Father arrested for picking up his kids from school

[kilgram]

It is absurd.

It is incredible to the level of absurdity that the governments can arrive. How can a parent be arrested just for picking their children a bit earlier, but when school already finished. Just for a new stupid rule that says that parents that go walking with their children must pick up them half an hour later than the ones that pick up them with a car.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8r-bdcvx8E

Written News (http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/20/father-arrested-for-picking-up-his-kids-from-school/)



A Tennessee father was hauled off to jail after he insisted on taking his son home from school on time, rather than waiting for another half an hour under a recently implemented school rule.
Jim Howe, father of two children enrolled in South Cumberland Elementary in Crossville, Tennessee, arrived at the school on foot at dismissal time: 2:00 PM. But a new school policy states that students may only leave at 2:00 PM if their parents are picking them up in cars. Walkers must wait until 2:35 PM.
Howe maintained that the policy was meant to apply to students walking home by themselves, not students walking home with their parents.
“You don’t need a reason as a parent to go get your children,” he told school officials.
Avery Aytes, a sheriff deputy and school resource officer, was on hand to prevent Howes from leaving with his kids. The encounter between the two was captured on video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8r-bdcvx8E)by Howes’s fiancee, Jennifer Long. When Howes insisted that the new policy was illegal, the officer threatened him with jail time.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/20/father-arrested-for-picking-up-his-kids-from-school/#ixzz2lG50UwKp

[Green Arrow]

Welcome to the police state.

[jillian]

Welcome to the police state.

i'm pretty sure that he wasn't arrested for trying to take his kids home, but for how he acted….

[Mainecoons]

I'm pretty sure you are very comfortable with the police state.

[Green Arrow]

i'm pretty sure that he wasn't arrested for trying to take his kids home, but for how he acted….

On what grounds was his behavior worthy of arrest? He was polite and calm, and submitted to arrest.

[Captain Obvious]

This "police state" nonsense is nonsense.

I don't understand how people take isolated incidents and extrapolate them to the entire population of police action.

Funny thing - in real life I'm a pretty reasonable guy, especially when police are around. Shit like this doesn't happen to me, or almost anyone I know to be honest because most of the people I know are not unlike me in this sense.

A couple people I do know who have had run-ins with police had them because of dumb shit they did.

Funny how that karma works.

[Green Arrow]

This "police state" nonsense is nonsense.

I don't understand how people take isolated incidents and extrapolate them to the entire population of police action.

Funny thing - in real life I'm a pretty reasonable guy, especially when police are around. Shit like this doesn't happen to me, or almost anyone I know to be honest because most of the people I know are not unlike me in this sense.

A couple people I do know who have had run-ins with police had them because of dumb shit they did.

Funny how that karma works.

So answer the question I posed to jillian: how was his arrest justifiable?

[Cigar]

That's Stupid, but I'd start with the School before blaming the entire United States Government. :rollseyes:

[Green Arrow]

That's Stupid, but I'd start with the School before blaming the entire United States Government. :rollseyes:

Nobody blamed the entire U.S. government, and that police officer was not a school officer.

[Captain Obvious]

So answer the question I posed to jillian: how was his arrest justifiable?

I'll go out on a limb and say it was not.

He needs to get a lawyer and sue the police department. Lots of police incidents every day, statistically some dumb shit is going to happen. That's why we have court systems.

Now explain to me how isolated incidents create a "police state"?

[Cigar]

Nobody blamed the entire U.S. government, and that police officer was not a school officer.

Good, then you agree it's a local Tennessee School Policy. :wink:

[patrickt]

i'm pretty sure that he wasn't arrested for trying to take his kids home, but for how he acted….

A. Jillian agrees with Arne Duncan, the state is always right, except when the lynch mob decides it isn't.

B. Evidence, evidence, lynch mobs don't need no stinkin evidence.

C. I'll be interested in seeing how it is resolved.

[Green Arrow]

Good, then you agree it's a local Tennessee School Policy. :wink:

Sure. He wasn't arrested for violating local school policy, however. He was arrested by a police officer for not bowing down and kissing the ground the officer walked on.

[Green Arrow]

I'll go out on a limb and say it was not.

He needs to get a lawyer and sue the police department. Lots of police incidents every day, statistically some dumb shit is going to happen. That's why we have court systems.

Now explain to me how isolated incidents create a "police state"?

These sorts of "isolated incidents" happen all over the country. Our police are out of control.

[Captain Obvious]

These sorts of "isolated incidents" happen all over the country. Our police are out of control.

Can you show where, statistically, adverse police actions are beyond the norm?

[Dangermouse]

Sure. He wasn't arrested for violating local school policy, however. He was arrested by a police officer for not bowing down and kissing the ground the officer walked on.

