Chicago suburban cop beats teen for untucked shirt

"Good grief!" says it all. I know that we can't judge one society by the mores and codes of another but isn't it a huge warning sign that something is off the rails that you need police in schools?

I was a Prefect at school, ostensibly assigned to the tasks that an armed officer carries out in modern America :confused:.
 
In some parts of the US, you do need them. Inner city schools, alternate schools (where its often a last chance due to previous issues like drugs, violence and weapons possession), and those with heavy gang problems. In this case, it was a school for kids with other problems and having a cop there can often be a good thing. In this case however it looks like they sent someone with anger management issues. If the kid looked to be reaching for a weapon, I wouldn't be so hard, but that video evidence says there was no urgency in this.
 
The US doesn't place the same importance on education as other countries.

I did my term paper for Political Science on the effects of legislation on education and the socio-economic ramifications back in '95 and at that time the US ranked 14th in the world.

I doubt we've climbed the ladder since then.
 
There's police in schools?

In some areas. Keeps the kids safe. ;)

Good grief! I honestly don't know what to say. The police here only to go to schools either to do a road safety talk or something similiar. That's quite shocking!

School resource officers (or whatever they're called in a given area) are police officers assigned to the school. They serve several purposes, only part of which is to enforce the law when kids act up. They also are a more approachable face for law enforcement to the kids, which has facilitated reports of offenses that might otherwise not be made. (I know, for example, of several cases of incest or other rapes that were discovered or reported to the SRO -- and active and involved SROs are a major front in the fight against criminal street gangs.) They serve as a liaison between the police and the schools -- which is often a very necessary role.

The reality is that, while they can be a part of the protection scheme for the school, one cop is no more than that -- and they can't do but so much to protect the school.
 
The US doesn't place the same importance on education as other countries.

I did my term paper for Political Science on the effects of legislation on education and the socio-economic ramifications back in '95 and at that time the US ranked 14th in the world.

I doubt we've climbed the ladder since then.


If you needed any more proof that any society that makes its sports stars rich and its scientists poor is doomed, here you are.
 
There's a lot not being explained in that video -- and I don't know what happened nor am I automatically saying the cop is not in error. I do note that the officer appears to be trying to talk to the kid in the presence of another adult (the female in dark clothing) who also appears to try to intervene with the kid, who keeps walking and shrugs her off. Shortly after that is when the officer attacks the kid. Another possible staff member appears to be present (the guyin the striped shirt), and doesn't intervene in the initial push, either. Maybe he didn't have time or maybe the initial act was somehow justified... Don't know. We're only hearing from one side, and from advocates supporting that side.

Again -- I'm not saying that everything the officer did was justified or proper. But I'm pretty confident there's more to the story than is being shown here...
 
The US doesn't place the same importance on education as other countries.

I did my term paper for Political Science on the effects of legislation on education and the socio-economic ramifications back in '95 and at that time the US ranked 14th in the world.

I doubt we've climbed the ladder since then.

By the same token, the countries that rank higher than the U.S. in terms of education also do not have the same percentages of ethnic diveresity. Racial minorities in said countries often do horribly in the same educational system that allows the dominant ethnic group to thrive.

I saw many of these arguments when I was in high school, from the people in the wealthy town that wasn't too fond of the students of the poorer community coming in to town to go to school. Many needed remedial help in English or had other academic problems....and the solution that some people were proposing was just putting those "inconvenient" students elsewhere so Skip and Muffy could get a proper education.

So yes, its a warning sign that we are a nation of many different peoples, with many different contributions to make, and many different challenges to fight. Based on the outgrowth of charter schools and home schooling, I think its becoming very apparant that Americans are not a one-size-fits-all people, perhaps the education system shouldn't be so etiher.
 
There's a lot not being explained in that video -- and I don't know what happened nor am I automatically saying the cop is not in error. I do note that the officer appears to be trying to talk to the kid in the presence of another adult (the female in dark clothing) who also appears to try to intervene with the kid, who keeps walking and shrugs her off. Shortly after that is when the officer attacks the kid. Another possible staff member appears to be present (the guyin the striped shirt), and doesn't intervene in the initial push, either. Maybe he didn't have time or maybe the initial act was somehow justified... Don't know. We're only hearing from one side, and from advocates supporting that side.

Again -- I'm not saying that everything the officer did was justified or proper. But I'm pretty confident there's more to the story than is being shown here...
I would very much like to know what the other side is, what set that cop off, etc.
 
I would very much like to know what the other side is, what set that cop off, etc.
So would I...

