Curious as to thoughts on this...
In summary:
-Student records sexual encounter with a 16 year old girl.
-Student allegedly shares this recording with his friends and classmates
-Girl in recording catches wind of this and tells school administration.
-Admin calls student that made the video into principal's office, with school resource officer present and questions student.
-Resource officer tells student that he could be charged with possession of child pornography.
-Admin and Resource Officer call student's mother on Speakerphone and explain the situation. Officer tells mother that they can likely take care of this without charges.
-Students is sent to wait outside the office for his mother to get there.
-Student leaves campus and jumps off a building.
-Grief stricken parents are going to file a massive lawsuit against the school and police department for driving their son to suicide.
Obviously a horrible situation all around. Just curious as to whether anybody thinks they have a legitimate case.
Article and details here:
Chicago Tribune: School disciplinary incident ends with a Naperville teen's suicide: 'They scared him to death' - (
New Window )
Back to the situation. If this kid didn't commit suicide then what would be the proper course of action?
But if that's the case, where do you draw the line in school?
Back to the situation. If this kid didn't commit suicide then what would be the proper course of action?
Not saying that the school is at fault for his death, but I'm sure the response to this tragic incident stems from their heavy handed "scare tactics" without the minor's parents present.
But if that's the case, where do you draw the line in school?
I beg to differ. I think we know it all too well. But how can you close Pandora's box? When you put powerful technology in a child's hand, no amount of teaching and lecturing is going to stop them.
In this case, the parents seemed to do everything right (at least according to them) about warning of the dangers of cell phones and technology, especially when it came to sex. The teen didn't heed the warning.
This, and all of the situations like it, should serve as a warning to all parents everywhere.
Not saying that the school is at fault for his death, but I'm sure the response to this tragic incident stems from their heavy handed "scare tactics" without the minor's parents present.
What if the kid got caught with a bag of weed? Can the officer not tell him that he's being charged with possession without his parents present?
Could have fooled me.
I think when you share the images is where that comes into play.
If somebody shows you a video of a 16 year old, that's child pornography.
Quote:
talking to the child about potential for being charged with possession of child pornography was the best approach or even legal, especially since you're talking about charges being filed without a minor's parents (or lawyer present).
Not saying that the school is at fault for his death, but I'm sure the response to this tragic incident stems from their heavy handed "scare tactics" without the minor's parents present.
What if the kid got caught with a bag of weed? Can the officer not tell him that he's being charged with possession without his parents present?
I think there's a huge difference between telling someone they'll be charged for a possession as opposed to telling him that he may be charged with child porn. It's like comparing apples to grenades.
Quote:
his death or to say his death isn't tragic. Neither is the goal.
Could have fooled me.
Quote:
Do enough to educate students about the use of cell phones, social media, etc. We talk about bullying but I dont think the students, parents, school employees really know the law when it comes to these issues.
I beg to differ. I think we know it all too well. But how can you close Pandora's box? When you put powerful technology in a child's hand, no amount of teaching and lecturing is going to stop them.
In this case, the parents seemed to do everything right (at least according to them) about warning of the dangers of cell phones and technology, especially when it came to sex. The teen didn't heed the warning.
This, and all of the situations like it, should serve as a warning to all parents everywhere.
I doubt the kid knew the law, then was told about the law, and then committed suicide. I bet this kid was just being an ignorant kid. Obviously some scared him enough to commit suicide.
Maybe you are informed but I work in education and, trust me, these kids have no idea as do the adults. They think they know.
The told him by law he could be charged. That's a lecture, sounds like to me. They also told the mother, on speakerphone in the presence of the student, that this could be taken care of as a minor thing that would not affect his future.
No matter. The implication of telling a teen that he may be charged with possession of child porn is so different from telling him that he may be charged with possession of weed is the difference of why this situation was wholly unique and potentially far more explosive.
Quote:
what the student was in possession of, fits the description of the crime.
No matter. The implication of telling a teen that he may be charged with possession of child porn is so different from telling him that he may be charged with possession of weed is the difference of why this situation was wholly unique and potentially far more explosive.
It is a slippery slope to require a parent or attorney present for every criminal infraction that happens in school, before you can question a student.
Where do you draw the line?
What this boy did is far worse. First, it appears he recorded without the girl's knowledge or consent. Second, his sharing that recording goes well beyond locker room bragging, which can be damaging in and of itself. This can have lasting mental and emotional effects on the girl.
Think about how up in arms so many people were about Trump's comments not being typical locker room talk. Now, think of this, which was more damaging and far more personal, in my opinion.
Quote:
In comment 13479680 RC02XX said:
Quote:
talking to the child about potential for being charged with possession of child pornography was the best approach or even legal, especially since you're talking about charges being filed without a minor's parents (or lawyer present).