And the evidence for that assertion, like your whole argument, is entirely lacking.

[Green Arrow]

Can you show where, statistically, adverse police actions are beyond the norm?

Not without years of targeted study and mathematics.

[Captain Obvious]

Not without years of targeted study and mathematics.

Funny how you can come to the conclusion that you came to then, isn't it?

http://rogercostello.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/cognitive-error-acting-on-only-what-is-immediately-seen/

[Cigar]

Sure. He wasn't arrested for violating local school policy, however. He was arrested by a police officer for not bowing down and kissing the ground the officer walked on.

Maybe if the officer randomly frisked the father it would have been more acceptable :wink:

[Green Arrow]

Maybe if the officer randomly frisked the father it would have been more acceptable :wink:

No, it would have been worse.

[Green Arrow]

Funny how you can come to the conclusion that you came to then, isn't it?

http://rogercostello.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/cognitive-error-acting-on-only-what-is-immediately-seen/

Funny? Not really. I looked at the information before me and made an observation.

[Alyosha]

This "police state" nonsense is nonsense.

I don't understand how people take isolated incidents and extrapolate them to the entire population of police action.

Funny thing - in real life I'm a pretty reasonable guy, especially when police are around. Shit like this doesn't happen to me, or almost anyone I know to be honest because most of the people I know are not unlike me in this sense.

A couple people I do know who have had run-ins with police had them because of dumb shit they did.

Funny how that karma works.

@Captain Obvious (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=3)

if you don't think we have a rise of the police state do this experiment: find your local unified court system. They should have a "public" and a "lawyer" access. Pick public and then type in any common name in your area.

Look for any misdemeanor arrest and pull up names with charges. You will see that "assault on a police officer" or "resisting arrest" charges are attached to pretty much any case now.

OR, next time you bump into a criminal defense attorney, ask them how many "resisting arrest" charges they see now compared to 5 years ago.

I'll trust you to do it and then we have this conversation again. It is a LOT worse than it was when I first started practicing. "Resisting arrest" is talking back to a police officer. Every single case, nearly had that attached making it so that it is difficult to get all charges dismissed.

[Captain Obvious]

@Captain Obvious (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=3)

if you don't think we have a rise of the police state do this experiment: find your local unified court system. They should have a "public" and a "lawyer" access. Pick public and then type in any common name in your area.

Look for any misdemeanor arrest and pull up names with charges. You will see that "assault on a police officer" or "resisting arrest" charges are attached to pretty much any case now.

OR, next time you bump into a criminal defense attorney, ask them how many "resisting arrest" charges they see now compared to 5 years ago.

I'll trust you to do it and then we have this conversation again. It is a LOT worse than it was when I first started practicing. "Resisting arrest" is talking back to a police officer. Every single case, nearly had that attached making it so that it is difficult to get all charges dismissed.
Alyosha

Of all the names/incidents you looked up, how many did you witness?

[Alyosha]

@Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863)

Of all the names/incidents you looked up, how many did you witness?

I saw a lot of video after subpoena so I have a different perspective. This is also an online forum so I could be an 80 year old grandmother who taught school her whole life. Anecdotal evidence where I talk about what I saw won't cut mustard. I can tell you I saw a lot but would you believe me? Nope.

Do the research or not. It will be upsetting, that's for sure.

However, come to VA and we'll get beers--shit, I can't drink anymore. Well, we'll do something and talk. :D

[Green Arrow]

So, back to jillian explaining how his behavior justified getting arrested.

[Alyosha]

btw, I am not saying all cops are scumbags. Common for example I have a feeling was a do-gooder beat cop. The sheriff near my college was awesome. Incredibly awesome dude that let us do ridealongs.

The protocols that come down from high has changed the tempo.

[Green Arrow]

btw, I am not saying all cops are scumbags. @Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=659) for example I have a feeling was a do-gooder beat cop. The sheriff near my college was awesome. Incredibly awesome dude that let us do ridealongs.

The protocols that come down from high has changed the tempo.

Right. None of us police critics, to my knowledge, have suggested that all cops are out-of-control douchebags. Doesn't stop those on the other side of the debate from whining that we just hate cops, though.

[Alyosha]

Right. None of us police critics, to my knowledge, have suggested that all cops are out-of-control douchebags. Doesn't stop those on the other side of the debate from whining that we just hate cops, though.

I met a cute cop once in NYC when I was practicing. It was like a cat and dog scenario.

[Green Arrow]

I met a cute cop once in NYC when I was practicing. It was like a cat and dog scenario.

Or maybe cat and mouse, depending on how you look at it :tongue:

[Ravi]

If that is a picture of a "police state" it is pretty mild.

