Kentucky teen arrested in feud over dress code protest T-shirt - Sensationalist Headlines

Nothing wrong with admiring legs or a nice back.

Europe's seemingly already wised up then considering we don't have them, why do you need them?

attempting to take an item necessary to call parents by force from an already angry student is deliberately causing a situation to occur, it should be considered his fault for starting the situation instead of blaming the child for reacting.

If you don't get phones or other devices during suspension then why does she deserve special treatment because she's being combative and uncooperative.

Not use law enforcement, usually just suspended or expelled but neither if its for stuff such as dress code. Theres no point in being sarcastic when you have to go on the defence to explain why you've got police officers in your schools, the very fact you have to defend it is weird enough

She was suspended. But she refused to go. That's the whole story. That's what the resource officer was doing when she assaulted him. Bringing her to In School Suspension (ISS) where you basically sit in a classroom for a period of time and do homework. You're not allowed to have phones or mp3 players or anything during ISS because it's punishment so the officer attempted to retrieve it when she refused to surrender it. (It's not illegal for a school to require you to give up your phone, as long as it's returned, which it would be once the ISS session is served)

Thats detention here in Europe, suspension in europe is usually just not being allowed into the school entirely Having a police officer handle detention is quite honestly the most pathetic use of funding i think i've ever heard, if she'd done that to a staff member she wouldn't have gone to court, the only reason she is is because he's a cop. This is my entire point: why on earth is there a police officer in a school dealing with issues that don't have anything to do with what they're supossedly there for, why were they even neccessary when every country on earth except America can handle many of the issues without them, and why is a situation that would be different if he wasn't an officer being treated seriously purely because he has a badge. If you're being given detention for an incredibly stupid reason and want to protest this by wanting to inform your parents so they can make the decision to come and pick you up you shouldn't be forced to hand over your device before you've contacted your parents, especially if its for somethign as stupid as this Just because its in the law does not mean it should be regarded as gospel and unbreakable, law =/= correct

You need to realize the ROs are basically security guards for the school. Depending on location the Officer can be a local Sheriff who is assigned duty to the school or a dedicated police force assigned to protect the students and school grounds. It's not like they dial 911 and a local police officer has to drive over. They're security officers for the school and have an office on campus. Surely schools in the UK have security. Or are the teachers ment to break it up when the Chavs have a go at one another?

yes and it works No school or college or university in the UK has police presence and i'm not sure about security guards but i'm confident we don't have many

ROs don't handle detention. Usually it's a spare coach or teacher. The RO was here because she decided herself to be combative and uncooperative. If she had cooperated she would've been told to change her shirt, be given after school ISS by the principal, and then sent on her way. She decided she didn't want to go the easy way.

Oh btw, it is the absolute and unequivocal right of any american student to demand the presence of their parent or guardian while at school its just like getting a lawyer when you're over 18, no question asked, it's your right, so regardless of what school rule they've broken attempting to stop them contacting their parents is suspicious as fuck

The Schrödinger's Cyke Lon Bee Says teenagers are adults, but calls people who disagrees with him "Annoying teenagers"

Newsflash: America is different than Europe and has problems. Hop on down from that high horse and try to relate here for gods sake. I agree that dress codes are dumb, I support this girl in her protest of it, but the second you assault someone over it you deserve whatever reasonable punishment is given to you. She knew that she would get in trouble for wearing a shirt, she had no justification to react violently when shes being dealt her punishment. Lan line phones exist and every school has dozens of them. The school office will have her parent's phone numbers on record. Her having her phone is not a necessity when she is being punished. Maybe the girl shouldn't have reacted violently because she was being punished for knowingly breaking the rules. Maybe lets not blindly support her when she attacked a resource officer. He wasn't threatening her life, he was taking her phone and she acted like a spoiled child when shes almost a full grown adult. Maybe for a second you should quit presenting disingenuous arguments.

Like it has been said multiple times before, the school resource officer is there to handle situations that break the law, break up fights, search lockers/cars when needed, handle belligerent students, or even just direct traffic/lights before and after school. They aren't sitting in a classroom with kids administering detention or ISS like you seem to believe. The officer took the kid from the confrontation in the hallway and delivered the kid to the ISS room, where she proceeded to throw her next tantrum. If you're in school, during school hours (~8am-3pm), you don't get to use your phone. Unless you are having some kind of 911 emergency, you go to the office, to a teacher, or to some staff and ask to use their phone. Why? Because that is the rule. No phones in use during school hours. The SRO is an officer of the law, as well as a staff member at the school. The phone wasn't taken under some authority of the law, it was taken because it was in violation of the school rules. If you need your parents, you ask the teacher to call them. If they don't then that is a whole different issue, but likely by this point the parents are already being contacted by the school administration. One of the biggest reasons we have SROs at school in the US is because parents will flip their shit if they find out that a school staff member handled their kid with any kind of physicality. The school district then likely has a lawsuit on their hands from the parents, whose child can do no wrong. It is far simpler and effective to just have an actual officer of the law on site to handle anything that can get hairy. I'm not sure if this is a "right" per se, but yeah. Like I said above.

So an adult has a child arrested because they disagreed with the words on their shirt, they try to steal their phone to prevent them contacting their parents, and there are people here justifying the structure that allows this to happen with "but its the rules". Just sounds like abuse of authority then self defense to me.

