Get Schooled

By Jeff

October 2, 2008 8:18 AM | Link to this

OK, just talked to a couple of our investigators, and here’s the basics:

Non-Officer school personnel can question any student at any time about any topic and the parent need NOT be notified.

When Officers get involved, there are two points:

1) By default, it is better to obtain parental consent in some form - these investigators had even had it given over the phone, with witnesses on the investigators’ end -, with the best option being if the parent is actually there when the child is questioned. (Again, if consent is acquired, parent need NOT be there, but it is better from our end if they are.)

2) With HS aged kids - investigators I talked to said no one younger than 14-15, in their opinion - if you can show that the kid knew exactly what they were consenting to and they were properly Mirandized, you could question the kid WITHOUT the parent ever being notified. Again, however, it is better if the parent is present and consents.

Another point, however: The moment a kid turns 18, s/he is legally accountable for himself, even if still in school. Meaning that if you have a kid in HS that is 18, an Officer can question him exactly the same way as if he was 19 and out of school. (BTW: This also pertains to medical decisions. At 18, your child is legally an Adult and the doctor CAN NOT tell you any medical information without your child’s consent.)

By Larga

October 2, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

” they can hire lawyers, question administrators, line up character witnesses and review the facts against their child” - this is why schools are the way they are. Trigger happy parents. Lawyers for skipping school or backtalk to a teacher? Really? If you that concerned about mistreatment of your child- take them to private school but sobering news will await. It is the same there. The behavior follows the child. Lawyers cannot solve that.

By posterchild

October 2, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this

L’shana tovah, Laura!

By jim d

October 2, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

After reading Ms. Dodds article yeasterday i was wondering why you had failed to metion this as aa topic.

“Are you aware of your system’s discipline policies?”

As a parent in Gwinnett County I made it an early priority to learn what they were. I highly recommend that everyone with a child in this system do the same. GCPS has a long history of railroading young children and /or parents that might oppose some of the foolishness happening within the walls of our schools. The central office has a history , in my opinion, of using the SRO’s as their personal Gestapo to dissuade parents from kicking up too much of a fuss.

“Do you think some administrators take advantage of parents’ ignorance?”

Absolutely, I have observed the GCPS Gestapo with Napoalvin at the helm, use strong arm tactics of intimidation and fear as well as peoples ignorance of the law as a tool to be used by the SRO’s to silence dissention of parents and employees as well.

To be honest, I don’t give a damn if they play on ignorance that is no ones fault but your own. My issues arise from the lack of accountability of SRO’s to the public they serve and their ability to skirt laws that apply to every other law enforcement officer in the nation. In that light I have long felt and often voiced an opinion that SRO’s should be directly employed by the county sheriffs’ dept and be forced to comply with regulations or face the consequences that every other police officer must.

By V for Vendetta

October 2, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this

Are you kidding me? I’m serious: Are you freaking kidding me?

This is complete crap and complete garbage. Here’s why: First off, if parents were actually involved in their students lives then odds are they would know everything about their childs’ day. A simple email to each of his teachers confirms not only his grades, but also his behavior, participation, and interaction in the classroom environment. Asking questions about his friends, hangouts, and destinations gets a parent involved in a child’s life. Requiring constant check ins, by cell phone, text, or email keeps a parent informed. Consequently, the child learns boundaries, respect, and appropriate societal interactions.

This “outcry” is coming from the population of parents who don’t discipline, don’t get involved, and, to be honest, don’t have any right what-so-ever to be a parent in the first place. It’s not easy to raise a child (especially an angsty teenager!), but the willingness with which these parents cave to their child’s demands or let them run rampant makes me sick. Then they have the absolute gall to blame it on the “system.”

Please.

Guess what? When I was in high school my parents questioned me constantly. I had to provide them with constant grade updates as well as information about where/when/why I was going to be somewhere. As a result of their involvement, I never got in trouble ONCE in high school (and I was, as you can probably guess, not exactly a wallflower). Let me be very clear:

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SYSTEM.

It has everything to do with the parents. If a kid desererves to be expelled then DO IT, and do it swiftly. (It’s not like their education will suffer since it’s a right and all—which it isn’t by the way, but that’s a topic for another blog).

This “Pipeline” group needs to take a flying leap off of Stone Mountain. Try handling your kid at home if you don’t like the way we do it at school. Otherwise, shut up.

