Ridiculous escalation. I kind of have to wonder if anything else happened before police arrived. Partially the timing thing, unless the police were already in the building, talking on the phone would be resolved long before they could have arrived.

She should have just kicked the girl out of school. Not going to give me your phone? Go home you're suspended. If you do not leave now I will have the cops remove you from the school. And that would have been justified.

But instead she called the hard to sue thugs first, to violently enforce her will upon a little girl. Obviously the AP is out of her depth being second in charge of a school, if her first response to a difficult child/young adult is violence. That's one abusive personality.

Of course, if you call in the cops, you can blame the cops for anything unpleasant that might happen. That way, school authorities don't get their hands dirty.

Or maybe that isn't why the AP called them in. I dunno. I wonder how police officers feel when responding to calls like this?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Had the girl been kicked out of school, I'm sure the principal could've lost her job for putting a minor out on the streets.

She escalated the situation and the excuse about her mother sounds like grade-A bullshit. I feel sorry for the cops who have to deal with crap like this, but I couldn't care less about the girl. Raise your kids better.

Story is very poorly written. If you want to depict cops as the bad guys, then stick to the facts and let the reader decide.

As it is, it looks like Perez has a serious discipline problem.

"I just didn't want to give up my phone," said Perez...

Tough cookies.

...who said she was talking to her mom who suffers from medical conditions. Perez said she was trying to make sure her mom was OK.

What medical conditions? This excuse doesn't wash. Pray tell us what medical conditions your mother could possibly have that aren't serious enough to warrant medical attention, not serious enough to keep you being sent from school, but serious enough to warrant your violating school policies to check up on your mother.

"She asked me for the phone and I didn't want to give it to her, because I was scared.

Again, tough cookies. No one gave you a choice.

I ended up walking down the stairs trying to get away from the AP (assistant principal) and then she had already called the cops."

Excuse me? You imagine that school is someplace where the rules are optional and if you don't like the demands placed on you by those in charge trying to enforce those rules, you just walk away from them?

If the author of this very shoddy article wishes to depict the cops as overreacted, then he should do it, without the weepy "Awwww, poor child who was scared" bullshit.

As for those who condemn the AP, I should also point out that she has no control as to how the cops handle the situation. She did not order them to wrestle her to the ground and put a knee on her head.

And regardless of how the cops performed, you can bet the child learned something.

Regarding this intellectual giant who made this comment.

But that does not excuse the administrator who called the cops for no good reason, nor does it justify how the cops handled the situation. Treating students who break school rules like violent criminals is unacceptable and outrageous.

The administrator had a good reason, dunce. The child refused to comply with the rules and instead attempted to run. And no, she was not treated like a violent criminal. She was treated like a criminal who refused to comply with a lawful order. Had they treated her like a violent criminal, she would have been placed in jail.

What Patrick says, every word of it. The young lady had a number of chances to obey the rules and defuse the situation.

Raise your kids better.

And one more thing I noticed: this poor girl's ailing mother seemed pretty healthy when she did the interview with her daughter.

The ailing mother also seems A-OK with protesting outside the school for this grave injustice. My mother would've punished me instead.

I wonder if the mom paid for all those nice tattoos and the 1-inch gauge piercings on a 14-year-old, or if she just signed off on them.

Another thing that's weird about this is, to me one of the steps in the chain before you get to call the cops would be call the parents, and if Mom was on the phone, it would have just been let the teacher/principal talk to her.

I'm told by teachers here in New York that there's been for decades escalating restrictions on their franchise to mix it up with contumacious students. I'll wager that's what's behind a call to the cops. (And the girl was properly given rough treatment).

Patrick is a statist who looks forward to the day when everyone is employed by the government and our only job is to spy on each other and mindlessly enforce government edicts on those of on break from our jobs spying on each other and mindlessly enforcing government edicts on those of on break from their jobs.

Here is the million dollar question.

The cops were called.

WHAT LAW WAS BROKEN?

Refusal to listen to school administrators is not a crime.

I dont care if the girl was setting up a rug deal or hiring out a hit on that phone call.

You think this was justified? Name the statue she violated that allows cops to use force to take her into custody.

Patrick is a statist...

As far as I got before I realized who wrote the post...

And lujlp is a moron.

I fled the big city for Mayberry, because of stuff like this. Not that mine would be the bratty one taken down, but that mine would have to live with that crappy environment and those crappy attitudes every day, and still try to learn something while surviving the chaos.