I feel like your school would work something like this: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/011/480/Law4Kids_Handwash.gif

An adult had a child arrested because she kicked a police officer, which had the previous events added on after the fact. If she didn't kick the cop, she would have just been escorted to ISS and left to serve her punishment. This "stealing their phone" thing is getting really dry now. There are no phones allowed in the school. The SRO is not only a member of the police/sheriffs, but a member of the school staff. Therefore, the officer can take the phone and return it at the end of the day. It may surprise you, but you can't use phones during your punishments in school. If you need to contact someone, you ask a teacher or another staff member and use their school phone. The only legal penalties she gets are for kicking the fucking officer. The rest is just auxiliary shit from her tantrum with the staff.

This is wrong tho.

Hmmst, a teacher arbitrarily calls an officer of the law to take a child to a room where they're detained by said officer and denied ability to contact their family, but yeah lets just not call that arresting them because the american school system created this clever loophole for us to use... Sure dude, the legal term isn't arrested. Ya got me there. Arrested is a better term than being sent to detention, being sent to detention by a teacher and being dragged there by force by an officer isn't the same thing and giving historically awful teachers the power to order this at will is rediculous. Children are people and they deserve fair treatment, i think we can at least agree this isn't that? To be clear, the problem is that an officer of the law was used against her because she wore a shirt with words someone disagreed with who then detained her, arrested her, whatever you want to call it. She wouldn't have been sent to jail if it wasn't a police officer she resisted, and by the way that officer is already clearly someone with shitty ethics for even going along with the situation up to the stage of taking her away, and i wouldnt put it past someone who already has bad ethics to lie or incite reactions from students in this situation. Naturally some kids will resist force, so schools are using the fact that they are allowed by this awful loophole to have police enforce detention/confiscate phones to push extra punishment as revenge. I get we cant have a full due process system in schools, but you can't have a lack of due process while also having actual law officers enforce your arbitrary schoolyard bullshit.

This is not accurate.

Is this one of those things where the guy only starts being an officer law after he's dragging her to detention over stupid shit? Do we pretend he's not before then?

i'm quite shocked that a lot of you seem to think the appropriate solution to this is to make it a legal issue lol well obviously but people are saying law =/= correct. if 'it is how it is' was applied to any number of things in this subforum or polidicks the subforums wouldn't exist. we're here discussing why it's dumb.

What do you mean by this? The dresscode has nothing to do with the law. Her arrested had nothing to do with the dresscode. Nothing.

She shouldn't of kicked him but she definitely shouldn't of been arrested either or prevented from calling her parents. I really hope her parents were contacted at some point because if not they've set themselves up for a guaranteed lawsuit.

She was dragged to detention in handcuffs because the principle confronted her about her shirt. She was "noncompliant" with the principle (this just means she didnt follow whatever arbitrary demands he issued, and again we know he already is having an issue with the shirt to begin with, every demand he makes is a result of the shirt) then said handcuffing occured. The officer, at detention, tried to take her phone so she couldnt talk to her parents about being handcuffed/detained/arrested) at school. Only then did she get "legally arrested" for... resisting arrest? waaaait a moment, seeing where this logic breaks down? Every adult in this chain of decisions is a scumbag and yet you persist on pinning the blame on the victim.

Girl wears a shirt showed "exposed shoulders", prohibited by the dress code for the school. Girl wears a printed t-shirt in protest of the code, which is also against code, and the principal confronts her in the office Girl became "uncooperative and loud" in the office, and the SRO was called in to help Officer attempts to take the girl to ISS, and she resists the officer (who we should note is both a LEO and school staff) After resisting, the officer then uses handcuffs to restrain the girl where she is escorted to ISS (not charged with anything at this point, only arrested to get her to ISS) When in ISS, the girl is spotted by the assistant principal in ISS with her phone behind her back The officer, who is likely in the room because of her earlier outburst, goes to take the phone from her (the girl resisted before, so it is same to assume the SRO was there in case it happened again) When confronted for the phone, she resists by putting her feet up and out, later kicking the officer in his right shin with her left foot The girl is charged with third degree assault on an officer, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest Sentenced by a judge to 5 days in juvenile detention, then house arrest Some further explanation: Schools resort to #4 because school staff cannot in any way, be physical with students. If a student is being belligerent or resistive/combative, then there needs to be an SRO/LEO on site to handle that. Otherwise, parents will have a wide open shot at suing the school for physical abuse or whatever else they can come up with because someone put a hand on their child when they were being aggressive. The mother also tried to justify #8 by saying her daughter was a red belt in Taekwondo, and that kicking the officer was instinctive. Which is an extremely flimsy excuse, and I hope I don't need to elaborate why. So basically, if the girl stopped at #3 and didn't act aggressively in the office and go against what the administration had asked/told her, the cop would never had to become involved and #4-#10 could be removed from the equation. The officer wasn't involved in her dress code violation, he was involved in her office outburst after the fact. He wasn't enforcing "arbitrary schoolyard bullshit".

She wasn't "dragged" to detention in handcuffs because the principle confronted her about her shirt. She was brought to ISS because she was being uncooperative about being assigned to ISS. She fought back enough to warrant an Officer getting involved. Getting an officer involved at all is her fault.

Wearing a non-standard dress code is against the law? I was responding to the bit from you I quoted.

Dress code is not against the law. She wasn't arrested for the dress code.

I know that. I was responding to your talking about the ISS thing. The jail bit wasn't literal but was just the most appropriate comic for what I was trying to say.