By V for Vendetta

October 2, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this

Maybe Tillman should change the name of the coalition from the “Gwinnett Parent Coalition to Dismantle the School to Prison Pipeline” to the “Gwinnett Parent Coalition to Dismantle the PARENT to PRISON Pipeline.” Or they could just shorten it up and call it the “Accountability Coalition” or the “You Actions Have Consequences Coalition.” Whichever you prefer.

By Meme

October 2, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this

Some of our students who get in trouble have parents who won’t answer the phone when they see the school name on their caller ID.

By Meme

October 2, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this

What? My first comment wasn’t good enough?

By catlady

October 2, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this

While it is important to respect student rights, it seems like we have more parents claiming their kids rights have been abridged, and too little worrying about the kids/teachers who are the victims of little Johnny.

I have never seen a parent who seems to not know that they can drag legal counsel in at the drop of a hat.

What I would like to see is training for the parents of the kids who have to endure the abuses daily. You know, a Free and Appropriate Education for ALL!

By Tony

October 2, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this

Children who misbehave to the extent described in the referenced article should be removed from school. Here we go again making excuses for kids’ bad behavior and blaming the schools for enforcing rules. Children who are at school to learn should not be subjected to children whose purpose is to harm and disrupt.

Schools are not under the same standard of evidence as courts, either. Our decisions are based on preponderance of evidence. It gets rather ridiculous when a child has hurt someone, disrupted school, or is otherwise engaging in bad behavior and then we have groups who act like schools should not enforce discipline codes. If these groups really cared about the kids, they would be sponsoring groups of kids to learn how to behave appropriately to be successful in life.

By TheBlogger

October 2, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this

So then, let me understand….

Parents (some) raise brats. They don’t discipline their kids. They don’t teach them morals or values. They don’t teach them to respect adults. They don’t show them the value of a formal education.

So, those very brats go off to school and raise heck. They do everything from bring weapons to cussing out the teacher to beating up other students. They do everything, that is, except what they are supposedly there for - to get an education.

And, those parents and children need protection from schools??????

I just don’t get it.

Education, public or otherwise, should not be a right but rather a priviledge. Laws should be changed to reflect that. Even in 1st grade, if a child isn’t there to learn, kick them out.

I would bet that then the parent(s) would ensure that their child behaves if that brat is at home 24/7.

By glad I don't teach jim d's kid anymore

October 2, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this

Once again the eternal blogger, jim d, has entered the fray. To sum up all of his posts: the teachers and administrators are wrong, my child is right. Don’t bother replying it will do you no good.

By NOT a GCPS fan, but ...

October 2, 2008 6:51 PM | Link to this

While (some) adminstrators do indeed railroad (some) kids, there are also other instances where administrators are doing what needs to be done to keep a safe school. This is a situation that I think is best evaluated on a case-by-case basis as to whether the school was in the wrong. Otherwise, I defer to broad discretion to the schools. As some posters have already said, this strikes me as parents barking up the wrong tree.

As I understand it, SROs/police officers need probable cause to search a student, but a school administrator doesn’t. So if the SRO gets a tip about something that shouldn’t be at school, they can tell the administrators, who can search the kid/his/her bag, locker, etc. On the other hand, there are sometimes situations in which the school wants or needs to defer to law enforcement. Enter the SRO.

I agree with jim d that it’s your own fault if you are ignorant of the rules, and there certainly are instances where kids have been treated unfairly in GCPS. Anyone who reads this blog with any regularity knows I am no fan of GCPS. On the other hand, the “coalition” that was formed seems to be a little overboard: the product of overzealous, excuse-making parents of b-r-a-t-s. If you read the article, the Brookwood father’s son was “victim” of GCPS — but then lo and behold was removed later for other violations? Suspect. I’m not feeling bad for his son’s rights being “violated.” Besides, any high schooler who’s already been in trouble once knows how to sit in an administrator’s office and keep his lips sealed. Happens every day!!!

Sheesh. I taught at Brookwood. Let’s stop making excuses for over-pampered middle class kids who think they live in Beverly Hills, and the 40-something parents who live vicariously through those kids. It always cracks me up to see kids who think they have money go out and try to flaunt it. Of course, when I was at Brookwood, the parents ran the show. Seems as though not much has changed. Got to be everyone else’s fault but their own…

By jim d

October 2, 2008 8:42 PM | Link to this

glad I don’t teach jim d’s kid anymore,

not nearly as glad as I am!!