I suspect that what that bratty teenager will learn, is that if you scream loudly enough and get enough fb views, you'll get off the hook. And probably get some reward - fame or something better - for playing victim.

That said, I agree with Matt, the best thing would have been be for her to be suspended, not to call the cops. (Though I sure understand the temptation - but that's why I'm not a school administrator. The good ones are paragons of patience.) Mom has to come get you, and you don't get free babysitting (aka pub school) for a week or so. She's not there to learn, anyway - no loss to her or anyone else.

In school follow school rules.

Do not follow rules and cops will be called because

1) no school worker is paid to do more than ask you nicely to follow rules,

2) no school worker is paid to force you to follow rules, and

3) if you resist the cops it is not a school worker's problem as to how they respond.

Raise your kids better (Golder Rule is good for a start) and smarter if they need to survive a hostile society (Do NOT mess w/people that have guns).

I'm sick of this nonsense. Discipline is suspended in school, "soft" enforcement of rules and regs is taken away from educators, and then when all else fails (in, say, the case of this little sociopath), the school authority has no recourse other than to call in the cops, who behave the way they do because they too have been denied all their "soft" enforcement methods because of threats of civil rights and so on.

I've lived in a real police state, and I'm not a fan of our increasingly-militarized police either. But I also know that when it comes to children, absence of discipline leads to sociopathic behavior. Lord of the Flies wasn't really fiction.

And to the Pore Little Victim: if you act like an asshole, expect to get treated like one. If you've learned nothing else in school, learn this lesson.

I ... agree.. with.. Patrick.

This is a scary feeling.

Suspend her. Expel her if she doesn't write a heartfelt letter of apology and forfeit that phone for 6 weeks. DON'T back someone in a corner and go chasing after them for something like that. That kind of response is for someone with a knife, a gun, or who is mentally losing his shit. Mercy. Go back through elementary education classes and get some retraining. Geez.

I am sort of in agreement with Patrick , but I don't like this whole situation.
If you try and take the phone, and the kid assaults you, the cops should be called. That is a crime.

However, if she is just not following the rules, you need to escort her to the door, and suspend or expel her.

I am very uncomfortable with the cops being called to enforce "rules". That is not their job, and their job should begin and end at the door, unless a crime like assault or battery is being committed inside of the school.

The girl is a spoiled twat and was breaking the rules.

Even so, I cannot see the justification for calling the cops on her and it's pathetic that three, that's three, cops had to "take her down".

Oh and Art, contumacious? Nice $100 dollar word there...

I agree with Patrick. This is public school. Don't like the rules homeschool or go to a private one. My daughter has a kid like this in one of her classes now. There are some kids who don't think the rules apply to them bc they never have before.

Also, I am not buying the whole, "I was scared to give the AP my phone" thing bc the kids know the rules from middle school forward. You get caught with with your phone and it gets taken. Twenty bucks, paid by your parents, gets it out of phone jail. It isn't really that big a deal.

For those of you agreeing with Patrick.

A less than 100lb girl was tackled by three men weighing a several hundred pounds and had her head sat on for the "crime" of disobeying rules that are not laws.

Under this notion your boss could have you tazed and arrested without warning for taking too many bathroom breaks. Or failing to refill the copier fast enough. Or not refilling the coffee maker.

"Gimmie your phone" is not a lawful order when coming from a cop under any circumstance.

Now had the assistant principle said "Then you are suspended, leave the premises" after the girl refused to comply then there is reason for the cops to be called to escort her off the property, not arrest her for failure to surrender her phone.

This is a direct result of educators not having any power to discipline students, cannot grab them and physically haul them to detention room. Lay a hand on them, the parents charge you with assault, give them a poor mark (our Canadian schools have a no zero policy, meaning you get to pass no matter what) parents complain to the principal.

A person would have to be truly naive about the state of education in North America to even consider becoming a public school teacher. Don’t get paid much, students can gang up and fabricate a sex abuse story, clearly the benefits of one of the most important jobs in society is just not worth getting into, glad I did not.

Way back in the day (1974 or something) our principal –a very large powerful man, took a grade 4 kid and dangled him by the ankles out of 3rd story classroom window for not behaving. The kid was scared to death, his parents did nothing. Today, my poor principal would be charged with attempted murder.