Not saying that the school is at fault for his death, but I'm sure the response to this tragic incident stems from their heavy handed "scare tactics" without the minor's parents present.
What if the kid got caught with a bag of weed? Can the officer not tell him that he's being charged with possession without his parents present?
I think there's a huge difference between telling someone they'll be charged for a possession as opposed to telling him that he may be charged with child porn. It's like comparing apples to grenades.
Does it matter when the apparent issue (at least to me) is that they were discussing a criminal charge without parents/lawyer? He could be charged with stealing a used eraser from a classroom, but aren't the parents simply accusing them of approaching the kid first?
I'm asking because I genuinely do not know. I don't think the school is at fault but I am not aware of the correct procedures of going about reporting a minor committing a crime.
I'm neither a teacher, parent, nor psychologist, but none of that adds up as responsible.
Agreed. A family member was a victim of some video that got out. The school never contacted the parents. The parents were fuckin' livid and went in to see the AP. The first question asked was, "Why wasn't I contacted?" That was followed up by the AP with, "I was busy." The cops were called and they were pissed at how the situation was handled. The cop went knocking on the doors of the two people that took the video. He said that those two people could be labeled as sex offenders even though they were only in middle school. I have no idea how true that is but that is coming from the police officer's mouth.
How is that relevant to this lawsuit or your original question? Stay on topic before you start going off on a tangent just to somehow bolster your case.
What we would think if the girl killed herself because of this video is not really part of this conversation or was part of it until just now.
The death of this boy and what should or shouldn't have been done by the school staff and police is the topic.
I'm neither a teacher, parent, nor psychologist, but none of that adds up as responsible.
Quote:
after finding out the video was shared?
How is that relevant to this lawsuit or your original question? Stay on topic before you start going off on a tangent just to somehow bolster your case.
What we would think if the girl killed herself because of this video is not really part of this conversation or was part of it until just now.
The death of this boy and what should or shouldn't have been done by the school staff and police is the topic.
It was in response to Greg's multiple posts about how teenagers shouldn't be charged with that sort of crime for sharing pictures.
It was a direct counterpoint to his post, not overall.
I get your point but you are arguing against the law. This has more to do with law makers than those enforcing the law.
The video was so dark that all they could make out was mainly audible.
Where do you draw the line?
Hmmm...common sense approach doesn't appeal to you?
Tell a child (and yes, he's a child) that he may have to spend the rest of his life as a sex offender (and the worst kind in the eyes of the public) and you expect somehow it to go smoothly? This isn't just any accusation that's being levied on an impressionable child. How do you not see the difference?
Seriously, sometimes your back must hurt bad the way you bend over backwards to rationalize any stupid shit that a school does.
Now, with the video, that is another story. He not only recorded her without her knowledge, but shared it with others. I'm not sure what the charges should be, but it is not an innocent or victimless crime.
Quote:
Thanks for the recap, Britt. I do think there's a case there, though admittedly this is just my initial reaction and haven't mulled it over. But yeah, my first thought is, you just told an impressionable young mind that he is in danger of suffering perhaps the most humiliating criminal charge imaginable, one that I think most doesn't fit the bill, given the specifics. Then you leave him alone in a room with nothing but his thoughts.
I'm neither a teacher, parent, nor psychologist, but none of that adds up as responsible.
Why doesn't it fit the bill?Please don't diminish what he did.
Matt.. coincidently just addressed that above. Saying that he isn't guilty of possession of "child pornography" is not congruous with minimizing his offense. It's simply accurately defining it (at least what I believe to be accurate).
Quote:
The stigma and tangible deleterious effects of conviction on sex charges are so enormous as to render the punishment far out of proportion to the crime.
I get your point but you are arguing against the law. This has more to do with law makers than those enforcing the law.
Quote:
On what planet is a 16 year old making a video with another 16 year old "child pornography." Illegal due to the lack of consent? Absolutely. But child pornography? For a girl that, for all we know, may have actually been weeks or months older? That would be an obscenely inappropriate charge.
I agree. But, as I have said, certainly some charges were warranted.
Not disputing that, but that's not what's in question. The debate is whether or not the school (or law enforcement) is liable in his death for threatening him with said child pornography charge and then leaving him alone. Even if you one does believe he was guilty of a child pornography offense, the school's liability could (and should) certainly be brought into question due to their delivery of that news and then lack of supervision.
Quote:
In comment 13479718 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
The stigma and tangible deleterious effects of conviction on sex charges are so enormous as to render the punishment far out of proportion to the crime.
I get your point but you are arguing against the law. This has more to do with law makers than those enforcing the law.
not really. The application of the statutory rape laws are very sexist. When you have two consenting teens and one set of parents doesn't approve, how often is the girl charged vs. the boy? It is almost exclusively the boy that's charged. That is pure BS.
