Police abuse
Comments
-
100%oftenreading said: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.0 -
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.oftenreading said:Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Except in this case, there was no false confession.oftenreading said: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 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.
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."My brain's a good brain!"0 -
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.oftenreading said: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.It's a hopeless situation...0 -
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
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.oftenreading said:Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Except in this case, there was no false confession.oftenreading said: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 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.
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?my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
How about you not turning my words into something else?oftenreading said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
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.oftenreading said:Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Except in this case, there was no false confession.oftenreading said: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 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.
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?
"My brain's a good brain!"0 -
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Harass a kid?unsung said:Not enough to make him kill himself.
Why is it ok to harass a kid without his parents present?
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.It's a hopeless situation...0 -
The law sees it different than you. Legally, it is the production of child pornography- like it or not.tbergs said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Harass a kid?unsung said:Not enough to make him kill himself.
Why is it ok to harass a kid without his parents present?
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.
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."My brain's a good brain!"0 -
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.0 -
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
The law sees it different than you. Legally, it is the production of child pornography- like it or not.tbergs said:
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.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Harass a kid?unsung said:Not enough to make him kill himself.
Why is it ok to harass a kid without his parents present?
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.
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 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.It's a hopeless situation...0 -
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.mace1229 said: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.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
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?oftenreading said: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.
"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."
0 -
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).0
-
Often...oftenreading said:
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.mace1229 said: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.
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.
"My brain's a good brain!"0 -
The law says that, but only implies if he is in custody and not free to leave.oftenreading said:
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.mace1229 said: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.
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.Post edited by mace1229 on0 -
When you run schools like a prison, you get prison-like problems.0
-
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.0 -
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.oftenreading said: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'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080 -
Yah, man.CM189191 said:When you run schools like a prison, you get prison-like problems.
Let the kids do what they want, man.
"My brain's a good brain!"0 -
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.Go Beavers said:
How much responsibility would you put on the kid in this situation?unsung said:
Post edited by PJ_Soul onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help