[Green Arrow]

If that is a picture of a "police state" it is pretty mild.

Mild? A police officer arrested a man for no justifiable reason, and that man will now have a blight on his record that likely will never be removed.

It may be mild for you, but that is because your bacon isn't the one getting fried.

[Alyosha]

What people tend to forget is the precedence that gets set when this is allowed. Everything is progressive.

[Ravi]

Mild? A police officer arrested a man for no justifiable reason, and that man will now have a blight on his record that likely will never be removed.

It may be mild for you, but that is because your bacon isn't the one getting fried.

Please. The guy planned this out and was expecting to get arrested. He wasted the cop's time. He's wasted my time. His complaint is with the school, he should be in the principals office with his complaint.

[patrickt]

Right. None of us police critics, to my knowledge, have suggested that all cops are out-of-control douchebags. Doesn't stop those on the other side of the debate from whining that we just hate cops, though.

Exotix: "Watch in horror as the locos gringos facistos open fire on a family in a van ..."
Green Arrow: "Blue fascists at it again!"
Xl: "Fuck cops."
Green Arrow: "Why do you hate America? "

Golly, no. And Green Arrow isn't just playing the victim card...again. Ah, poor baby, those nasty people "on the other side" just whine that he and his hate cops. Hard to believe, isn't it?

[Green Arrow]

Please. The guy planned this out and was expecting to get arrested. He wasted the cop's time. He's wasted my time. His complaint is with the school, he should be in the principals office with his complaint.

How did he waste your time? How do you know he planned this out? And what is the justification for arresting him?

[Green Arrow]

Exotix: "Watch in horror as the locos gringos facistos open fire on a family in a van ..."
Green Arrow: "Blue fascists at it again!"
Xl: "Fuck cops."
Green Arrow: "Why do you hate America? "

Golly, no. And Green Arrow isn't just playing the victim card...again. Ah, poor baby, those nasty people "on the other side" just whine that he and his hate cops. Hard to believe, isn't it?

If I were you, I'd worry more about the fact that you can't get over being told you were wrong by a 20 year old a year ago. That's pretty pathetic.

[Ravi]

How did he waste your time? How do you know he planned this out? And what is the justification for arresting him?
I watched the video, it was a waste of my time. It was filmed, therefore he planned it. He filmed an earlier incident two days earlier. The justification for arresting him was to let him cool his heels while the cop attended to his actual duties. No doubt the case will be dismissed and he will be the current poster boy of the oppressed.

Now, why didn't he take up his complaint with the principal or school board? Why waste everyone's time and potentially endanger the students by distracting the school's duty officer?

[Green Arrow]

I watched the video, it was a waste of my time. It was filmed, therefore he planned it. He filmed an earlier incident two days earlier. The justification for arresting him was to let him cool his heels while the cop attended to his actual duties. No doubt the case will be dismissed and he will be the current poster boy of the oppressed.

The cop could have attended his actual duties without arresting the man. That's not justification to arrest him. You arrest people for committing crimes. What crime was committed?


Now, why didn't he take up his complaint with the principal or school board? Why waste everyone's time and potentially endanger the students by distracting the school's duty officer?

His action did not potentially endanger any students. If the officer is that immature that a man could disrupt his duties just by trying to pick up his child, then the officer should lose his badge.

[jillian]

So, back to @jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719) explaining how his behavior justified getting arrested.

we don't know what his behavior was, that was my point. all we have is a rightwing "source" whining that someone had to follow rules.
i'm pretty sure they didn't arrest the guy for being polite. mmkay? but thanks Green Arrow

[Green Arrow]

we don't know what his behavior was, that was my point. all we have is a rightwing "source" whining that someone had to follow rules.
i'm pretty sure they didn't arrest the guy for being polite. mmkay? but thanks @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868)

We do know what his behavior was, because there's a video in the OP that shows the whole incident. Watch that, then explain how his arrest was justified.

[jillian]

We do know what his behavior was, because there's a video in the OP that shows the whole incident. Watch that, then explain how his arrest was justified.

aside from the fact that the vid can't be accessed from work, there is absolutely no evidence that this isn't another doctored video

[Green Arrow]

aside from the fact that the vid can't be accessed from work, there is absolutely no evidence that this isn't another doctored video

Watching the video will show that it isn't doctored, so I'm not sure what you mean.

[Ravi]

aside from the fact that the vid can't be accessed from work, there is absolutely no evidence that this isn't another doctored video

It's basically 10 minutes of the guy whining to the cop. Apparently he has a history of this behavior. Cop just got tired of the BS.

[Captain Obvious]

It's basically 10 minutes of the guy whining to the cop. Apparently he has a history of this behavior. Cop just got tired of the BS.