You gotta be some kind of friggin idiot without an ability to grasp the meaning of the simplest of sentences.

Show me one place in this blog that I blamed some a***** teacher like you. We were talking SRO’s you do understand that is an acronym for School Resource Officer not Stupid reading official (teacher) right?

By cricket

October 2, 2008 9:19 PM | Link to this

When are the parents of the “good” kids going to hire some lawyers to bring action against the school systems for NOT providing a learning atmosphere free from students who disrupt and destroy it?

I think parents are also ignorant of their child’s rights in this area.

By no child left behind?

October 2, 2008 9:53 PM | Link to this

Cricket has a point. How come the parents of the kids who do what they should be doing and are not getting their “free and appropriate” education can’t sue the hell out of the schools? The average to above average kids who are sitting in “college prep” courses with a bunch of SPED kids and have to endure the low standards because “all kids must succeed” is really a crock! As for the little turds who are breaking the rules & laws…flush ‘em (and their loser parents)! Will anyone really miss them?

By Moore

October 2, 2008 9:53 PM | Link to this

glad I don’t teach jim d’s kid anymore

I totally understand where you’re coming from! There are several teachers who feel the same way you do! It was a happy day when we’d look at our roster and not see that name on it!

That’s what happens when people wait until they’re eligible for AARP to have kids!

By jim d

October 3, 2008 3:58 AM | Link to this

Wow,

I must have really struck a nerve here with my Napoalvin’s SRO Gestapo comments.

By jim d

October 3, 2008 7:39 AM | Link to this

V,

“When I was in high school”

I just gotta ask.

Who was president when you were in HS? Kennedy or Johnson? :-)

By Lee

October 3, 2008 7:50 AM | Link to this

It’s a matter of trust.

And when we read about a principal who doesn’t know the difference between a Tweety Bird keychain and a deadly weapon, or the Eagle Scout who gets suspended for having a camp axe in the bed of his pickup truck, or the Honor Roll student who gets suspended for having Midol in her purse, or when our family and friends tell us about the student who was viciously attacked and was suspended for defending himself, we lose trust in our school officials.

Regarding rules and policy, our school system’s policy manual is about the length of War and Peace and was written by lawyers to protect the SCHOOL SYSTEM from liability. Little wonder many parents are not fully aware of all the nuances and pitfalls hidden in the policy manual. Remember this, a weak man likes a lot of rules and will hide behind them as though they are a Roman Gladiator shield.

Finally, a student does not relinquish their rights when they step foot on school grounds. The best advice for your children if they are being questioned by a SRO or school official is “I have no comment.”

Finally, if your school is one that requires a SRO, I would suggest removing your child from that environment and placing them in private school.

By Lee

October 3, 2008 7:55 AM | Link to this

For those of your who are “glad they don’t teach Jim D’s kid”, why not?

I mean, you have a Boy Scout who went on to college and an active, involved parent. Isn’t that what all of you dream of - a good kid with smarts and involved parents?

Just goes to prove some people will never be satisfied.

By Jeff

October 3, 2008 8:10 AM | Link to this

Lee:

Did you SEE the keychain? I know of personal security products specifically designed for females that LOOK innocuous, but can actually be quite deadly - and that is EXACTLY what they were made for. On one memorable occassion, a college prof showed the class her black cat key chain. There wasn’t anything particularly striking about it - it was just tubed metal in a rough outline of a cat’s head - but when you put your first two fingers through the eyes and close your fist, this benign looking key chain became a deadly fist dagger. (Ears were extremely sharp and pointed, but that wasn’t apparent until it was in ‘weapon-mode’.)

Do you deny that an axe is a weapon? There are quite a few people throughout history that will prove you wrong on that point. (Remember, the Vikings were famous for their battle axes, and a tomahawk is basically a modified axe. Further note that an oak tree is MUCH harder to chop down than human flesh and bone.)

Further note that when I was in school - I can’t atest to any earlier, but I know for a fact these policies are still in place - it was routine policy that ANY medicine - even Tylenol - was to be brought straight to the school nurse for her safekeeping upon arrival at school, and the student could come get that medicine as needed and the teacher allowed.