No idea but I am not going to pretend I know the data on that.
Quote:
On what planet is a 16 year old making a video with another 16 year old "child pornography." Illegal due to the lack of consent? Absolutely. But child pornography? For a girl that, for all we know, may have actually been weeks or months older? That would be an obscenely inappropriate charge.
I agree. But, as I have said, certainly some charges were warranted.
I agree that some level of charges were warranted, and even if it happened to be child pornography, you don't tell a child without his parents or lawyer present that he may be charged with that. Then leave him alone? Shit, for this teen, his life was essentially over in his mind since he's going to be a registered sex offender now tied to child porn. And as a child without true foresight and maturity, I'm sure his thought was might as well end it now.
Quote:
In comment 13479726 Mike in Long Beach said:
Quote:
On what planet is a 16 year old making a video with another 16 year old "child pornography." Illegal due to the lack of consent? Absolutely. But child pornography? For a girl that, for all we know, may have actually been weeks or months older? That would be an obscenely inappropriate charge.
I agree. But, as I have said, certainly some charges were warranted.
Not disputing that, but that's not what's in question. The debate is whether or not the school (or law enforcement) is liable in his death for threatening him with said child pornography charge and then leaving him alone. Even if you one does believe he was guilty of a child pornography offense, the school's liability could (and should) certainly be brought into question due to their delivery of that news and then lack of supervision.
Bingo!
The ambiguity resides with whether this questioning, based on the legal parameters when interviewing minors, is considered "police custody". This, to me, is the only place the legal dispute exists.
Sorry - but we have created a culture that is extremely difficult for even mature adults to navigate. It almost encourages the sexualization of young people and nearly promotes pornography.
It's difficult for me to understand what is proper and accepted anymore - when some are upset that women are treated like sexual objects and others are upset that women are not allowed to be more explicitly sexual.
I don't know the answers, but it is becoming more and more difficult for anyone in society to handle these issues, and it is just too easy to blame schools, imo.
This is my point from before. We are ignorant. Our beliefs don't mean anything when it comes to the law.
I don't see anything here saying just because he was 16 that makes it okay. Now, this is NY law and I didn't see what state it occurred in but ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.
I know I don't know enough about it.
http://statelaws.findlaw.com/new-york-law/new-york-child-pornography-laws.html - ( New Window )
So the question for me then becomes two fold:
1) Does the severity of the charges they threatened impact the school being liable?
2) Does the accuracy of the charges they threatened impact the school being liable?
An example. Say an honor-roll student on his or her way to Harvard was pulled into a room and was informed the school believes the student cheated on their regions/SAT exams. Instead of simply leveling their assertion, they go on to say--or more to the point--they speculate the student is going to lose their scholarship to Harvard and may not get to go to college at all. The student then proceeds to leave the unsupervised room shortly after and jump off a bridge.
Now clearly, cheating on a test and child pornography are not in the same stratosphere. Therefore what defines liable? Is it the lack of supervision? Is it the careless relaying of vital/life-altering information, and with that, what then defines life-altering? Where would that line be?
Lastly, is the accuracy of the information shared what would most impact their liability? Meaning, is it ok for a school or law enforcement offer to assert any legal ramification without the courts levying a charge? And if it is OK, what is the amount of reasonable evidence needed to make such statements (i.e., if the student was the victim of a lie and no tape had been made, is the school then more likely to be liable for asserting the charge?)
This one is really fucking messy.
The ambiguity resides with whether this questioning, based on the legal parameters when interviewing minors, is considered "police custody". This, to me, is the only place the legal dispute exists.
I'm not a lawyer or educator (in a traditional sense), so I'll defer to others regarding the legal ramifications of this incident. However, the common sense was not present in trying to scare a teen (if they were trying to scare him) by threatening him with potentially one of the worst crimes a person can be accused of and charged with. Then to let him go off on his own?
If any one of us were accused of and threatened with child pornography (even if we knew that we were 100% innocent) in front of our loved ones (whether in person or over speakerphone), each and every one of us would feel so much stress that our entire life would flash before our eyes. And most of us are experienced with life enough to know not to be as scared as a child. But do that to a child, and he's going to do something drastic and tragic such as in this case.
That is where the school will run into issues on this one...........
Sad situation all together. Didn't have to go this way. I have great empathy for the family.
Sorry - but we have created a culture that is extremely difficult for even mature adults to navigate. It almost encourages the sexualization of young people and nearly promotes pornography.
It's difficult for me to understand what is proper and accepted anymore - when some are upset that women are treated like sexual objects and others are upset that women are not allowed to be more explicitly sexual.