Yeah, I don't disagree.

That cop should have fucking pistol whipped that schmuck too.

[jillian]

Yeah, I don't disagree.

That cop should have fucking pistol whipped that schmuck too.

would he have liked that, do ya think?

[Green Arrow]

Yeah, I don't disagree.

That cop should have fucking pistol whipped that schmuck too.

Well, that explains why you don't seem to think we have a problem with out-of-control police. You just disagree on what is "out of control."

I don't think using your first amendment right to free speech respectfully and calmly is justification for arrest or pistol-whipping. You apparently do.

[Green Arrow]

It's basically 10 minutes of the guy whining to the cop. Apparently he has a history of this behavior. Cop just got tired of the BS.

He wasn't "whining." The school wouldn't allow him to pick up his child, in violation of Tennessee state law. He was simply arguing his case that they have no right to prevent him from picking up his child. The cop was out of control and on a power trip.

[Captain Obvious]

Well, that explains why you don't seem to think we have a problem with out-of-control police. You just disagree on what is "out of control."

I don't think using your first amendment right to free speech respectfully and calmly is justification for arrest or pistol-whipping. You apparently do.

Oh relax, I'm kidding.

[Green Arrow]

Oh relax, I'm kidding.

Dammit. I'll figure it out eventually :tongue:

[nathanbforrest45]

i'm pretty sure that he wasn't arrested for trying to take his kids home, but for how he acted….

Of course and the fact that he was stopped from picking up his kids by an extremely stupid rule had nothing to do with the way he acted.

It doesn't say but I'll bet he's related to George Zimmerman

[Ravi]

He wasn't "whining." The school wouldn't allow him to pick up his child, in violation of Tennessee state law. He was simply arguing his case that they have no right to prevent him from picking up his child. The cop was out of control and on a power trip.
meh. The cop didn't make the rule. The school made the rule. He should have spent his time talking to the principal and organizing like minded parents.

[Ravi]

Of course and the fact that he was stopped from picking up his kids by an extremely stupid rule had nothing to do with the way he acted.

It doesn't say but I'll bet he's related to George ZimmermanSame body type, so maybe. Damn, I saw a guy on the side of the road this morning that looked exactly like George. Creeped me right out.

[nathanbforrest45]

If the argument of the left wingers on this forum is that since it was the law he had no right to complain then perhaps they would have disagreed with the sit in's of the 60's when blacks were trying to get equal rights. After all, it was a clear violation of the trespass laws that they would not leave the lunch counters.

[Ravi]

If the argument of the left wingers on this forum is that since it was the law he had no right to complain then perhaps they would have disagreed with the sit in's of the 60's when blacks were trying to get equal rights. After all, it was a clear violation of the trespass laws that they would not leave the lunch counters.

Of course he has the right to complain. He was just complaining to the wrong person.

[Green Arrow]

meh. The cop didn't make the rule. The school made the rule. He should have spent his time talking to the principal and organizing like minded parents.

How do you know he hasn't? He was there at that particular time to sign a form allowing his children to walk home.

[patrickt]

If I were you, I'd worry more about the fact that you can't get over being told you were wrong by a 20 year old a year ago. That's pretty pathetic.

Well, golly Green Arrow, if that's how you choose to deal with being wrong again, that's fine.

[Ravi]

How do you know he hasn't? He was there at that particular time to sign a form allowing his children to walk home.

Then why was he arguing with the cop?

[nathanbforrest45]

Then why was he arguing with the cop?


Because the cop was the one telling him he couldn't do what he wanted to do.

No answer for my previous question regarding sit ins??

[Green Arrow]

Then why was he arguing with the cop?

Because the cop came in and kept arguing with him. When he said he was there to pick up his kids, the cop should have left it alone. He didn't, and for some reason got very irate.

[Common]

Right. None of us police critics, to my knowledge, have suggested that all cops are out-of-control douchebags. Doesn't stop those on the other side of the debate from whining that we just hate cops, though.

In all fairness to those on the other side, you do make a point of bringing out every single mistake police do and totally ignore thats such a tiny fraction compared to what the do good.

I could post compilations on how many people yearly whose lives are saved by police etc. The good far outweighs the bad but like I said in fairness you just harp relentlessly on every single mistake. If there were no cops alot of the people that complain about them an hate them would be prey

[Green Arrow]

Well, golly Green Arrow, if that's how you choose to deal with being wrong again, that's fine.

I haven't said anything wrong in this thread.

[Green Arrow]

In all fairness to those on the other side, you do make a point of bringing out every single mistake police do and totally ignore thats such a tiny fraction compared to what the do good.