We need to be more careful about the society we wish for, this zero tolerance in the school has meant 5 yr olds getting suspended for making a gun out of their hands and saying bang. A kid wears a t-shirt with a picture of Jesus on it, and gets suspended. Our society needs to start differentiating between harmless kid stuff (this), and real issues (Columbine).

If you try and take the phone, and the kid assaults you, the cops should be called. That is a crime

Technically you trying t take the phone would be theft and assault, which is why school policies are careful to use the word "surrender"

This is a direct result of educators not having any power to discipline students, cannot grab them and physically haul them to detention room.

Nope. This is a direct result of shitty kids and shitty parents.

Technically you trying t take the phone would be theft and assault, which is why school policies are careful to use the word "surrender"

Posted by: lujlp at September 12, 2014 12:08 PM

*take* is not a word that has a legal meaning, and surrender does have a legal meaning, but since the schools have no legal jurisdiction, either word would work.

Theft also has a strict legal meaning, as does assault.

Telling a student to give up her phone, in the context of,* using it is not allowed on school property*would not meet the legal definition of theft, no matter which word you use, because conversion does not occur.

If some lawyer told the school district that using the word *surrender* protected them from charges of theft they are an idiot.
( Theft also does not occur when the TSA confiscates that bottle of water or expensive pen knife before you go into a secure area)

In other words, the situation, protects them from charges of theft, not the words they use.

An assault, or a battery may well have occurred either by the student upon an administrator, or by an administrator on the student, but if all they attempted to do was pry the phone out of her hand, probably not.

Rather than staying and fighting it out, the student should have left the property. She would have been within her rights to do so.

@Bob in Texas
" (Do NOT mess w/people that have guns)"

That is EXACTLY right. I'm sobbing in frustration and anger at the danger to which this child exposed those three policemen and wonderful school administrators.

And for the rest of you Commies, MIGHT MAKES RIGHT! The police have GUNS and therefore THEY MUST BE OBEYED REGARDLESS. Even the police will tell any child or young woman, if a kidnapper has a gun, ALWAYS GET IN HIS CAR!

How dare you question armed people. How dare you.

Lujlp, schools are jails. Get used to the jailer acting violently when you don't do what they say.

Is attendance voluntary? Not for the student. Can you leave? Only at permitted times. Leaving at other times results in the police being called. I.e. a part time jail.

For those saying she should have been expelled, doesn't that cost the school money?

Gog, you're joshing right? I can't pick up sarcasm sometimes. I used to watch Oprah back in the day, and this is one thing I still remember to this day:

http://www.oprah.com/oprahs-lifeclass/Never-Go-to-the-Second-Location-Video

A person would have to be truly naive about the state of education in North America to even consider becoming a public school teacher. Don’t get paid much,

Their compensation is adequate, particularly given their work schedule. Like any public employee, its less in the form of salary and more in the form of pension.

Nope. This is a direct result of shitty kids and shitty parents.

You've always had an irreducible population of those. What you have not always had is the omnipresence of the notion (propagated by teachers' colleges and enforced by lawyers) that you have a public obligation to 'teach every child'. If you had a network of tuition-free schools run by philanthropic bodies and funded by state-issued vouchers, you could limit the use of public agency for schooling to incorrigibles no one else would take. Such schools would be subsidiaries of the local sheriff's department and the students in them would spend most of the day locked up and the rest in six student classes where some attempt would be made to shove remedial education down their throats.

Under this notion your boss could have you tazed and arrested without warning for taking too many bathroom breaks. Or failing to refill the copier fast enough. Or not refilling the coffee maker.

Only in your addled head. The schools act in loco parentis, but school personnel are very constrained in the degree to which they can physically coerce students. So you get incidents like this.

Also, I am not buying the whole, "I was scared to give the AP my phone"

I'm not buying it, either, and I think she's a little shit of a kid.

However, the use of force here by the cops showed wildly bad judgment and should not be the way we deal with apparently ill-raised snots.

Keep in mind that the force abused on the apparently ill-raised snot can just as easily be abused on anybody.

Maybe somebody could send a book on manners to the girl.

Might help. Can't hurt.

In the meantime, this is what happens when you fight the cops. There's plenty of cases where they abuse their powers. This is not one of them worth highlighting, other than people will reflectively protest over "police abuse" even when it's pretty obvious that the real problem is elsewhere.

The HISD resource officers also demanded she hang up the phone and hand it to them. Perez admitted she refused again.

'He grabbed my hand, one of them was right here, one grabbed my hand, I didn't want to let go of my phone because I was on the phone with mom," she said.