Sorry, friend. 3 strikes and you’re OUT.

By jim d

October 3, 2008 8:10 AM | Link to this

V,

couple more quick questions.

When you were in school could you.

a) carry a pocket knife?

b) own a key chain?

c) carry a rifle on a gun rack in the back window of a pick up truck? How about a BB gun or hunting knife in the trunk of a car?

d) could you write a story depicting violence?

e) could you point a finger at someone pretending it was a gun and say bang?

f) could you draw a picture of a gun?

All without fear of being arrested?

Times have changed my friend and every parent should be certain their children are aware of their rights. The days of innocence we enjoyed as children have long ago passed away and parents must be their child’s best advocate.

I’m not saying kids don’t mess up and do dumb stuff. To the contrary. What I am saying is in today’s society Dumb will get one arrested regardless of how innocent the intent and that parents need to be certain they are there to support their children when they screw up. If that is wrong then I’m afraid I’ve missed the whole concept of parenting.

By jim d

October 3, 2008 8:19 AM | Link to this

thanks Lee,

couple of minor corrections.

An EAGLE Scout

And a Military College where upon graduation he will spend the next 8 years defending these people, who are glad they don’t teach him, by placing his life on the line so they can continue to be jerks.

By Wow

October 3, 2008 8:21 AM | Link to this

I never get on this blog, but, I was told that I had to this morning!

Lee - obviously you have never taught jim d’s kid! The kid was fine. His father is one of those miserable folks who never went or completed college, and feels that he must overcompensate for his self-perceived lack of formal education by lambasting anyone who does have that. He goes out of his way to attempt to make himself look smart by quoting other people, but, in the meantime - people were laughing at him! So, being a Boy Scout and having an “active” parent is not necessarily the recipe for a good relationship. This man was/is borderline psychotic and would find great joy in making people uncomfortable. We actually felt sorry for his son. It’s a shame when you get a good kid whose parent is such an a$$ that you don’t want to deal with him…

By jim d

October 3, 2008 8:35 AM | Link to this

Wow,

funny thing. His Teachers never had a problem accepting unsolicited supplies.

Here’s the thing. I blog here using my name, not a half dozen bogus names. Who’s more credible? However, if you have a problem with me I’d gladly set down over a cup of coffee and discuss any issues you may have. Whatta ya say? Is it a date?

By Wow

October 3, 2008 9:06 AM | Link to this

jim d - This will be my last entry, as I have to go teach in about 15 minutes, and like I said - I’ve never even seen this blog until today, so, I’m not really “into it” as some of you seem to be, but, in any event - just because some of his teachers accepted “unsolicited supplies” from you doesn’t mean that they liked dealing with you! Secondly, I’ve never “set” down in my life. I’ve sat down plenty times though. And, finally - thank you for the coffee invitation, but, I will have to decline. I have no problems with you at all. Your son seems to be doing well, so, we have no further involvement. Like I said before - your son seemed like a good kid, and nobody ever harbored any ill will against him, despite how they felt about you.

I think that as far as being able to learn new ideologies and being able to be less scornful, insecure and hateful - you’re pretty much done. I wouldn’t even waste my time or energy, quite frankly.

Have a great day all!

By bearcasey

October 3, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this

Wow! This blog has gotten PERSONAL!

By jim d

October 3, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this

Another Invertebrate, imagine that.

Let me say that very few of his teachers ever had to deal with me. I can actually only recall one that did. And that one my friend was not in HS.

I will admit that I met everyone of his teachers in his HS career and expressed my expectations of my child and support for the teacher in pushing him towards those expectations. I also gave every teacher contact numbers to contact me should any issues arise that I needed to deal with him on.(and a couple actually took advantage of this) Now, if teachers find that intimidating or give them a feeling of being uncomfortable in my presence, it is not my problem. Persoanlly I feel that if any of his teachers felt uncomfortable it may have been because I was closer to their parents age than to them, and I do understand how that could affect a teachers perception.

By jim d

October 3, 2008 9:50 AM | Link to this

Bear,

SOP for many in education, when you can not dispute the message attack the messenger. I’m kinda used to it after these many years.