I could post compilations on how many people yearly whose lives are saved by police etc. The good far outweighs the bad but like I said in fairness you just harp relentlessly on every single mistake. If there were no cops alot of the people that complain about them an hate them would be prey

I have never harped on "every single mistake" cops do. I specifically address certain actions and only when those actions occur.

[Ravi]

Because the cop came in and kept arguing with him. When he said he was there to pick up his kids, the cop should have left it alone. He didn't, and for some reason got very irate.
The video doesn't back that up. They are both in the office when the camera is rolling. He should release the entire, unedited video.

[Green Arrow]

The video doesn't back that up. They are both in the office when the camera is rolling. He should release the entire, unedited video.

It doesn't appear edited to me. It appears to me that they didn't even start filming until the officer arrived. Since it is his actions in that moment that got him arrested, that is all that is relevant to the arrest.

*EDIT* And yes, the video does back that up. That is the entire content of their discussion and he signed a form on the video to do that.

[Codename Section]

In all fairness to those on the other side, you do make a point of bringing out every single mistake police do and totally ignore thats such a tiny fraction compared to what the do good.

I could post compilations on how many people yearly whose lives are saved by police etc. The good far outweighs the bad but like I said in fairness you just harp relentlessly on every single mistake. If there were no cops alot of the people that complain about them an hate them would be prey


Surgeons, too. If they had the same track record as police we'd be running in the streets demanding tort laws be changed. Yes, I get what you're saying. I would have said the same thing about the marines after Haditha, but it means shit.

We're supposed to be doing things better than the enemy or perps.

The good doesn't outweigh the bad in our lines of work because of the amount of trust given to us--not to mention weapons. There has to be a change in protocol and then a zero-tolerance policy. None of this protect your brother crap.

[nathanbforrest45]

In all fairness to those on the other side, you do make a point of bringing out every single mistake police do and totally ignore thats such a tiny fraction compared to what the do good.

I could post compilations on how many people yearly whose lives are saved by police etc. The good far outweighs the bad but like I said in fairness you just harp relentlessly on every single mistake. If there were no cops alot of the people that complain about them an hate them would be prey

The fact that the vast majority of corporations are good citizens, provide jobs, create products we want and need does not seem to stop you from labeling all businessmen as corrupt and greedy though does it?

[Ravi]

It doesn't appear edited to me. It appears to me that they didn't even start filming until the officer arrived. Since it is his actions in that moment that got him arrested, that is all that is relevant to the arrest.

*EDIT* And yes, the video does back that up. That is the entire content of their discussion and he signed a form on the video to do that.

They are standing next to each other when the filming begins.

[Codename Section]

Well, I'm sure some people got slapped before the filming started. That father was probably kicking some ass or something. Look at his priors. Dude was a serious mutherfucker.

[patrickt]

I haven't said anything wrong in this thread.

If that makes you feel better, fine.

[kilgram]

I find interesting some arguments in this thread that take me to the same arguments given in Spain to defend police.

The first and main for me is: It is aisled.

In Spain it was said the same for the cases of torture by police. In the end result, that it was the rule, not the exception. However the government and supporters(aka conservative and progressive) try to keep that argument: it is an exception, it is an aisled case, it is not the norm.

As it is said, we've seen many cases in USA of abuses of police, and many others that have not been taken to the public view. For example Alyosha has given examples of reasons of people being arrested and many of them are resistance to authority, something that if it is a figure like in Spain (and I am pretty sure it is), people can be arrested for any reason under that figure.

So, in my opinion, yes, USA is a police state.

[Ravi]

I find interesting some arguments in this thread that take me to the same arguments given in Spain to defend police.

The first and main for me is: It is aisled.

In Spain it was said the same for the cases of torture by police. In the end result, that it was the rule, not the exception. However the government and supporters(aka conservative and progressive) try to keep that argument: it is an exception, it is an aisled case, it is not the norm.

As it is said, we've seen many cases in USA of abuses of police, and many others that have not been taken to the public view. For example @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) has given examples of reasons of people being arrested and many of them are resistance to authority, something that if it is a figure like in Spain (and I am pretty sure it is), people can be arrested for any reason under that figure.

So, in my opinion, yes, USA is a police state.

Uh, no. He'll get his day in court. And he wasn't tortured.

[Dr. Who]

i'm pretty sure that he wasn't arrested for trying to take his kids home, but for how he acted….

I watched the video. He did nothing that should have caused him to be arrested. This was an abuse of power on the part of the Sherriff's deputy. Any parent can remove their children from the school premises at any time. Neither the school nor the police have jurisdiction over a parent's legal right to come and take their children home at any time.

