evidence when police deal with minors or other vulnerable individuals, I'm guessing you would also be concerned.
Totally agree with you, Often. When my kids were younger I told them that they should always be respectful and comply with orders from the police, but before any sort of conversation with them, and before consenting to anything (like a search), they needed to inform the officer that they would comply once their parents were notified. I didn't want them defying the police, but I didn't want them talking to them, either. I let them know that in situations like that, the police are absolutely not their friend, and that it is very easy to get caught up in something beyond your control by having something misinterpreted. Luckily we only had one instance where that was put to the test. My daughter was called by a friend who was at a party who needed a ride home. My daughter hadn't been partying, and was always willing to help out a friend who was, so she swung by to pick up her friend just as the cops came to bust the party. They stopped her and talked to her for a minute. She let them know why she was there, and said that if they wanted to talk to her further she or they would have to call me first. The cop grunted, told her to get her friend and get out of there. And she was safely on her way. It could have been just as likely that if she had talked to the cop she would have been swept up in something she didn't have anything to do with. I appreciate that cops have a tough job to do, and made sure to teach my kids respect, but I also didn't want to ever see them become a victim of any sort of police abuse of power. Search my car? Sure thing, just get a warrant first. Enter my home? Sure thing, just get a warrant first. Show respect and willingness to comply, but protect yourself and don't give any information beyond what is requested.
There's nothing wrong with teaching your kids that, and probably a good idea. But there's a difference between teaching your children to request the presence of their parents first and claiming it was unjustified for police to question a child. Cops absolutely have the right to ask questions, just like you have the right to refuse to answer. And to the previous comment, there are false confessions, I recognize that. Maybe there aren't the best policies in practice, maybe they need to be improved. But calling it police abuse when they follow those policies is not a justified statement in my view. All that being said, I still think they only thing they should have dine differently was make sure the parents were aware of the situation. There was nothing in the article to indicate he was coerced into making a false statement. It appears they simply told him facts about the potential consequences, there have been high school teenagers who are on the sex offender list for very similar circumstances. I would not consider this abuse, they questioned him for a limited time and let him go. Many false confessions.
Here is how it unfolded: A female students told school admin a boy had a video of a sexual encounter. Police asked the boy for permission to view and delete any illegal material. He gave permission. It was a video (and not only audio as some suggested) but the video did not have any identifiable images but id have clear audio of a sexual encounter. They informed the student what potential consequences there could have been and released him.
Where exactly did they go wrong? This is not some 16-hour interrogation that resulted in a false confession. They had a witness come forward, he gave consent (which they could have easily obtained a warrant if he didn't). Told him what was illegal and what could happen and released him. It doesn't appear they threatened to come after him the next day and throw the book at him.
If this was your daughter on the video, how would you prefer they handle the situation? Ignore it? I mean, the only thing less they could have done than asking permission to view and delete it and then release him is to ignore it, what else could they have done that was less involved?
No links from unsing about how cops are with teens on Chicago's Southside? (I'm open to allowing that the story about a suburban white kid is random chance).
I haven't decided if you have elevated yourself to troll staus or if you are just losing it. Desperation. You are reeking of it.
No links from unsing about how cops are with teens on Chicago's Southside? (I'm open to allowing that the story about a suburban white kid is random chance).
I haven't decided if you have elevated yourself to troll staus or if you are just losing it. Desperation. You are reeking of it.
Or I'm making an observation about what you don't talk about or link, combined with comments you have made and things you do link. Easier to call me a troll, I guess.
Seems to me that unless the sexual act actually happened on school property, then the school should have turned this to the police, whom should have had the boy and his parents at the police department for questioning. Why did this occur at the school?? Make a scene at the school to embarrass the boy and confiscate his phone information without a warrant. If I were his parents I would be outraged how this transpired.
So in summary... if you have a gun in a public park and you refuse to listen to the cops and put it down, then you die. Not hard to understand this one. Ridiculous how many shots fired. Pretty bad aim maybe. Why not shoot to injure and not obliterate??? Geez.
Seems to me that unless the sexual act actually happened on school property, then the school should have turned this to the police, whom should have had the boy and his parents at the police department for questioning. Why did this occur at the school?? Make a scene at the school to embarrass the boy and confiscate his phone information without a warrant. If I were his parents I would be outraged how this transpired.
