Karma may be the cosmic law of moral causation, but in Pinellas County, Florida, its apparently grounds for arrest. As Radley Balko reduced it to a twitter equation :
Zero tolerance + anti-bullying backlash + Internet = Criminal charges for an innocuous Facebook post.Via Tampa Bay Fox,
Allie Scott is a junior at Osceola High School. The 16 year old says it all started in the school parking lot last month when she parked her brother’s car in another girl’s spot. She was asked to move it, and when she did at the end of the day, the car had been scratched up with a key.
Without naming who she thought did it, she posted this comment on her Facebook page: “Oh, so you keyed my car. Your karma is going to be a whole lot worse than that.”
Whether karma means what she thinks it means isn’t the point. It certainly wasn’t the point when she and her mother were called into the school administrators office, where they were met by the Sheriff and learned that Allie would be charged with stalking.
There are so many ways to consider the depths of stupidity plumbed by this bizarre use of law to address conduct that, at least arguably, smells of crime. But this conduct, telling someone that karma is going to bite her in the butt, is too far a stretch for any rational person. But then, Schools Have Rules, and rationality is never a consideration when it comes to the rote application of discipline.
Allie Scott was suspended for three days for leaving her karma content, which in itself seems sufficient to blow a share of a pension for whatever administrator came up with this brilliant punishment. More importantly, she’ll carry the stigma of both the discipline and the arrest, even if someone in the Pinellas County prosecutor’s office makes a half-thoughtful decision to toss the case and ream out the sheriff for bringing humiliation and shame on law enforcement.
But then, it’s Florida, and Florida has never been known to let thought interfere with prosecution.
The unholy consortium of knee-jerk liberal protectionism (no child’s knee should ever be skinned) and staunch law and order conservatism (no paper cut should ever go unprosecuted) has resulted in a grocery clerk’s wet dream. Radley’s equation is painfully accurate, with the removal of all reason from our absolutist treatment of children.
Do we absolve Allie because of free speech? Do we absolve her because there was no harm done? Do we absolve her because there is simply nothing criminal, not even wrong, about writing to another that karma will fix her wagon?
To call the arrest of Allie Scott crazy is to state the obvious. That both a school district and a sheriff’s office would nonetheless indulge in such insanity is the piece that would make a good subject for Kafka. Our treatment of our children has to involve some greater degree of independent thought than reflected here, and yet neither schools nor law enforcement seem capable, or willing, to risk censure for failing to adhere to formulaic reactions.
It’s quite possible that Allie’s Facebook posting hurt another girl’s feelings, though even that isn’t necessarily clear or justifiable. These days, it seems any comment shy of “you’re awesome” hurts someone’s feelings. The teacups will no doubt inform me that I don’t appreciate how horrible it is to feel badly about oneself, the latest craze in wallowing in victimization. If uttering the word “karma” is enough to set someone off, imagine the damage to self-esteem the old “sticks and stones” saw would do.
What’s lost in the insanity of rule by rote is that there is real harm done, just not to the purported victims. Perhaps Allie Scott is the nastiest girl in Osceola High School. Perhaps she’s up for valedictorian and a shoo-in for the Ivies. Who knows? Regardless, there is no justification for tainting a 16-year-old girl, for shutting one’s eyes, putting on that smug administrative smile, and checking off the box that will impact the rest of her life.
For a society that uses ‘for the children” as its rationalization of so many dubious initiatives, isn’t it worth the five, maybe ten, minutes of thought necessary to recognize that the equation doesn’t apply. Would it kill a school administrator to take the chance of some mother’s reproach by saying, “no, she didn’t do anything wrong”?
These are children. We care about them, all of them. If real harm is done, we need to deal with it, but we also need to be able to distinguish between actual harm and the mindless application of rules by grocery clerks. Spend the five minutes. Think about whether the conduct involved demands the application of the equation. Don’t be the instrument of harm.
And if you’re worried about the other kid’s mother calling you a name in front of the school board for not protecting her darling teacup from feeling bad about herself, be aware that the internet might have some unpleasant things to say about you as well. And that goes double for the Sheriff, who can’t possibly think that arresting Allie Scott for uttering the word karma on the internet was a sound decision. Yes, karma is a bitch.