By V for Vendetta

October 3, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this

jim d,

Good questions, but I feel that we’re looking at two distinctly different issues here. The first is the issue of truly bad kids being treated unfairly. I read nothing in the aforementioned blog topic to indicate that these were wrongfully accused “good” students. After reading the article on the Gwinnett Coalition to Dismantle the School to Prison Pipeline, I found nothing to contradict my assumption. In fact, one of the moronic parents interviewed for the article, bemoaning the treatment of his son by a Gwinnett Co. school, was painted as a fool because his son was promptly expelled for a completely different infraction only a few days (weeks?) later.

That having been said, I think the points you bring up are valid, and as Lee mentioned, only indicate the spinelessness of our current admins and politicos in power.

Still, the overwhelming majority seems to think, as I do, that the rights of the students who are there furthering their education—students like your own son—should be the ones with which we are concerning ourselves. The habitual violators should be removed and kept away from the (hopefully) focused learning environment that results from their removal.

And I tried really hard not to point too many (more) fingers at parents in that post! :-)

By jim d

October 3, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

But V,

Allow me to point out that we should never attempt to preserve the liberties of just a select few without doing so for all. Isn’t that one of the fundamental principles upon which this nation was founded?

In my opinon we must at all cost preserve the rights of all or be willing to surrender our own. And I’m not quite ready to do so. Are you?

By V for Vendetta

October 3, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

Jim D,

Maybe that’s where our ideologies differ. I’m not the least bit interested in preserving the rights of those who so willingly trample on the rights of others. I could care less about the rights of some punk who has been convicted of robbery three times. I could care less about the rights of some drug dealer who has been in and out of jail over and over again. I could give a rip about the civil rights of someone like Brian Nichols. Give me a shed and a Glock and I’ll save the taxpayers millions.

In the same vein, the “rights” of some kid who has been suspended in ISS or OSS more than two or three times mean very little to me. He had his chance. Guess what? Chances aren’t infinite. At least, they SHOULDN’T be. Meanwhile, as a result of this punk’s “rights,” a class full of students is constantly disrupted, teachers’ leassons are put on hold to deal with him, and admins have to waste time fighting legal battles instead of being useful. Imagine that!

Sorry, but the “rights” argument doesn’t hold water with me. The people who argue on that point are the same ones who insist that murderers and rapists should have nice beds, blankets, and pillows. Wrong again. They should have a cold, concrete floor and a bucket to $%^$ in.

As I previously stated, the tweety bird key chain incidents are a lack of common sense and evidence of the spineless admins we have in power who hide behind the rules (as Lee mentioned). We’re not talking about that. We’re talking about some punk who can’t control himself after being given chance, after chance, after chance, ad nauseam.

Forget him and forget his “rights.” He doesn’t deserve any.

By jim d

October 3, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this

The point I’ve been arguing is that SRO’s make no distinction between a first time offender of a lesser infration and a serious repeat offender. They both have rights that are being ignored.

I think we are closer on this than either of us realize. The difference may be in how we see education as a right or a priviledge.

I’m not saying put a three time looser back in a school where children are attempting to succeed but we nust respect the rights of all. Education in my opinion is not a right. So kick the little buggars out or incarcerate them if convicted. But convict them fairly we must. In doing so we must also follow the law—not side-stepping it by some overweight—jelly eating SRO that works for the school and is not accountable to a real law enforcement agency to follow the law.

By Jeff

October 3, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this

jim:

Actually, if the officer in question is POST certified, he IS accountable to SOMEONE.

By HS Teacher Too

October 3, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this

Jim d, I think you’re wrong about SROs making no distinction between first-time and repeat offenders. I’ve known at least four different SROs and they ALL take great care to not “put the screws to” first-time offenders. In my experience, quite frankly, unless it’s a grave or dangerous offense, the SRO doesn’t do anything more than a stern warning until it’s offense number 3 or 4 or higher.

That being said, I don’t disagree with you that all students have rights (in some cases, I’ll say “unfortunately” about those rights, though!), but not all of their rights AT school are the same as their rights OUTSIDE of school. That is for everyone’s protection.

Do I think there are some instances of administrators abusing the nuances of the system? Absolutely. But there are more instances where the system works than where it doesn’t, by a landslide.

One last thing — aren’t Gwinnett SROs accountable to GCPD?

