That is a department policy, not a "law".

Sadly they have the same effect as laws, or worse.

This man found out the hard way.

https://abovethelaw.com/2011/06/man-literally-sets-himself-on-fire-on-the-courthouse-steps/

And what were we going to get from Bill Nelson?  A vote for Trump's impeachment?  Lack of judicial confirmation?  Fuck Rick Scott but fuck Nelson more.

I work for a county.  Slightly different.

Without bringing race into it...

I am thankful that both the officer & child were both of the same race...

There are enough bad narratives in the Media of evil officers arresting (or shooting) poor innocent children of color without another ...

Yup.  Even with in-car cameras I’d want another officer in the car due to her age, mental state and her gender.

I guess you can't be wrong if you take both sides of a position.  

They didn’t advocate an arrest but they called the police.  Arrest is the only option the cop has that they don’t. But they didn’t want him exercising his only option.
I can’t recall how many times I’ve answered calls about an adult male living with his mother or grandmother who was violent because he was off his meds.
Why the fuck ain’t he taking his meds? Then when violent asshole gets violent with me and my partner, and he gets a stick in the appropriate area of his body mom/grandma is screaming she just wanted him calmed down not arrested.
This cop seems like a goofball according to his posted past, and handcuffing a compliant 6 year old-that said, society has a penchant for calling the trash man then bitching when he actually takes out the trash.

MY biggest concern, at this point is "are these arrests going to follow them through their life?".

Want a security clearance? Nope, sorry, you were arrested in 4th grade for punching the school bully.

Want a concealed carry permit? Sorry, you got arrested when you were 14 for throwing an egg at your gym teacher.

Everything is being logged and digitized, are these stupid laws/policies going to haunt kids for the rest of their lives? Red flag laws, laws that say people with histories of arrest can't own guns, etc.

Kids these days are getting lifetime "sex offender" charges for taking selfies of their own privates. While stupid, and retarded, kids do dumb shit, and parents provide them with the tools to do it. But should these kids REALLY have to live the rest of their life as a "sex offender for child porn" because they took a selfie? If anything toss their parents in jail for the night for giving their kids a smart phone...

Part of me thinks there is a long term plan in place to create as many felons as possible. Just look at how the fed refuses to move on Marijuana laws, even though ~38 states have legal medical marijuana. Just another way to create as many prohibited persons as possible? People that can be prosecute at the whim of the fed? Or have their pasts drug up the first time they run for public office opposing "the chosen candidate"?

I’m not sure they do. Many times I’ve transported witnesses to shootings to homicide, or given a person a short ride after a wreck, or a multitude of other reasons assisting the public.

Fuck Galvano and his ilk.  Remember how close Gillum was to winning?  Nelson too.  So you want the chance of Gillum supporting the next senator?  It was bad enough letting our Fried in.

I have ridden to the mental health facility in the back of patrol vehicles holding down feral kids who were doing everything imaginable.  We also have a policy against employees riding in the cage compartment too.  It's like you have to pick which rule to violate that you could get fucked on.

Holy shit, it's almost like real life.

Geeze... See what I'm saying? And I'm sure you're old and stuff , think about these kids. Their entire lives will be digital record. How many of them will be discriminated against later in life because of something stupid they did as a kid? Tons of kids do retarded stuff, chop down a cherry tree, etc, then mature and end up pillars of society. I pulled some pretty big stunts myself, thank God in my day it wasn't all uploaded to the net.

Not that this is kinda not really sorta not at all in just a kinda bit not really...

Ehh.. they'll never enforce laws to take away our guns. Cause that ain't happening...

Fuck everyone involved.. and fuck you too!

A good one. This crotch fruit has a history

Albeit a short one-she’s 6.

When the cop shows up the child and administrator are both calm and the incident is long over.  Even when being taken to the car the child does not seem or sound violent, defiant, foul-mouthed, or anything except scared.

Absolutely no reason to restrain and arrest that child.

I wish news agencies could figure their shit out.

I've read one article that states that the school resource officer in this situation was at that school all day every day and wasn't called --- he was already there.

I've read another article that states he was a school resource officer that split his time between three schools that are close together there and was at another one when the incident occurred and was called there.

So which is it?

I still maintain that I've dealt with some of the worst kids you can possibly deal with and I've never needed or wanted to put cuffs on them or call the police to put cuffs on them and take them away - especially a little six-year-old. If you can't handle a six year old then don't work with kids. I've had training in physically restraining a child with autism that would self injure and I've pulled that move ONCE on a boy who didn't have autism but was bigger than me and going after my wife, but I've never needed or wanted the police to get involved. And I homeschool every single child of school age that comes through my door so I've never had issues with a school or expected them to handle any kid in my care.