So she ran from an administrator, argued with and fought the cops....

Nah, this isn't the hill to pick to make a stand.

Maybe someone already went here, but the cops should have refused the call. Not their turf.

Now that the school has to deal with one less asshole (the kid), their response might be reinforced.

So she ran from an administrator, argued with and fought the cops....

Nah, this isn't the hill to pick to make a stand.

Posted by: Unix-Jedi at September 12, 2014 3:45 PM

First they came for the brats...

kids know the rules from middle school forward. You get caught with with your phone and it gets taken. Twenty bucks, paid by your parents, gets it out of phone jail. It isn't really that big a deal.

Since when is holding onto my property unless I pay a ransom not a big deal? Please understand that I'm not arguing the taking of the phone. The rule states: use it during class, it gets taken; I'm not particularly bothered by that, as long as it is given back at the end of the day. Rules (laws, too) are useless without an enforcement provision. I'm having a problem with the statement that paying cash to get it back is no big deal. At that point, I would consider it theft.

As far as this incident goes, I agree the most with Amy's last comment, as well as with Unix Jedi. Police who will abuse a 4'10" girl, no matter how much some might think she deserves it, will abuse anyone they think they can get away with abusing. That said, the girl doesn't make for a great champion for the cause of police overreach because she is so unlikable.

First they came for the brats...

Niemoller aside: From your mouth to God's ears.

Jazzhands,
You clearly don't have kids in the school system. It is not theft. It is district policy and it is the same at the schools in the Houston area. Cell phones are nothing but a problem for the schools. Between the kids using them when they shouldn't and other kids stealing/losing them, teachers spend a lot of time dealing with cell phones. Charging a fine and forcing the parents to come to the school is way to enforce parental accountability, so the administration doesn't HAVE to call the police.

Look, society has rules and school has more rules than most places in society and there are good reasons for that. If you don't like idea of someone being on the phone while on a plane, you don't want someone on a phone while your kid is trying to learn. Teachers have only 50 minutes a day to get through their lesson plans. When a teacher has to stop to handle a cell phone user, that is time away from what she is meant to be doing. Amy might even describe this as theft. Kids who don't respect the rules are stealing from the kids who are there to learn. And frankly, your kid's right to be an ass with a phone stops when it interferes with my kid's ability to learn and that's why I don't care about this case.

It probably was a study/work time not being lectured.

Regardless, the cops had nothing they could charge her with. It's like the guy that was refusing screening by the TSA after he landed. Call the cops but they have nothing to hold him on.

That three 200+ pound cops laid hands on her with nothing to charge her with is nothing but abuse.

And the school policy of ransoming the phone is also theft.

And the school policy of ransoming the phone is also theft.

No, it is not. It's called school discipline.

You would prefer they destroy the phone Jim P? What alternative are you giving the school to enforce a no cell phone policy?

I really can't believe the way this discussion thread is going. Yes, the girl was being a twerp. Yes, she was breaking the rules. Yes she was spoiled. Yes to all that. But you seem to be ignoring the salient point that 600 pounds of cop threw 100 pounds of girl to the floor and stood on her head. In what kind of country should a bratty kid be punished with that kind of brutality?

This is becoming routine, if you're paying attention. We see this constantly with cops turning routine arrests and investigations into opportunities to shoot dogs and brutalize people. How many video tapes do we need to see of cops punching people while shouting "stop resisting!". We routinely have drugs sweeps in schools with K-9 units and guns drawn.

She hadn't assaulted anyone. She didn't have a weapon. She was being a twerp. There was no excuse for throwing this girl to the floor like she was a dangerous criminal who'd just murdered someone.

You would prefer they destroy the phone Jim P? What alternative are you giving the school to enforce a no cell phone policy? -- Ben at September 12, 2014 6:44 PM

No. But the first time it happens should be take the phone until the end of day and in-school detention. Then send a letter to the parent(s) about the issue.

Repeat with worse consequences each time. You don't have three cops tackle her for a non-crime.

Mike and Jim P. are exactly right on the excessive use of force by the cops.

Patrick and Kevin are exactly right on the excessive display of assholism by the so-called student.

She was not tased; she was not beaten; she was not detained; she was not arrested. She was subdued using usual police procedure after being a little asshole to the teacher, the principal and the cops. At the drama-queen "demonstration" the next day, she had no bruises, no wounds and no complaints of pain, because we surely would have heard about them. In fact, she had no other supporters from the school, either teachers or students, which one would reasonably expect had her civil liberties been denied.