By jim d

October 3, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this

V,

I think where our ideologies differ greatly is that I do not view SRO’s as being real law enforcement officers. I see them more as a personal police force to do the school systems bidding regardless of all else. If that means trampling the rights of students or adults for that matter, So be it!

i refer you to The 12th Bracey Report on the Condition of Public Education

By jim d

October 3, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this

Jeff here’s a snippet from the archives if they don’t answer to the DA, who exactly are they accountable to?

By jim d

October 3, 2008 12:05 PM | Link to this

HS Teacher Too,

aren’t Gwinnett SROs accountable to GCPD?

that is a common misconception. the anwser is NOPE at least not according to this article it says in part; The Gwinnett school police department is a law enforcement agency that is part of Gwinnett County Schools. The school police chief and the operations of his department are monitored by school administrators.

In other words they answer to Napoalvin without much other oversight.

By V for Vendetta

October 3, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this

Jim D, You’re right, we DO agree on many of the points you mentioned. The repeat offenders should be dealt with quickly and harshly; the good kids caught in a bad situation should be identified as such. As I have before, let me point to Lee’s comment on the matter.

One piece of advice: Though there are instances of SROs using bully tactics and throwing their authority around, you should nevertheless be careful when making generalizations. Many of them are upstanding ex-cops who have retired and/or want to help out the school system. I’m not going to pretend to have a rosey view of cops, or to know what Jalvin’s plans are with the GCPS SROs, but all I’m saying is that there are some good guys out there trying to perform a valuable service in systems that are (ever increasingly) in need of it.

By jim d

October 3, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this

Perhaps so. But be honest here, to many their primary function is to protect their jobs, not the students.

these guy’s that I’ve spoken to will readily admit they went for the money (pays better than being a county cop) and the reduced risk??(not that I agree with them on that one)

By V for Vendetta

October 3, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this

LOL, reduced risk?

Not these days!

By jim d is a twit

October 4, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this

and also a perfect example of a helicopter parent. and quit saying that your son is protecting us. what country is attacking us? i did service in the jungle and even then i never thought that i was fighting for anyones freedom; i just got caught up in a bad war. i really hope that your son doesnt.

By Randy Cooper

October 6, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this

V for Vendetta,

Sounds like you do have a vendetta…

I hope no one you care about never gets into trouble. For your info, all jails and prisons have concrete floors, a lousy mattress and the food sucks. It’s SOP.

Now that you feel better about that, maybe instead of focusing so much on making somebody’s life miserable, perhaps we might want to focus on improving them into something where we may want them back into our society again. Since 95% will re-enter, and statistics prove a recidivism rate of 85%, don’t you think that we want to change that?

By Terri Knight

October 6, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this

I am the mother who’s incident was discussed in Gerald Bracey’s report. I can assure all of you that, in my situation, the Gwinnett SROs were completely out of line and in the end answered to no one but the media. I would encourage every parent to take this article seriously. In any event, you will find it difficult if not impossible to find an attorney willing to represent you against GCPS. Most are on GCPS retainer which would present a conflict of interest. All of the top-notch ones are. If you or your child are innocent that is even worse. We couldn’t find a single one with the backbone to take on the powers that be. We spent many sleepless nights and many more dollars while these “officers of the law” rode roughshod over us and threatened us. Administrators defamed our name. PARENTS, PLEASE- tell your children to remain silent. It is their right and your obligation to protect them. If you must participate in an interrogation, take a tape recorder. A run in with GCPS SROs can have devastating results on your family even if you are innocent.

By V for Vendetta

October 6, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this

Randy, I’m not saying they shouldn’t be given the chance initially, or have the opportunity for rehabilitation for that matter, but habitual offenders should get no such treatment. Once they’ve disrespected the chance to atone, they should not get another.

And what did your child do, Terri, that warranted such action? What is he “innocent” of?

By Terri Knight

October 7, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this

V, my child did nothing. Several years ago I was accused of breaking into a school and stealing a copy of the infamous Gateway test or at the very least having knowledge of who did so. SRO officers did indeed threaten to take my children and prosecute me to the full extent of the law. They said they had indisputable evidence against me. J. Alvin Wilbanks was quoted saying that my behavior was “questionable”. In the end it was proven that I didn’t do it and had no knowledge of the event. I will go to my grave believing that they harrassed me in this way because I dared stand up against them. These SRO officers need to be accountable to the police departments of the community. They give way too much power to the superintendent and school board.