I homeschool all of them ... the ones that arrive addicted to drugs or withdrawing. The ones that are pregnant or recently had a child that was taken from them. The ones that hoard food, cut themselves, come onto adults sexually, come on to each other sexually, can't read at fifteen, damage my property, fight my kids, fight me, shove me, hit me, and more. I've ADOPTED twins who were passed around sexually by their bio family to one another and friends so often that my daughter had a hysterectomy before she was in the double digits age-wise. The boy I restrained? That's now my son, one of the twins. I know damaged kids. I know them well because I was one with a similar story to the twins. There is a right way and a wrong way to deal with damaged kids.

You can use your words to deescalate just about any situation you find yourself in. If you need to physically restrain a child from harming themselves or someone else then go for it but the little girl in that video was calm, she wasn't fighting, she wasn't threatening anyone or being bad at the time he cuffed her. She was remorseful, apologetic, agreeable and asking/begging for a second chance. At the point he cuffed her ... it wasn't required to do so. The situation seemed to have passed.

The school could have suspended her and called someone from her family to come get her. They could have put her in some sort of isolation like in school suspension for the rest of the day if no family could come get her and then suspended her out of school for several days after that. There were options available. It sounds like the school didn't want her cuffed and stuffed but the bragging officer - who had a very lengthy disciplinary history including abusing his own kid from what I've read - enjoyed being the total authority over tiny kids. Made him feel big in the trousers, I think.

This is your second post practically bragging about the abuse you’ve taken from kids. We don’t all share the same hobbies.
The cops not getting much sympathy in this thread, but the school shoved their problem onto the cop because they didn’t want to deal with her.

What had she been doing during the time leading up to that? How many times had she done it before? How many times did school staff try to "verbally deescalate" her that day, or any number of other days?

How do you know the school hadn't already gone through that progression and tried those things before? Multiple times even? Schools generally have a matrix of progressive discipline based on severity/nature of conduct and history of the student.

I have seen a second grader show up to a class mid-year and rack up multiple suspensions with the course of two months. It happens. What do you do when none of that works and the kid is still assaulting classmates?

The specific manner in which the cop handled this was not good, but the general concept of getting police involved ... at a certain point that is necessary, as it's the only way to force the school and the student's family to take real steps.

Six year old child.  Cuffed.

Hking

Rough neighborhood

totally agree, if the lesson is not taught early that what he did was wrong, the child will continue. Good arrest.

The only time it’s acceptable to zip tie kids....

Excuse me, @ryann, I can assure you that the love, dedication, and investment I have made into my family and every single foster child that comes through my door is not now nor has it ever been a 'hobby.' I shared my personal experiences with children who behave poorly and act out to illustrate that handcuffing and arresting a child is NOT the answer. It is possible to deescalate a situation without utilizing anything on a cop's toolbelt when a tiny child is the one on the receiving end. But you already knew that. However, since your hobbies seem to include being as disingenuous as possible when speaking to someone who would dare challenge your point of view, I'm not surprised that you would go there about my family.

I didn’t go anywhere near your family, I just commented on your need to brag about the physical abuse you’ve so proudly experienced; I’m not supporting this cop handcuffing this kid, bit I’m also not advocating anyone be assaulted by anyone of any age.
I’ve encountered teens who have attempted to assault me, and instead of hugging them and de-escalating (whatever that means to you) I prevented an attack on myself via pain compliance.
If I want to be assaulted I’ll hire a dominatrix

I read to me that he was talking about his kids and you decide to turn the conversation sexual.  Interesting.

You read sexual into the dominatrix comment? What you should have gleaned is that if I want to be assaulted I’ll choose to be assaulted.
It read to me “look at me I’ve been assaulted” you should be willing to be assaulted too.”
You can use your words to deescalate just about any situation you find yourself in.-iteotwawki
You want him on your jury if you were the defendant in a self defense trial?

That would be a good point in a country where police officers are allowed to make those decisions unrestrained by a Bill of Rights. However, officer social justice still has to act within the parameters of the Fourth Amendment, which doesn't allow unreasonable seizures. Even pretrial detainees aren't allowed to be subjected to being punished just for the lesson of being punished. For some reasons, some schools think they legally act as parents in regards to students.  But they don't.  They still have to comply with the Fourth Amendment, unlike parents. Ironically, there was a school search locally a few weeks back, and the SRO proudly announced to the media that the 4th amendment doesn't apply in schools because the school acts as the parent. Uh...actually that's completely wrong according to the SCOTUS.

Why are school districts allowed to search lockers and backpacks if they have to comply with the 4A?
What does loco parentis actually mean?

No reasonable expectation of privacy in a school locker, since it's owned by (and in fact attached to) the school.

School admins searching persons/personal effects have to have reasonable suspicion of violation of a school policy or law. Lower standard but not a total evisceration of the 4A. They have to have some specific, articulable fact(s) from which the logical inference can be drawn that a policy or law violation is occurring which would be revealed by the search.

A SRO still needs PC and a warrant exception if performing in a LE role. It gets more complicated if the SRO and admin are there together and the admin asks the SRO to search.