But I doubt we will, since it's the subject of litigation.

Like I said -- I'm not saying the cop was right or justified. But I can't help but suspect that there's a lot more to the story than is being presented by the one side.
 
I'm sure there is another side to this, but I don't think there is anything that kid could have said to the officer or the others, that would justify an assault like that. I didn't see him pull a weapon, and like Bob said, the officer took time to carefully set his drink on the floor. That tells me he didn't feel he was in immediate danger.
 
I'm sure there is another side to this, but I don't think there is anything that kid could have said to the officer or the others, that would justify an assault like that. I didn't see him pull a weapon, and like Bob said, the officer took time to carefully set his drink on the floor. That tells me he didn't feel he was in immediate danger.
Actually, all it says on the face of it is that he put his coffee down. He may have anticipated that things would go bad, and that he'd need both hands.

Once again -- let me stress that I am not condoning the extent of the beating he apparently inflicted on the kid. But my experience tells me that there's a good chance that the kid's story is omitting some facts that would make him look less innocent.
 
This gets uglier:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-dolton-cop-09-oct09,0,527689.story

A Dolton cop caught on camera allegedly breaking a 15-year-old special needs student's nose for failing to tuck in his shirt has a troubling history that includes killing a man in a case of disputed self-defense and is now in an Indiana jail on an unrelated rape charge.

A lawsuit filed by his ex-wife, Nicole McKinney, last summer alleges he gunned down her new husband Cornel McKinney in front of their children outside their home on Feb. 17, 2008.

A Robbins police officer at the time, Lloyd was suspended after the shooting but eventually found work with Dolton police in January, his father said.

Not to derail this thread, but this is one reason that I have some tribulation about what we call "lateral transfer" hires. There is an issue of "problem child" cops being shipped around from dept to dept with conditions of their leaving the last job being sealed as part of a "deal".

I almost always prefer to hire "fresh cops" vs. taking an officer from another dept sight unseen. "Fresh Cops" have to make it through the academy, they have to go through feild training and in most agencies they are placed on a probationary period where they can be fired almost immediately if they do not work out.

There is now a trend in LEO hiring where "lateral transfer" hires are asked to sign a release so that the new agency can get their "entire story". This cop looks like a poster boy for this new approach.
 
Last edited:
This gets uglier:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-dolton-cop-09-oct09,0,527689.story





Not to derail this thread, but this is one reason that I have some tribulation about what we call "lateral transfer" hires. There is an issue of "problem child" cops being shipped around from dept to dept with conditions of their leaving the last job being sealed as part of a "deal".

I almost always prefer to hire "fresh cops" vs. taking an officer from another dept sight unseen. "Fresh Cops" have to make it through the academy, they have to go through feild training and in most agencies they are placed on a probationary period where they can be fired almost immediately if they do not work out.

There is now a trend in LEO hiring where "lateral transfer" hires are asked to sign a release so that the new agency can get their "entire story". This cop looks like a poster boy for this new approach.


:rpo::rpo::rpo::rpo::rpo:


Same type of practice occurred in the Archdiocese of Boston, where Bernard Cardninal Law orchestrated the shuffling around of those damn molesters (I refuse to call them priests) from Parish to Parish. Their background was sealed so the new parish had no idea of the past victimizations.
 
This gets uglier:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-dolton-cop-09-oct09,0,527689.story





Not to derail this thread, but this is one reason that I have some tribulation about what we call "lateral transfer" hires. There is an issue of "problem child" cops being shipped around from dept to dept with conditions of their leaving the last job being sealed as part of a "deal".

I almost always prefer to hire "fresh cops" vs. taking an officer from another dept sight unseen. "Fresh Cops" have to make it through the academy, they have to go through feild training and in most agencies they are placed on a probationary period where they can be fired almost immediately if they do not work out.

There is now a trend in LEO hiring where "lateral transfer" hires are asked to sign a release so that the new agency can get their "entire story". This cop looks like a poster boy for this new approach.
A lateral hire should be subject to AT LEAST the same background check as a "fresh" hire -- maybe more. To me, there's no excuse for not making direct contact with the guy's squad, and even asking to see some of his paper. Examining his IA file should be a given...

And the investigator should listen to the way things are answered as much as the answers...

Once hired, at a minimum, they should be going through field training and a probationary period. (We even have a lateral academy in our area for people who didn't go to our academy or another academy we find equivalent, or are from out of state.) Field training might run a little quicker, but their actions and judgment should still be scrutinized as carefully as any other new hire.
 
Back
Top