United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: School Calls Cops, Cops Call Child Services on Boy Who Made Harmless 'Brownies' Remark
Source:
Reason
URL Source: http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/29/s ... ls-cops-cops-call-child-servic
Published: Jun 29, 2016
Author: Robby Soave
Post Date: 2016-06-30 06:17:45 by Deckard
Keywords: Police State
Views: 3327
Comments: 35
This might be the most absurd case of a school mishandling a disciplinary issue yet: an elementary school in Collingswood, New Jersey, called the police because a nine-year-old male student allegedly made a racist remark. As a result, the state's child services division has opened a wholly unnecessary investigation into the boy's parents. It isn't cleared what he actually said—the school, William P. Tatem Elementary, has not returned my request for comment. But a local news story suggests that he did not use the word "brownies" to refer to persons of color. He was actually referring to the chocolate baked good, according to his parents. Given that he made the statement during a class party—it was the last day of school—this explanation makes sense. (His last name sounds Hispanic, if that matters.) In either case, the school had absolutely no reason to involve the police. Administrators should be perfectly capable of dealing with this sort of thing on their own. His teacher, or principal, could have asked the boy and his accuser about the incident and rendered some verdict. They could have punished him, if punishment was called for. Instead, a young boy was interrogated by an officer about a harmless comment he made while in school. It's just never necessary to involve the police in perfectly routine, non-violent, non-criminal disputes between children. The school's decision to do so is indefensible. But according to Philly.com, these kinds of automatic appeals to police authority are common: The incident, which has sparked outrage among some parents, was one of several in the last month when Collingswood police have been called to look into school incidents that parents think hardly merit criminal investigation. Superintendent Scott Oswald estimated that on some occasions over the last month, officers may have been called to as many as five incidents per day in the district of 1,875 students. This has created concern among parents in the 14,000-resident borough, who have phoned their elected officials, met with Mayor James Maley, blasted social-media message boards, and even launched a petition calling on the Camden County Prosecutor's Office to "stop mandated criminal investigation of elementary school students." It gets worse. Philly.com is also reporting that "the incident had been referred to the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency." I will be following up with this agency, the police, and the school. The school turned a non-issue into a police issues, and the cops turned a police issue into a child services issue. All because school officials think it's a police officer's job to tell students to behave themselves, rather than the students' teachers. Truly, it's incidents like these that confirm the suspicions of many Americans (and many Donald Trump supporters) that their country is too politically correct. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 24.
#21. To: Deckard, all (#0)
All - we are so-called "anonymous posters" but it is certain some of us have been on the Internet for decades. An example, while in college a couple of decades ago, from tyme-to-tyme I played games on the Internet; the first encounter I came across was "IRC." For the uninitiated, IRC = Internet Relay Chat. It is a "near real tyme application" for ASCII communication interchange. It is a free utility in universities and is a somewhat abused vestiage of "games." So, for what it is worth, I have seen some bad threads through twenty years of Internet presence and methods of simple ASCII communications. And I have seen a few GREAT threads. But, this thread is just too good without making a sincere comment about how good it *IS.* Just too good of a thread to pass up.
ROTFL! BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
man oh man oh man .... these near real tyme chit-chat forums have me in stitches all the tyme. i don't know if I can take the physical trauma of pure belly laffter anymore.
Yea, we do share many funny times here on LF. It is really humorous when we can point and laugh at the libertarian! They really are the dumbest people in America, and most obnoxious, too. Here’s an example: police in Texas set up a DUI checkpoint, where cars were stopped and drivers quickly checked to make sure they weren’t driving with a blood alcohol over the legal limit. That’s a nuisance, I’m sure, but a minor inconvenience compared to sharing the road with drunk drivers. Kory Watkins, a Texas libertarian and open carry proponent (so you already know he’s an idiot) objected to the police doing this job, so he was protesting at the check point, and apparently also somehow warning drivers approaching the check point so any drunkards could avoid it (a truly civic-minded fellow), when irony struck. Wait, there’s more! He doesn’t believe drunk driving should be illegal — it should only be a crime to smash into people. So drink yourself into a half-blind stupor, get into your car, weave all over the road, and the police should just step back and watch until you run over a little old lady trying to cross the road…then they can arrest you. Not before. Jesus. Libertarians. But wait, there’s still more! The police were right there, and came over to help. They discovered that he didn’t have a valid driver’s license. Why? Because he’s a fucking libertarian. So they gave him a $300 ticket. Now Watkins is angry because everybody is smirking at the irony and laughing at him. Sorry, guy. FREE SPEECH. You get to be a slapstick dumbass, we get to point and laugh. It’s the libertarian way!
#25. To: Gatlin (#24)
Got it - open-carry proponents are idiots. Glad you made that clear to all of us. If someone goes out to eat and has a few drinks, drives home and is responsible in doing so. Nobody is hurt, no property was damaged, there is no crime. That's how it used to be before MADD coerced the gooberment into making even drinking one beer and then driving a crime. It's all about the revenue, not safety.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#22. To: buckeroo (#21)
#23. To: Gatlin (#22)
#24. To: buckeroo (#23)
A drunk driver was going around 100 mph and smashed into the back of me,
Watkins said on his Facebook page. I could not control the car, I went sideways, then flipped 3 times, hit a cement piller to stop my roll and put me in a ditch on The side of (Interstate) 287. I was 2 miles always from being home. I am incredible lucky to be breathing. I can’t tell you how lucky I am to be alive.
If someone goes out to eat and has a few drinks, drives home and is responsible in doing so. Nobody is hurt, no property was damaged, there is no crime.
I don’t ask for permission to drive a car I paid for on a road I paid for,
Watkins said.
Replies to Comment # 24. Texas libertarian and open carry proponent (so you already know he’s an idiot)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 24.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]