This idiocy is harming our children. Stop doing it. Stop doing it for the children. Is any of this getting through to you?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Quite a few years ago I observed that the old saying sticks & stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me had somehow perversely morphed to sticks & stones may break my bones, but words will thoroughly destroy me
Our kids are all the worse off for this…
If this was posted on the other girl’s facebook wall, I could see there being some argument for punishment. A weak argument, but at least some argument.
She posted it on her own wall though, didn’t she? It’s of course likely that the other kid will read it, if they’re friends on facebook (though, why would you be friends with someone who just keyed your car?). But, the location of the comment seems pretty important.
Saying something that you know will get back to them is entirely different from saying it directly to them. And besides …oh, oh wait …she’s facing a criminal prosecution?
This isn’t just the school being overly zealous in keeping the peace, this is a criminal matter? Holy cripes. I’m ready to quit this country and move to some place that actually values liberty and sanity.
….What do you mean there’s not?
No, whose “wall” it was written on isn’t at all important. How sad that your perceptions are so badly skewed by having been reared at a time when you actually think mere words, not even fighting words, are so overwhelmingly hurtful that you would think something so utterly irrelevant to be “pretty important.” Unless you move beyond your sensibilities that “hurtful words” provide a basis for punishment, whether educational or criminal, we will wallow in this absurity.
People get angry and say mean things. Get over it. Say mean things back on any wall you want. Get angry back. But don’t confuse hurt feelings with actual harm, regardless of whose wall its on.
About the only way you can twist this to stalking is that she knew who’s parking space she took. I’m guessing she knew she was in the wrong for parking there and she suspected who had done the keying. She appeared to be trying to rise above it but wanted to let her irritation be known.
I think it’s time to find some country that has free speech, civil liberties, and authority that has some common sense.
Even so, her conduct has nothing whatsoever to do with stalking.
This ain’t stalking, no matter how you twist it.
Ordnung! We must have order!
I’m beginning to sound like a broken record, even to myself, but this is getting out of hand.
Is this the new commandment?: “Thou shalt not hurt anyone else’s feelings.”
But despair is a sin.
I’m in no way condoning the actions of the deputies or the school administration. I was saying I could see the twisted logic they are using.
Frankly they need to re-read Animal Farm and 1984. Ayn Rand would make their heads explode.
Is it any wonder that in certain circles sending your kid to public school is considered child abuse?
IMO any administrator that implements zero-tolerance cookie-cutter discipline should have his salary cut in half. After all, we’re no longer paying him to think.
If you want to understand, forget about Animal House and Ayn Rand, and instead read the law.
Thanks for writing this, it needs to be repeated. I read these things and am afraid for my kids, now in middle school. And sadly, I’ve always been wondered how these affairs don’t end up in fist fights between the principals and the parents, or even the prosecutors and the parents, because frankly, what these zero tolerance exploiters need is a good punch in the face.
There is no way, I would let my kid stay suspended. I am sure I would be arrested, but I think I would call up a reporter (and a defense lawyer), and attend school with the child on the day of suspension and sit (quietly) in class while she attended.
I do have a very small quibble that you write “there is no justification for tainting a 16-year-old girl”. I think “there is no justification for tainting a 16-year-old” would have been more appropriate.
A fair quibble, and an accurate one. My posts tend to be fact specific, but your point is well taken: No 16-year-old should be tainted over nonsense like this.
Doesn’t a proper understanding of karma exclude the possibility that the girl was talking about doing something herself?
The forum absolutely does make a difference.
If I show up outside of your office and yell terrible things about you all day long, I think at some point you might have legal recourse. If you show up outside of my office (you know, if I had one) and overhear me saying terrible things about you, then tough, you shouldn’t have listened.
That’s the my wall / your wall distinction. In this case it doesn’t matter because there was just a single communication, but I could see it being relevant in other circumstances. Though really, parents need to learn how social networking sites work, and then raise their kids to unfriend/block people.