[Dr. Who]

Please. The guy planned this out and was expecting to get arrested. He wasted the cop's time. He's wasted my time. His complaint is with the school, he should be in the principals office with his complaint.

What makes you think that this was planned? Because of the video? His wife had a cell phone. I wouldn't necessarily suggest that this is representative of a police state, but what it does represent is a lack of knowledge on the part of some law enforcement officers as to the scope of their jurisdiction. This was not a police matter from the start. The resource officer was responsible for safety at the school, not for enforcing school administrative guidelines. Since the (now) defendant was not breaking any law in requesting that his children be released to himself and his wife, then any argument with the deputy was based on the deputy's unlawful actions in preventing the lawful release of those children. The school's legal role vis-à-vis children in the care is one of "in loco parentis". That role ends when the actual parent or legal guardian is present and asks for their child to be released to them. The officer on the other hand has no legal role with regard to the children. His duty extends strictly to maintaining safety in the school. Since there were no safety issues involved, he had no right to interfere with the defendant's lawful request. If the school was refusing to release the children to their parents, the school was breaking the law - it's called kidnapping or unlawful restraint and the deputy was an accomplice to that crime.

[Mister D]

I watched the video. He did nothing that should have caused him to be arrested. This was an abuse of power on the part of the Sherriff's deputy. Any parent can remove their children from the school premises at any time. Neither the school nor the police have jurisdiction over a parent's legal right to come and take their children home at any time.

Who, you're talking to people whose perspective on an issue or event is determined by who brought it up and why. Did an "anti-gubmint" type bring it up? Then it has no meaning.

[Ravi]

What makes you think that this was planned? Because of the video? His wife had a cell phone. I wouldn't necessarily suggest that this is representative of a police state, but what it does represent is a lack of knowledge on the part of some law enforcement officers as to the scope of their jurisdiction. This was not a police matter from the start. The resource officer was responsible for safety at the school, not for enforcing school administrative guidelines. Since the (now) defendant was not breaking any law in requesting that his children be released to himself and his wife, then any argument with the deputy was based on the deputy's unlawful actions in preventing the lawful release of those children. The school's legal role vis-à-vis children in the care is one of "in loco parentis". That role ends when the actual parent or legal guardian is present and asks for their child to be released to them. The officer on the other hand has no legal role with regard to the children. His duty extends strictly to maintaining safety in the school. Since there were no safety issues involved, he had no right to interfere with the defendant's lawful request. If the school was refusing to release the children to their parents, the school was breaking the law - it's called kidnapping or unlawful restraint and the deputy was an accomplice to that crime.second video they took in three days. It was planned

[Mainecoons]

I hope so. These tin pot government dictators need to be outed wherever they are.

BTW Ravi, did you enjoy the videos of your "navigators" telling people how to steal from ObamaCare?

[Ravi]

I hope so. These tin pot government dictators need to be outed wherever they are.

BTW Ravi, did you enjoy the videos of your "navigators" telling people how to steal from ObamaCare?steal?

[Mainecoons]

Yes, steal, genius. Falsify their information so they would get subsidies they didn't qualify for.

STEAL. Now you've shown us that cheating to get money you don't qualify for is also OK with liberals.

That figures. Lie, cheat, steal, its the liberal Democrat way.

[Dr. Who]

Who, you're talking to people whose perspective on an issue or event is determined by who brought it up and why. Did an "anti-gubmint" type bring it up? Then it has no meaning.

For me this is simply a matter of law. Unless or until the state presumes to assume legal guardianship of all children or transfer that guardianship to municipalities and schools (not a role that I expect that schools would even want to assume), then the only legal custodian of children are their parent(s) or legal guardian, notwithstanding the role assumed by schools while children are in their care. This is not a left or right issue or a partisan issue or a pro or anti-government issue. I expect that anyone who picks up their children of school might be somewhat put out if they were told that you cannot have your children right now, you must wait for some arbitrary time and in the meantime, irrespective of your reason for coming for your children, you have to wait until the school is good and ready to give them back. I'd home school my kids before allowing any school to withhold my children without lawful cause.

[Dr. Who]

second video they took in three days. It was planned

If it was, so what? The officer and school still broke the law. Perhaps it was the civil version of a sting operation. Neither the school nor the officer had the right to withhold those kids. Furthermore, given that the officer knew he was being videotaped only goes to underscore his ignorance of the law.

[The Xl]

The volume of which cops do abuse their authority is actually pretty irrelevant. It's the fact that they can abuse their authority without any warning and/or repercussion.

That's the reason why we live in a police state.

[Ravi]

Yes, steal, genius. Falsify their information so they would get subsidies they didn't qualify for.

STEAL. Now you've shown us that cheating to get money you don't qualify for is also OK with liberals.