Since today's parents have effectively spayed and neutered the disciplininary responsibilities of school adminstrators, the only recourse is cops. I wish we lived in a world where the teacher or the principal could adminster discipline, but since we do not, parents should hardly be surprised when the law is called in to deal with the results of their shitty parenting and waste of taxpayer dollars. I care as much about her as she cared about the other students, teachers and administrators who were just trying to get through their day without dealing with her intemperate tantrum.

And while I'm sympathetic to those who have been abused by the police, I'm also sympathetic to police officers who get called to deal with this juvenile bullshit that results from people with no impulse control, people who have never been told "No, you can't act like a little asshole, and, no, that's not a violation of your constitutional rights."

She was in the wrong; I don't care that the cops subdued her on the floor of the school hall; and if anyone wants to raise a squawk, the squawk should be raised at the shithead or shitheads who raised her to think she could get away with this. The end.

Mike: But you seem to be ignoring the salient point that 600 pounds of cop threw 100 pounds of girl to the floor and stood on her head. In what kind of country should a bratty kid be punished with that kind of brutality?

As a friend of mine from AOL's long-departed message boards used to say, "If you have to lie to make your point, not even you believe your argument is valid."

They did not "throw" her to the ground. Nor did "600 pounds of cop" stand on her head.

If your point is so valid, why do you feel the need to resort to hyperbole to make it?

In the eyes of the ruling class and their minions, whether an act, such as gooning a small girl, is right or wrong, good or evil, justified or unjustified, depends not on the nature of the act itself, but on who does it.

If the snotty kid talked on the phone at the wrong time at home and then disobeyed her parents' command to hand it over, and her parents reacted by gooning her in the manner of the three brave thugs at the school, the rulers would probably arrest and punish the parents, because disobeying her parents on such a matter just wouldn't justify such a violent reaction.

But the brat didn't disobey her parents, she disobeyed a cop, a member of the ruling class, which, in the eyes of the rulers and their groveling minions, can't be tolerated, no matter how trivial the original offense (i.e. talking on the phone at the wrong time) Any such disobedience justifies a violent and degrading response forceful enough to put fear in the little snot and teach her a clear lesson - that when a ruler gives her an order, any order, she will grovelingly obey or risk being thrown to the floor, have her face mashed under a man's knee, be thoroughly groped, handcuffed, and possibly taken away for further abuse at another location. This is a lesson that all school kids need to be taught early so they'll know what's expected of good citizens, i.e. do what they're told.

Besides, we don't like kids like her. She's a spoiled brat with tattoos and piercings, a snotty attitude and bad parents. She deserves to be beat up and whatever other abuse she gets until she becomes as timid and obedient as the rest of us. Does she think she think she doesn't have to obey the same rules the rest of us are afraid not to obey?

Quite a ridiculous article which tries hard to get sympathy for the girl despite her obnoxious behaviour. I think it is better to not vilify the cops and the school and instead, the girl take this as a lesson on how to behave in public. Hell, I say ppl should be forced to leave their cellphones in their lockers before they enter the classroom just like supermarket counter clerks are supposed to.

They did not "throw" her to the ground. Nor did "600 pounds of cop" stand on her head.

Patrick, once again you show your hypocrisy

As a friend of mine from AOL's long-departed message boards used to say, "If you have to lie to make your point, not even you believe your argument is valid."

So did you just miss this witness statment, even though it was posted on Amy's board, r are you lying to make your point?

"Both of the cops just tackled her down to the floor. They put her knee on her head and after that they just arrested her, took her phone," said student Gustavo Lucio who took the video on his cell phone. "The cop just said you can't use your phone and after that, no words no nothing, just actions, grabbed her, threw her down."

She was not tased; she was not beaten; she was not detained; she was not arrested.

Tased? No

Beaten? Tackled by a combined mass five times yours could be consider beaten

Detained? Absolutly. She was by use of force prevented from moving.

Arrested? They put her in cuffs.

Again I'll ask, what law or statute was violated that required police action?

Anyone see a parallel between cops beating up children and the asshole who support it running away from a tough conversation?

This is what cowardice look like folks

In what kind of country should a bratty kid be punished with that kind of brutality?

This is becoming routine, if you're paying attention.