Your last paragraph-what right does an SRO have to go around the 4A just because he’s doing it at the direction of a school official?

Do you really want me to explain it to you?  It will be a long explanation. Who is paying for this?

Assisting the school with a search at their request, which could find evidence of a policy violation (if SRO is allowed to do that) and/or law. The risk of course is that if the SRO's search violates "normal" 4A law, anything found would be suppressed for purposes of any criminal matter (not necessarily disciplinary matter). Sounds like a fun case, who wants to pay?

Although it was once open to debate whether that protection extends to school children, the Supreme Court held for the first time in New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985), that searches and seizures conducted on school premises by school officials are governed by the limits of the Fourth Amendment, see id. at 336-37, 105 S.Ct. 733. In reaching that conclusion, the Court rejected the notion that school officials act purely in loco parentis over school children. See id. ("In carrying out searches and other disciplinary functions ..., school officials act as representatives of the State, ... and they cannot claim the parents' immunity from the strictures of the Fourth Amendment.").

        Searches and seizures carried out by school officials are governed by the same Fourth Amendment principles that apply in other contexts. See id. at 337, 105 S.Ct. 733. As a starting point, the Court has repeatedly emphasized that "[t]o be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing." Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 117 S.Ct. 1295 1301, 137 L.Ed.2d 513 (1997); see also Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 624, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989).

Exceptions to that requirement have been upheld only in "certain limited circumstances," Chandler, 117 S.Ct. at 1298 (citation omitted), where the search is justified by "special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement," id. 117 S.Ct. 1295 at 1301 (citation omitted). Where the government asserts "special needs"--defined as "concerns other than crime detection"--as justification for a suspicionless search, "courts must undertake a context-specific inquiry, examining closely the competing private and public interests advanced by the parties." Id. 117 S.Ct. at 1301 (citation omitted).

The search will be upheld only where the government's interests in conducting the search are "substantial--important enough to override the individual's acknowledged privacy interest, sufficiently vital to suppress the Fourth Amendment's normal requirement of individualized suspicion." Id. 117 S.Ct. at 1303; see, e.g., Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967) (upholding suspicionless, random code-enforcement inspections where justified by health and safety concerns and where requirement of individualized suspicion would render search regime ineffectual); Skinner, 489 U.S. at 630-31, 109 S.Ct. 1402 (upholding suspicionless urinalysis of railroad employees following train accidents where compelling interest in preventing accidents from occurring would not be served by requirement of individualized suspicion).

        The Supreme Court laid the ground rules for suspicion-based school searches in T.L.O. There, the Court held that the constitutionality of school searches based on individualized suspicion would be evaluated by the two-pronged reasonableness standard first announced in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). See T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 341, 105 S.Ct. 733.

Pursuant to that standard, the reasonableness of a search is determined by considering first "whether the ... action was justified at its inception," id. (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 20, 88 S.Ct. 1868), and second, "whether the search as actually conducted was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place,' " id. (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 20, 88 S.Ct. 1868).

        T.L.O. did not hold that individualized suspicion is an essential element of reasonableness for all school searches. See id. at 342 n. 8, 105 S.Ct. 733. The Court found it unnecessary to address that issue since any requirement of individualized suspicion was easily satisfied by the facts presented in that case. See id.

Nevertheless, the Court cautioned that, as in other contexts, a search conducted in the absence of individualized suspicion would be reasonable only in a narrow class of cases, "where the privacy interests implicated by a search are minimal and where 'other safeguards' are available 'to assure that the individual's reasonable expectation of privacy is not subject to the discretion of the official in the field.' " Id. (quoting Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 654-55, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979)).

See DesRoches by DesRoches v. Caprio, 156 F.3d 571 (4th Cir. 1998)

There's more as well.... but you can see where it's going.

I got it from a thing called the dictionary:

dom·i·na·trix
/?däm?'natriks/
noun
noun: dominatrix; plural noun: dominatrices; plural noun: dominatrixes

A dominating woman, especially one who takes the sadistic role in sadomasochistic sexual activities.

People complain when kids in school do outrageous things without consequence.  People complain when kids are disciplined.  People complain...

As long as feminists run the show things are going to be f'ed up.  If everyone passes the buck than shit rolls downhill and the police end up with the job.  Until we put men back in charge this is going to be how things are.  Arresting a six year old kid is better than doing nothing and letting them get worse and worse...

Well you seem at times to be using this site as an infomercial to promote your practice so don’t get pissy when you’re asked a question.
Forget it.

Context clues. Read the definition.
You just want to talk shit I’m not gonna enable you

I see where it’s going-more copy and paste

It's copied and pasted from my own work, grandpa.

It was a joke. Maybe just step away from the keyboard. You need to put an emergency contact in your sigline BTW, and a durable POA waiting in the wings. If lost, please call.....

It was a joke. Maybe just step away from the keyboard.

Guess you should move this to the EE or get a dealer icon, since in this post and one a few further below this one you keep bringing up who wants to pay.