That figures. Lie, cheat, steal, its the liberal Democrat way.its checked so no

[Ravi]

If it was, so what? The officer and school still broke the law. Perhaps it was the civil version of a sting operation. Neither the school nor the officer had the right to withhold those kids. Furthermore, given that the officer knew he was being videotaped only goes to underscore his ignorance of the law.did they withhold the kids? For all we know the fiancé got them

[Green Arrow]

did they withhold the kids? For all we know the fiancé got them

They did withhold the kids, because that's school policy. The cop was even saying on the video that he would have to wait until the policy-specified time to get his kids.

[Dr. Who]

did they withhold the kids? For all we know the fiancé got them

Well I hope someone picked them up after the father's civil rights were violated and he was hauled off to jail.

[Ravi]

i'm pretty sure that he wasn't arrested for trying to take his kids home, but for how he acted….
Yep

[Ravi]

Well I hope someone picked them up after the father's civil rights were violated and he was hauled off to jail.
No offense but you are arguing from unknowns

[Dr. Who]

No offense but you are arguing from unknowns

I watched the video up to the point of arrest. Where is it written that asking for your children is against the law? He was not resisting arrest, since he wasn't breaking the law. There is no special clause in any statutes or bylaws that says that you cannot argue with a cop when you are not even suspected of a legal violation. If that were true the wives of cops would be subject to arrest whenever there was a disagreement. The deputy overstepped his authority. A school administrative rule for pickups is not legally binding, it is voluntary and therefore not enforceable by police. It's just that simple. If all parents showed up at the school en masse to pick up their children, there is nothing whatever that the school could do but send a disapproving letter home with the students.

[Guerilla]

To me this does represent a police state. Not because of this particular incident but because of the cops attitude. It was obvious he started to lose his composure and get a bit flustered when his authority was challenged (and challenged rightfully so). He panicked and arrested the guy.

A police officer arrested a guy, with no justifiable reason, and furthermore, threatened to arrest his wife, as if to mock her, (again without good reason). These types of cop mentalities are very indicative of a police state. This type of careless, "I have a badge, so listen here" cop mentality is the foundation of a police state. Obviously their are good cops, and maybe these authority crazed officers are the minority. But because clueless people defend them, like on this forum, it seems to be a growing minority.

So when I see these videos, which get more and more common, many of which are unspeakably more horrific than this, I see a (pre)police state.

[Ravi]

I watched the video up to the point of arrest. Where is it written that asking for your children is against the law? He was not resisting arrest, since he wasn't breaking the law. There is no special clause in any statutes or bylaws that says that you cannot argue with a cop when you are not even suspected of a legal violation. If that were true the wives of cops would be subject to arrest whenever there was a disagreement. The deputy overstepped his authority. A school administrative rule for pickups is not legally binding, it is voluntary and therefore not enforceable by police. It's just that simple. If all parents showed up at the school en masse to pick up their children, there is nothing whatever that the school could do but send a disapproving letter home with the students.youre awfully sure of yourself. I am under the understanding that in tenn school districts are empowered to regulate such issues.

id like to say right now that I disagree with this pick up policy. But this man should be willing to pay the price of his actions. Badgering a cop is the wrong way to make his point.

[Ravi]

To me this does represent a police state. Not because of this particular incident but because of the cops attitude. It was obvious he started to lose his composure and get a bit flustered when his authority was challenged (and challenged rightfully so). He panicked and arrested the guy.

A police officer arrested a guy, with no justifiable reason, and furthermore, threatened to arrest his wife, as if to mock her, (again without good reason). These types of cop mentalities are very indicative of a police state. This type of careless, "I have a badge, so listen here" cop mentality is the foundation of a police state. Obviously their are good cops, and maybe these authority crazed officers are the minority. But because clueless people defend them, like on this forum, it seems to be a growing minority.

So when I see these videos, which get more and more common, many of which are unspeakably more horrific than this, I see a (pre)police state.
It isn't his wife. My the conclusions people jump to.

[Guerilla]

It isn't his wife. My the conclusions people jump to.

Yes, my my, the conclusions! How absurd!

-Anyways does anyone worth talking to have something to say about my post?

[Mister D]

Yes, my my, the conclusions! How absurd!

-Anyways does anyone worth talking to have something to say about my post?

Ravi tries to be sarcastic. It's embarrassing to watch.


Anyway, yeah, I agree that some cops (obviously, this guy) get flustered when the accused has anything to say aside from yes officer and no officer.

[Ravi]

Yes, my my, the conclusions! How absurd!

-Anyways does anyone worth talking to have something to say about my post?
Yeah. Quit being a sloppy thinker.