Because he was showing people at school. That sort of thing happens all the time, police question kids at school about an event that happened at school. If it was like any other school in America they don't make a scene, its not like he gets questioned in front of everyone in the lunch room. He was likely called into the office like 100 other kids that day and range from being a witness to something, forgot his homework and mom dropped it off, to something serious like this. From there he was put into a private room where this conversation happened. No one probably even knew unless he told his friends what happened. There really isn't any big deal about it. What would be a bigger deal is to escort him to the police station where everyone sees him leaving campus escorted by a police officer, that seems like a bigger deal to me. They did not confiscate his phone. They asked to search it and he gave permission. Again that happens all the time. I've been pulled over and been asked to search my car before, you have the right to say yes or no. In this case, I'm guessing if he said no they would have detained him for an hour or two until there was a warrant based on witness statements. Its sad what happened, but I really dont get all this defense for this kid who filmed him having sex with another student (probably unknowingly) and was showing it around school. Thats a prick move, he deserved to be questioned by police and made aware of the possible consequences. Its a tragedy what happened afterwards, but it was a prick move that he did and should not have gone ignored. Yes, the school should have notified parents and probably suspended him. But this is a thread about police abuse, and it was not police abuse.
So in summary... if you have a gun in a public park and you refuse to listen to the cops and put it down, then you die. Not hard to understand this one. Ridiculous how many shots fired. Pretty bad aim maybe. Why not shoot to injure and not obliterate??? Geez.
No one is trained to shoot to injure, you always aim center mass. And I agree, way too many shots fired. I'm thinking nerves and bad aim came into play.
So in summary... if you have a gun in a public park and you refuse to listen to the cops and put it down, then you die. Not hard to understand this one. Ridiculous how many shots fired. Pretty bad aim maybe. Why not shoot to injure and not obliterate??? Geez.
Ah yes, the old 'he didn't do what he was told' defense where the only living witnesses are Police Officers. Funny how that works.
I wonder where the body cams are? Probably malfunctioned....
Comments
Informing the boy of possible legal ramifications for doing what he did is not a crime and if the kid felt the weight of such on his conscience... that is on him. As I said... nobody wanted or even thought the kid was going to jump of a structure afterwards, but the situation demanded the authorities intervention- which they provided.
For the record, I think the kid was probably a very good kid. His crime is becoming somewhat a pastime as sad as that is to say. It is not easy being a kid these days- this generation has it pretty rough.
I also think that this event alone was not the single triggering mechanism for taking his life.
And do you seriously believe that it's okay not to follow the law and police procedure just because some occasions don't seem like a big deal?
I have said this was a serious situation. For clarification, can you please direct me to a link which defines how school officials must conduct themselves when interviewing kids- in particular, when they need to include parents when questioning a kid?
I remember what it was like to be 16. I'm not sure how I would fare in is era. As I said before... it is tough for teens. Really tough.
I did a brief search and found that to be true in most cases. By reading several sources here is what I found.
In most cases with this age parents don't have to be present or even notified.
If parents are notified, they can request to be present just like a lawyer.
The kids are still read their Miranda rights and have the same rights as someone who is 21.
The few examples where parents must be present I read it was for children under 16 or younger.
I really saw nothing that would indicate they did anything wrong. Its not like they beat the kid or forced him into a false confession. They told him what the accusations were and what the consequences would be if they are true, and they didn't question him for an unreasonable amount of time. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
The only thing they could or should have done better is notify the parents to pick him up so he wasn't walking home alone. But there doesn't seem to be any policy about that, and is probably more the school's fault than the police. Not following a policy that doesn't even exist doesn't constitute police abuse or failure.
I know the story paints a great picture of him as a happy go lucky kid, but the majority of parents have no idea what is really going on with their 16 year old son. My parents never had a clue about the struggles and depression I was feeling and would have thought the same thing these parents did. I'm sure this wasn't the first time he had thought about hurting himself. It doesn't mean they're bad parents or that the police and school are responsible for his death. Everything about this story is a bit too coincidental, which makes it all the more tragic. I can't imagine what his mother is going through knowing she was so close to being there before he left the school.
I am not looking forward to my sons being teenagers.
"According to the guidelines, schools can skip parental notification in cases where there is imminent danger or if officers need to act promptly to prevent the destruction of evidence in a serious crime."
I guess I didn't. Sorry.