Posted by: Mike at September 12, 2014 7:32 PM

To your point:

"At some point, the world (the project, the moment) becomes so chaotic or dangerous that we sacrifice law in exchange for order.

The question is: when.

When is it time to declare martial law? (or your version of it)

[...] When do you suspend one set of valued principles in order to preserve the thing you set out to build in the first place?

When Richard Nixon was at his most megalomaniacal, he was willing to suspend any law in his way to preserve what he saw as order. [...]

History is filled with examples of people who pushed the order button too soon... but few instances where people stuck with their principles for too long." (~Seth Godin/ Law and order)

No. But the first time it happens should be take the phone until the end of day and in-school detention. Then send a letter to the parent(s) about the issue.

Repeat with worse consequences each time. You don't have three cops tackle her for a non-crime.

~Jim P.

They tried that Jim. She refused to comply. So they responded with the worse consequence of tacking her with three cops.

The real solution (at least according to me) is don't make schools part time jails. In college both parties enter into the agreement willingly. If someone acts poorly the agreement ends. If you harass people in class the teacher will ask you to leave. If you refuse the cops will be called and you will be forced to leave, possibly permanently. If you stop forcing everyone to attend K-12 schools some won't attend. But you will have the power to kick the disruptive students out.

As long as schools are prisons don't be surprised the administration acts like jailers.

I also would like to know for exactly what reason the cops were called. I don't even see a need for them here.

They tried that Jim. She refused to comply. So they responded with the worse consequence of tacking her with three cops. -- Ben at September 13, 2014 3:18 PM

Part of the right to search and/or seizure rules is that you have committed a crime. Technically is is illegal for a cop to touch you unless he can charge you for a crime. Just like the guys that are confronted by cops about filming them arresting/interrogating a suspect in another crime. They know they don't have a legal leg to stand on but still try to intimidate the person with the camera.

Please tell me what crime she is guilty of?

And frankly, your kid's right to be an ass with a phone stops when it interferes with my kid's ability to learn and that's why I don't care about this case.

Posted by: Sheep Mom at September 12, 2014 5:34 PM

Well, you are certainly living up to your name here.

Please tell me what crime she is guilty of?

Posted by: Jim P. at September 13, 2014 7:46 PM

Not obeying her jailors apparently.

Also for those who think ransoming phones is a good idea, its theft and blackmail. At most make them give it back at the end of the year. Make the parents come get it.

Ben: "The real solution (at least according to me) is don't make schools part time jails... As long as schools are prisons don't be surprised the administration acts like jailers."

I think you're on to something there. Schools are like jails: highly regimented, authoritarian, oppressive, coercive, fenced-in institutions. The inmates are involuntarily detained; forced to be there whether they want to or not. Submission and obedience are required; any command by the rulers is backed up by the threat of force and violence; disobedience, even in trivial matters as above, is punished, as violently as it takes to completely subjugate the rebellious. They're not free to leave, and not free to do anything other than what their masters want them to be doing at any given time.

The noble, honorable thing to do in that situation is to rebel against the oppressors and make their job as difficult and unpleasant as possible - kind of like Ms Alkon says we should do with TSA at the airport.

I don't care much for that little girl's bratty personality or feeble explanations, but I have to admit I kind of admire her for not just meekly handing over her cell phone when the authoritarians demanded it, but instead making them take it from her by force, raising hell the whole time, and then coming back later with her family and friends to publicly press the issue further. You give 'em hell, little girl!

I just love it when people invent the law because they don't know it. No, Jim P., it is not illegal for a cop to touch you unless he can charge you with a crime, you stupid idiot. In your perfect world, a cop would tackle an innocent bystander out of the way of criminal gunfire, and the person whose life the cop just saved would sit up and say, "Aha! I get to sue you! You touched me without being able to charge me with a crime!"

I swear, some of you would need a friggin' wrecking bar to pry your heads out of your asses. Do you have any more stupid laws you just invented, so I can laugh at you some more?

And the idea that the VP should just suspend the girl is just another laugh out loud instance of moronism. Did you miss the part where the girl admitted she was fleeing the VP? How the fuck is she supposed to advise this fleeing little twit that she's suspended and do leave the property? Announce it over the intercom? "Good afternoon, students. Please pay attention while I make the following announcement. Ixel Perez, you are suspended from school. Please leave the property immediately. We will notify you when your suspension is lifted. Thank you."