[Dr. Who]

youre awfully sure of yourself. I am under the understanding that in tenn school districts are empowered to regulate such issues.

id like to say right now that I disagree with this pick up policy. But this man should be willing to pay the price of his actions. Badgering a cop is the wrong way to make his point.

The administrative rule at this particular school about pickups at this school is not a district regulation - it was created because there was traffic chaos. In order for any regulation to be legally binding on any citizen it must first be enacted into law. District school regulations only apply to the running of the school and the actions of the teachers and the actions of the school with regard to safeguarding children. They are civil regulations. They may stipulate punishments for transgressions of school rules. The worst they can do is expel a student. Their regulations do not apply outside of the school system. They do not apply to parents. They do not include the right to arrest a parent. An arrest can only take place when a law has been broken or is suspected of being broken. No law was broken in this instance. This officer was acting outside of the scope of his duties. It would be no different than if he arrested his neighbor for arguing with him for his (the officer's) dog crapping on his lawn. The police are not empowered to exercise the right of arrest without cause.

[Mister D]

The administrative rule at this particular school about pickups at this school is not a district regulation - it was created because there was traffic chaos. In order for any regulation to be legally binding on any citizen it must first be enacted into law. District school regulations only apply to the running of the school and the actions of the teachers and the actions of the school with regard to safeguarding children. They are civil regulations. They may stipulate punishments for transgressions of school rules. The worst they can do is expel a student. Their regulations do not apply outside of the school system. They do not apply to parents. They do not include the right to arrest a parent. An arrest can only take place when a law has been broken or is suspected of being broken. No law was broken in this instance. This officer was acting outside of the scope of his duties. It would be no different than if he arrested his neighbor for arguing with him for his (the officer's) dog crapping on his lawn. The police are not empowered to exercise the right of arrest without cause.

You really are wasting your time in this case.

[Dr. Who]

It isn't his wife. My the conclusions people jump to.

How do you know she isn't his common-law wife? Being his fiancé does not exclude her from cohabitating with him.

[Dr. Who]

You really are wasting your time in this case.
Probably.

[Guerilla]

Yeah. Quit being a sloppy thinker.

Says the person who can't think her way out of a paper bag.

[Ravi]

The administrative rule at this particular school about pickups at this school is not a district regulation - it was created because there was traffic chaos. In order for any regulation to be legally binding on any citizen it must first be enacted into law. District school regulations only apply to the running of the school and the actions of the teachers and the actions of the school with regard to safeguarding children. They are civil regulations. They may stipulate punishments for transgressions of school rules. The worst they can do is expel a student. Their regulations do not apply outside of the school system. They do not apply to parents. They do not include the right to arrest a parent. An arrest can only take place when a law has been broken or is suspected of being broken. No law was broken in this instance. This officer was acting outside of the scope of his duties. It would be no different than if he arrested his neighbor for arguing with him for his (the officer's) dog crapping on his lawn. The police are not empowered to exercise the right of arrest without cause.
No. It appears it is a district policy.

South Cumberland Elementary is one of the last schools in the county to implement a pick-up policy like this. The superintendent says the location of this school next to a busy highway and only one entrance and exit make it extra difficult to ease traffic concerns.

http://www.wate.com/story/24037752/cumberland-county-school-superintendent-addresses-viral-video

[Ravi]

How do you know she isn't his common-law wife? Being his fiancé does not exclude her from cohabitating with him.
Lmao

[Dr. Who]

No. It appears it is a district policy.

South Cumberland Elementary is one of the last schools in the county to implement a pick-up policy like this. The superintendent says the location of this school next to a busy highway and only one entrance and exit make it extra difficult to ease traffic concerns.

http://www.wate.com/story/24037752/cumberland-county-school-superintendent-addresses-viral-video

That still does not make it binding on non-students who are parents, especially those who do not come by car. As respects a third party i.e. someone not governed by the school district regulations, it is basically voluntary on the part of the parents. As I said, while it may be a school or even district policy, you cannot criminally enforce it. Policy and criminal law are two distinctly separate things. It might be district policy that kids don't wear hoodies. That does not suggest that teens attending schools wearing hoodies would be subject to arrest, only that they would be sent home. The school has no legal right to withhold children from their lawful guardians at any time or any place. They can only withhold children when custody is contested and the person attempting to pick up the child is not the legal guardian.

From your link: No one's intent is to deprive any parent their right to be able to pick-up their child. They have that right. They will continue to have that right, because it's the law. But there are guidelines that are set that have to followed which ensure safety, and we don't make apologies for that". Guidelines - not laws. Not enforceable.

[kilgram]

It isn't his wife. My the conclusions people jump to.
It's her girlfriend. It is said in the news site.