I'll just say this: schools are operating in uncharted territories in this era. Things have changed dramatically with regards to what they are forced to deal with on a daily basis. I can tell you unequivocally that school officials and school liaison officers speak to kids without parents in many situations in schools in our areas. And, in general, the school's intentions are for kids to learn from their mistakes versus pay for their mistakes.
From my way of thinking, the school 'seemed' to have tried to handle the situation internally without making too much noise. Such a tactic minimizes the notoriety of the act and prevents further embarrassment/shaming. From my way of thinking... if the school had intentions of pursuing this matter to the point of legal action... steps would have been taken to include parents in the process.
There's no way they would have though the kid would have taken his life after the meeting. They may have 'heavied out' on him which might have elevated his anxiety... but they may have just been informative- informing the kid about the legal ramifications for what he was involved in.
It doesn't appear he was in custody, he hadn't been arrested. Was probably free to leave the police questioning and although probably was too frightened to he did have the right to stop any and all questioning, even many adults think they can talk their way out of a police investigation. Although I'm sure the school had other policies and was keeping him detained, but that's the school.
The police have certain rules and procedures, and the school probably has different ones. He wasn't in police custody, so by law they did not have to notify parents. School policy may have been different, but that's the school and up the the school to follow, not police.
You can't fault police for not following school policing and call is police abuse.
What should the school do, ignore it and hope the parents of the girl don't sue you, and you as the principal don't lose your job and/or wind up in jail for ignoring it? Because that is exactly what would happen if they did. Not questioning the kid involved seems like a very appropriate start.
Let the kids do what they want, man.
But there's a difference between teaching your children to request the presence of their parents first and claiming it was unjustified for police to question a child. Cops absolutely have the right to ask questions, just like you have the right to refuse to answer.
And to the previous comment, there are false confessions, I recognize that. Maybe there aren't the best policies in practice, maybe they need to be improved. But calling it police abuse when they follow those policies is not a justified statement in my view. All that being said, I still think they only thing they should have dine differently was make sure the parents were aware of the situation. There was nothing in the article to indicate he was coerced into making a false statement. It appears they simply told him facts about the potential consequences, there have been high school teenagers who are on the sex offender list for very similar circumstances. I would not consider this abuse, they questioned him for a limited time and let him go. Many false confessions.
Here is how it unfolded:
A female students told school admin a boy had a video of a sexual encounter.
Police asked the boy for permission to view and delete any illegal material. He gave permission.
It was a video (and not only audio as some suggested) but the video did not have any identifiable images but id have clear audio of a sexual encounter.
They informed the student what potential consequences there could have been and released him.
Where exactly did they go wrong? This is not some 16-hour interrogation that resulted in a false confession. They had a witness come forward, he gave consent (which they could have easily obtained a warrant if he didn't). Told him what was illegal and what could happen and released him. It doesn't appear they threatened to come after him the next day and throw the book at him.
If this was your daughter on the video, how would you prefer they handle the situation? Ignore it? I mean, the only thing less they could have done than asking permission to view and delete it and then release him is to ignore it, what else could they have done that was less involved?
That sort of thing happens all the time, police question kids at school about an event that happened at school.
If it was like any other school in America they don't make a scene, its not like he gets questioned in front of everyone in the lunch room. He was likely called into the office like 100 other kids that day and range from being a witness to something, forgot his homework and mom dropped it off, to something serious like this. From there he was put into a private room where this conversation happened. No one probably even knew unless he told his friends what happened. There really isn't any big deal about it.
What would be a bigger deal is to escort him to the police station where everyone sees him leaving campus escorted by a police officer, that seems like a bigger deal to me.
They did not confiscate his phone. They asked to search it and he gave permission. Again that happens all the time. I've been pulled over and been asked to search my car before, you have the right to say yes or no. In this case, I'm guessing if he said no they would have detained him for an hour or two until there was a warrant based on witness statements.
Its sad what happened, but I really dont get all this defense for this kid who filmed him having sex with another student (probably unknowingly) and was showing it around school. Thats a prick move, he deserved to be questioned by police and made aware of the possible consequences. Its a tragedy what happened afterwards, but it was a prick move that he did and should not have gone ignored. Yes, the school should have notified parents and probably suspended him. But this is a thread about police abuse, and it was not police abuse.
And I agree, way too many shots fired. I'm thinking nerves and bad aim came into play.
I wonder where the body cams are? Probably malfunctioned....