Idiot Ixel brought police involvement upon herself. She refused to comply with the rules and she fled from the Vice Principal, quite possibly because she anticipated being told to leave the school for refusing to surrender her cellphone. But since she fled to forstall that particular option for the V.P., the V.P. really had no alternative but to involve the police.

And for those of you who feel the need to tell lies to make your point, by claiming that the cops threw her to the ground and all three of them stood on her head (they "wrestled her to the ground," and in all probability given the size and number differential, they likely just lowered her to the ground; no one claimed they "threw her" anywhere, and she had no signs of injury whatsoever) and who seem to think all three of them stood on her head (when in fact that story reports that only one of them placed a knee on her) and for those of you who invent laws that don't exist like it's against the law for a cop to touch you unless he can accuse you of a crime, and those of you who see this as signs of the coming dystopia where the cops are the ruling class, you can all go to your rooms right now and you will not come out until you've written, "I'm dumb, I'm ugly, my mother dresses me funny and no one will ever want me!" 500 times.

Sio: "Also for those who think ransoming phones is a good idea, its theft and blackmail. At most make them give it back at the end of the year. Make the parents come get it."

At most give it back at the end of the day. It's not the school authoritarian's business to decide whether someone else's kid can have their cell phone outside of the school.

I forgot about the cell phone. I don't believe the school should be allowed to charge someone to get back their property. The phones should be returned at the end of the school day.

Cell phones and anything with a camera or recording device are not allowed in the psychiatric unit where I work. I don't mean we prefer that visitors not bring cell phones on the unit. I mean they are forbidden. If someone takes a picture of their smiling kiddo on the psych unit and posts it on Facebook, and the picture also includes someone else's not-so-smiling kiddo in the background, that's considered a serious violation of the background kiddo's privacy and has the potential to cause major problems for the hospital.

Every once in a while someone thinks the rule is optional or doesn't apply to them and sneaks their cell phone with a camera into the unit anyway. The usual response is for a staff member to politely but firmly ask the person to take their cell phone off the unit - kind of like brat-girl's teacher told brat-girl to take her cell phone out of the classroom. As far as I know everyone who's ever been asked to take their cell phone off the unit has done so - kind of like brat-girl left the classroom with her cell phone when told to.

Imagine the following scenario happening at a private hospital:

Mommy Dearest sneaks her camera phone onto the psych unit and prepares to take pictures of her young daughter Neuralgia. A staff member orders her to leave the unit [or sweetly asks her if she would mind taking her cell phone off the unit] and she does. In the lobby outside the unit the House Supervisor demands that Mommy Dearest hand over her cell phone [or politely offers to take care of her cell phone for her while she visits young Neuralgia], and tells her she can get it back at the end of the shift for a $15 fee [or tells her she can pick it up on the way out after her visit]. When Mommy Dearest refuses to hand it over three overfed cops grab her and wrench the phone from her hand [or gently slip it out of her hand], then throw her down on the floor [or carefully lift her up and gently place her on the floor]. Then the three pudgy cops, weighing collectively in excess of 600 pounds, all stand on her head [or one of the officers kneels beside her, carefully stabilizes her head by gently placing his knee so that it barely touches her, and reassures her that he will keep her safe and protect her from harm]. Then they violently wrench her arms around behind her back and clamp the steel handcuffs on her wrists [or they gently reposition her arms behind her back and place the felt covered handcuffs loosely on her wrists to keep her from inadvertently injuring herself].

Almost anyone would think either of the two responses to Mommy Dearest's violation of the cell phone rule would be an outrage if it occurred at a hospital or any other private facility. But there are some who think even the violent, non-italicized version would be legitimate and justified if the entity Mommy Dearest offended was the government.

"I just love it when people invent the law because they don't know it. No, Jim P., it is not illegal for a cop to touch you unless he can charge you with a crime, you stupid idiot. In your perfect world, a cop would tackle an innocent bystander out of the way of criminal gunfire, and the person whose life the cop just saved would sit up and say, "Aha! I get to sue you! You touched me without being able to charge me with a crime!""

This is a fine indication of just how far someone will go to affirm the official use of force.

My apologies, everyone, especially Jim P. My harsh-o-matic kicked it up to full for that last post. I'm not sure why I felt the need to get so nasty. I guess that's one for the therapist and me to work out.

The only point I wanted to and should have made is the fact that she fled the Assistant Principal (not Vice Principal), which means she effectively avoided being advised that she was suspended (which is why I think she fled), which might have made intervention by law enforcement necessary.