A crime was committed here. The girl’s car was keyed. Where are the school and the police to investigate the real crime?
If she was parked in a reserved spot, then maybe she was due a ticket. Destruction of property is not a proper response. More likely she was in a spot that was “reserved” because some student(s) said so. Sounds like a second crime was committed by the person that keyed the car. This was not simply vandalism but clearly intimidation. This time it was her car that got hurt, next time she would be the one. It may be defined as stalking but she was the victim.
The same thought occurred to me. By looking to karma, it’s the antithesis of taking action.
Of course, that sort of thinking is a little abstract to the sort of pants-wetting sub-normals who perpetrate this sort of ridiculous prosecution.
Did you stamp your feet when you typed these words? You are very much a child of your generation, surprisingly incapable of grasping the difference between actual harm and hurt feelings. Frankly, your insistence on the my wall/your wall distinction reduces your understanding to pathetic.
Here’s where you fall down: Saying something that someone else peceives as hurtful, whether inside your office (if you had one) or outside someone else’s, is not a wrong, and certainly not a crime. Where you say it is irrelevant. It’s not a crime anywhere. Anywhere at all. Anywhere.
That was another wonderment, though that aspect never seemed to catch the interest of the school or sheriff.
Agreed. It sounds like the police don’t want to deal with the actual crime committed here but just want to deal with the not-crime that they can prove. Or the cops and the school want to make a point about hurting people’s feelings.
Since when do high school students get reserved parking spots, anyway? Sounds more like the people who come up to you, the visitor at church, sitting in the spot on the pew where they sit every week and telling you that you’re in THEIR seat.
And here I thought harassment was a criminal offense. My bad.
The only person who gets to make up their own definitions for words is Humpty Dumpty. You aren’t Humpty Dumpty. If you want to call something harassment, you have to first know what it means. You don’t, and yet that doesn’t stop you from using a word you don’t understand. You should have stopped while you were only moderately behind.
Harassment? How do you get harassment out of any of this? Or did you just make that up in the hope that you wouldn’t look too foolish? Geez.
She’s charged with stalking. SHG posted the statutory definition of stalking. This really isn’t brain surgery.
Hey, you two. Stop posting about the taints of 16 year old girls.
Sinners
Many schools with parking lots will allocate special spaces to students who have reach some accomplishment, like continuous presence on the honors list or for being a jock. The wisdom of such encouragement/entitlement is subject to debate, of course, but they do serve a perceived goal.
Honest to God, at the risk of citing an often terribly used cliche, I blame the American education system. For not teaching kids at a young age the basic philosophies of crime and punishment.
Many Americans still subscribe to this notion of “good guys” and “bad guys”, where the criminals wear black ski caps and are later chased down by a heroic Arnold Schwarzenegger after a great struggle. Our judicial system often reflects ideals from 80s movies rather than genuine philosophical thought concerning crime and punishment. You can see it when we think it’s reasonable for police departments to buy tanks, because the average American thinks Arnold will need it as he heroically decides to do battle with the drug lord. What’s worse is that this “good guy / bad guy” crap is what we enjoy, so often passes for “news”.
Couple this with the fact that every time something tragic happens in the media, suddenly we need to “pass a law to prevent it.” Now there’s a perceived need for a Natalie Halloway law or something to prevent young blonds from being in Aruba. Even though that kind of incident is very rare.
Often it feels like the movies and Fox News are all modern Americans know about the criminal justice system, even though the philosophy of crime and punishment is something that progressed for hundreds of years. Today, who needs Foucault when you can listen to Nancy Grace for 30 seconds? “I watched the news for an hour today, and I’ve decided that the problem is it’s too easy for criminals to commit crimes.”
We’re a nation that gets our thought packaged and handed to us in a one hour series. Reading books that analyze critical issues requires too much thought and effort for most. I think it’s reflected in the laws we pass. People don’t think about stuff analytically — we simply want an interesting plot and a resolution where the good guy wins and the bad guy loses.
Just like in the movies.
So what you’re trying to say is the adderall shortage has hit Philly?