Schools Have Rules, Taser Edition
Cellphones are a problem in school. They can be disruptive and a huge distraction. Some schools ban them altogether. Others, like Penn Hills High School, around Pittsburgh, has been a bit gentler in its limitation, allowing students to have cellphones in school provided they only use them for emergencies. On the other hand, they also allow cops in school to make sure that students adhere to the rule.
Via Turley (who I might add never notes who his sources might be) comes this shocking bit of news from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
Via Turley (who I might add never notes who his sources might be) comes this shocking bit of news from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
The officer, who was stationed at the school, saw a male student walking in a hallway talking on a cell phone between classes and ordered the teenager to return to class, according to police Chief Howard Burton.
"The student ignored the officer, who then took him by the arm to escort him to the office," Burton said. "But the student resisted and pushed the officer."
"The kid was violating two rules — he should have been in class and he shouldn't have been talking on a cell phone," Burton said.
To subdue the student the officer used his Taser to perform a drive stun, Burton said.
Two rules at once? This kid must be a bad seed. He must be taught a lesson. Tase him.
But Chief Burton's explanation of the offense presents a problem. If the student was "between classes," what should he have done in response to the "order" to return to class? Apparently, he should have bowed deeply to the officer and acknowledge his omnipotence, or at least kissed his ring. The notion that we are not obliged to respond because a police officer speaks doesn't enter the picture. In Penn Hills High School, there is no right to be left alone.
No doubt, someone will think to themselves that this student, the bad seed, could have easily avoided the problem by merely complying with the officer's order. How hard would it be to just do whatever the cop says? That's what a good boy would have done, right? Well, of course it is. It's what a good sheep would have done as well. There's a lesson to be taught in all high schools.
So having ignored the officer's less than well-conceived order, the officer does what he has to do. He places his hands on this student. Mind you, no one at this point asserts that the student wasn't in complete compliance with the school rules, as in his telephone call was not an emergency and he was still trying to get through to vote for Sanjaya on American Idol. As far as can be told, he might have been telling his mother than he was suffering from Swine Flu. We don't know, though one might surmise that if the police had information to bolster the officer's conduct (like the kid had a rap sheet), it would have been the first thing out of Chief Burton's mouth.
Contrary to the belief of many, police officers have no inherent right to grab someone. No one, but no one, has an inherent right to place their hands on another person and seize them. Before doing so, there must be a cognizable basis. In this instance, the claimed basis is that the student ignored the cop's order. Does that do it for you? It falls just a bit short for me.
When someone, even a cop, grabs an arm without the permission of the rest of the body, there is a right to defend oneself. This is where most thinking gets muddled. I don't recommend it, not because it's wrong but because the immediate consequences are often dire, but the law allows each of us to protect ourselves from a seizure by a police officer acting without legal justification.
And then the officer, locked and loaded with taser, teaches the kid a lesson. This is where the story gets really interesting. While the article neglects to mention the source of this information ( which is presumptively Chief Burton), it notes that the taser was on "drive stun" and then states:
As for the bad seed, his problems have just begun:
But Chief Burton's explanation of the offense presents a problem. If the student was "between classes," what should he have done in response to the "order" to return to class? Apparently, he should have bowed deeply to the officer and acknowledge his omnipotence, or at least kissed his ring. The notion that we are not obliged to respond because a police officer speaks doesn't enter the picture. In Penn Hills High School, there is no right to be left alone.
No doubt, someone will think to themselves that this student, the bad seed, could have easily avoided the problem by merely complying with the officer's order. How hard would it be to just do whatever the cop says? That's what a good boy would have done, right? Well, of course it is. It's what a good sheep would have done as well. There's a lesson to be taught in all high schools.
So having ignored the officer's less than well-conceived order, the officer does what he has to do. He places his hands on this student. Mind you, no one at this point asserts that the student wasn't in complete compliance with the school rules, as in his telephone call was not an emergency and he was still trying to get through to vote for Sanjaya on American Idol. As far as can be told, he might have been telling his mother than he was suffering from Swine Flu. We don't know, though one might surmise that if the police had information to bolster the officer's conduct (like the kid had a rap sheet), it would have been the first thing out of Chief Burton's mouth.
Contrary to the belief of many, police officers have no inherent right to grab someone. No one, but no one, has an inherent right to place their hands on another person and seize them. Before doing so, there must be a cognizable basis. In this instance, the claimed basis is that the student ignored the cop's order. Does that do it for you? It falls just a bit short for me.
When someone, even a cop, grabs an arm without the permission of the rest of the body, there is a right to defend oneself. This is where most thinking gets muddled. I don't recommend it, not because it's wrong but because the immediate consequences are often dire, but the law allows each of us to protect ourselves from a seizure by a police officer acting without legal justification.
And then the officer, locked and loaded with taser, teaches the kid a lesson. This is where the story gets really interesting. While the article neglects to mention the source of this information ( which is presumptively Chief Burton), it notes that the taser was on "drive stun" and then states:
A drive stun is when the Taser is placed against a person's body, typically the thigh, and is activated, sending out an electrical charge that only contracts the muscles in the roughly 2-inch area where it is touching.No big deal, right? I mean, seriously, a 2-inch area? It's like a love tap, right? And I bet the writer knows this first hand, as he's probably been the target of a taser on drive stun many times before, laughing it off as a quick buzz. Elsewhere, "drive stun" has been described as a "searing jolt of pain." Maybe things don't hurt as much in Pittsburgh.
As for the bad seed, his problems have just begun:
The student was handcuffed after he went down on the ground because he continued to resist, the chief said. The boy, who complained about being dizzy and having a headache, was taken to Forbes Regional Hospital for treatment.
Not only must he be the wussiest kid in Pittsburgh, feeling dizzy from a mere tasing, but now he's going to cost his father for the hospital bills. Hope Dad has insurance, or maybe he'll have to terminate his kid's cellphone plan to cover the cost. I told you there were consequences for ignoring a cop. And no, we aren't done yet with our bad seed:
The teenager, whose age and grade level were not available, will likely face multiple criminal charges including a felony count of assaulting an officer, Burton said.
This part is unclear: Did he assault the officer when he pulled his arm away (that can hurt really, really bad, right officer?) or by proxy when he assaulted the end of the taser on drive stun, thus attacking the officer's shooting hand? Or maybe both, since he will face "multiple" criminal charges.
Can't we all agree that the halls of Penn Hills High are safer today because of this police officer's bravery, quick thinking and, mostly, adept use of a taser? You can bet there won't be many students chatting on cellphones come Monday, no matter how bad the emergency.
Can't we all agree that the halls of Penn Hills High are safer today because of this police officer's bravery, quick thinking and, mostly, adept use of a taser? You can bet there won't be many students chatting on cellphones come Monday, no matter how bad the emergency.
The brave officer served an important social purpose here as well. By arresting this neerdowell at such a tender age, he's sent a strong message to the entire school, possibly forcing or chilling other students into submission at an early age.
I mean, how can our economy possibly continue to prosper if we don't show kids that they are powerless from an early age. Free thinkers and those who stand up for their rights aren't easily exploited in the workplace.
Oh brave officer, you've done us a world of good, and I'm sure it was as hard for you as it is, and will be for him. Now that you've done this public service, you can go home and tase your own children. After all, it builds character, and I'm sure it makes you feel like a man
Reply to this