Here's how I suspect it might have happened and why I think police involvement is justified. The AP ordered her to give up the phone. By her own admission, she fled ("cause, boo-hoo, I was scared of that mean assistant principal"). Now what is the assistant principal supposed to do? Chase after her to advise her that she's suspended and hope she complies, even though she's fleeing now? (And Ixel probably knew she was about to be suspended for refusing to give up the phone, which is why she fled in the first place.) And, no, announcing it over the intercom is not a viable option.

By fleeing from the assistant principal, she's the one who made calling the police necessary. Even if the assistant principal intended to suspend her, there's no way to do it once Ixel started to rabbit.

By fleeing from the assistant principal, she's the one who made calling the police necessary. Even if the assistant principal intended to suspend her, there's no way to do it once Ixel started to rabbit

By "fleeing" do you mean walking way? Cause now one ever said she ran so fast and far the cops had to sweep the whole building to find her. She was within ear shot of the VP the whole time according to the VP

The punishment here did not fit the crime.

This student's father was concerned that her Mom was not responding to his phone calls. She is on dialysis and he texted her to see if she knew anything about it.

Agreed, she broke the rules. She admitted that she did. She did not raise her voice. She did not threaten. She was not disrespectful. She was concerned for her Mother and she was afraid. She did the right thing by retreating and de-escalating the situation. Too bad, the AP didn't have better sense.

Her screams of pain when the police officer cuffed her while they detained her was beyond disturbing.

Should she have made arrangements beforehand, she did not know this was going to happen. Maybe, but again, she is a kid.

What is the excuse for the so called adults.

She was talking to her Mom when the police arrived.

It is not a crime to use a phone, I don't care what the policy at school is.

There is detention and suspension for that.

It is horrendous to tackle a non violent, non threatening girl for not surrendering her phone.

I think the AP should be fired and the police officers suspended.

Ken R,

What would happen in your psychiatric ward scenario if the mother refused to give up the phone and refused to leave? Would not the cops be called?

I still say this is a case of trying to fix the wrong thing. When your barn door lock breaks and all your horses run away replacing the lock doesn't put your horses back in the barn. The courts have been quite clear that students in a public school have minimal 4th amendment and property rights. Arguing over a fee to get your phone back is a bit late. The horses are gone.

http://www.bet.com/news/national/2014/01/08/gov-t-offers-new-approach-to-classroom-discipline.html

Also, the Los Angeles County school district has recently changed its policies so students are disciplined by the school and the police are not used for non violent, non criminal activities. Clear policies for who is responsible for what have been established. It is about time. This behavior on the part of the police and the school administration was reprehensible and put learning and students in jeopardy.

Ixel was suspended. That was appropriate, maybe. The assault against her was criminal in my opinion.

Ben: "What would happen in your psychiatric ward scenario if the mother refused to give up the phone and refused to leave? Would not the cops be called?"

That's a good point. Yes, in my psych ward scenario, if the mother refused to take her camera phone out of the unit the police would be called and she would be escorted off of the premises.

But the brat-girl with the cell phone didn't refuse to take her cell phone out of the school. Contrary to the nonsense speculated in comments above, she wouldn't have been given that option. Students at government schools aren't like visitors to a hospital; they're more like inmates in a jail: they're not free to leave; and leaving when school officials require them to be there can get them and/or their parents in trouble (truancy)

The Houston Independent School District, like many government schools all over the country, has its own armed police. Yep, in this day and age many government schools actually have their own police to enforce their rules. Sort of like guards in a jail, except unlike guards in a jail the school police carry weapons. The armed goons who brutalized the little girl are HISD "resource officers". They were probably already at the school when they were called upon to perform their duties.

The assistant principal wasn't attempting to suspend the girl when she ran off. She was attempting to confiscate her phone. The school police didn't attempt to escort the girl off the school grounds when she refused to comply with phone rules. They attacked her, prevented her from leaving (detained her) and took her phone. I'd bet if the goon squad or the assistant principal had ordered her to leave, she would have. But they didn't want her to leave. They wanted her to submit and obey.

That is why I asked Ken. The girl isn't the ignorant or self absorbed mother trying to skirt around the rules. She is an inmate fighting with the orderlies. And just like orderlies with an inmate, force was used to ensure compliance.

I personally don't think we should be treating all of our children like criminals or lunatics. For one thing they will someday be in charge and I don't want them returning the favor.