I don't know the answers, but it is becoming more and more difficult for anyone in society to handle these issues, and it is just too easy to blame schools, imo.
Dan, I typically share your opinion here, but I think it's reasonable to at the very least look into this one more. The bottom line is the school articulated a life-altering, humiliating assertion without evidence it would happen (and as Britt pointed out, it turned out charges were very unlikely). The kid then jumped off a building.
IMO, despite generally agreeing with you, there is a very direct cause-and-effect there and it deserves further consideration.
Quote:
with pics of another 16 year old nude is a sex offender. I dont feel safer at night knowing that such a teen is charged with a crime.
A sex offender? No. but, I do think it would absolutely appropriate to charge him with a crime. What type of crime is open for debate. but, what he did is not innocent.
I think that's a theory of crime that was employed by Stalin.
What on Earth? What human being with a conscious would pursue charges there?
Quote:
with pics of another 16 year old nude is a sex offender. I dont feel safer at night knowing that such a teen is charged with a crime.
This is my point from before. We are ignorant. Our beliefs don't mean anything when it comes to the law.
I don't see anything here saying just because he was 16 that makes it okay. Now, this is NY law and I didn't see what state it occurred in but ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.
I know I don't know enough about it. http://statelaws.findlaw.com/new-york-law/new-york-child-pornography-laws.html - ( New Window )
I guess as a NY admitted attorney I have to respond...
My point wasnt based on any current law, but rather normatively what the law should be.
Unless there was some indication that the school knew the student was suicidal there is no reason to treat him that way.
Are we to presume all students facing consequences are suicidal?
Unless there was some indication that the school knew the student was suicidal there is no reason to treat him that way.
Are we to presume all students facing consequences are suicidal?
Are we to assume that none of them are suicidal?
There was a right way and a wrong way to do this. Telling him such potentially horrible future then leaving him alone was the wrong way to do this.
Quote:
That's where I've been going with this the entire thread. This situation didn't exist 15+ years ago because kids didn't all have tiny video cameras with them all the time. Now they do, and some of them are using them in this way. Hell, in some cases kids are being prosecuted for having pictures of themselves.
What on Earth? What human being with a conscious would pursue charges there?
I would. So would most parents.
Imagine this - your daughter is filmed surreptitiously engaged in what she believes is a private sexual act and later learns it has been shared with the world.
You okay with that? You okay with everyone in her world treating her differently because of this?
What about the girl who then becomes suicidal (has happened many times) because their own private lives were exposed without their permission? Not a crime? Disagree.
Unless there was some indication that the school knew the student was suicidal there is no reason to treat him that way.
Are we to presume all students facing consequences are suicidal?
For me anyway, it isn't so much about perceiving the student to be suicidal. I think the point is that you can't trust a 16-year-old to process such heavy information and then act responsibly in the coming minutes and hours. It's the schools job to absolutely make sure he's supervised.
Let's say he didn't kill himself, but freaked out, grabbed his Learner's Permit and decided to take off for the border. He's a highly agitated 16-year-old who's driven 10 times in his life racing down the highway. He plows into a car and kills two people, including himself.
Now there's no "mental illness" involved here. Just a kid who freaked out and ran when he should have been watched. You could argue the school is liable there too, IMO.
Are we to assume that none of them are suicidal?
There was a right way and a wrong way to do this. Telling him such potentially horrible future then leaving him alone was the wrong way to do this.
I think you're Monday-morning QB'ing this, but I respect your opinion to do so.
Quote:
In comment 13479772 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
That's where I've been going with this the entire thread. This situation didn't exist 15+ years ago because kids didn't all have tiny video cameras with them all the time. Now they do, and some of them are using them in this way. Hell, in some cases kids are being prosecuted for having pictures of themselves.
What on Earth? What human being with a conscious would pursue charges there?
I would. So would most parents.
Imagine this - your daughter is filmed surreptitiously engaged in what she believes is a private sexual act and later learns it has been shared with the world.
You okay with that? You okay with everyone in her world treating her differently because of this?
What about the girl who then becomes suicidal (has happened many times) because their own private lives were exposed without their permission? Not a crime? Disagree.
Another approach to that problems: Tell your daughter not to perform sex acts on camera if she isnt gonna marry the guy and stay married forever.
Quote:
Are we to assume that none of them are suicidal?
There was a right way and a wrong way to do this. Telling him such potentially horrible future then leaving him alone was the wrong way to do this.
I think you're Monday-morning QB'ing this, but I respect your opinion to do so.
Of course, I am. We all are.
By the way, are you a teacher?
Instead, he took a plea bargain. This is what prosecutors do: scare defendants into a deal. Zachary agreed to plead guilty to two counts of "indecent liberties with a minor." For this, he will be registered as a violent sex offender for the rest of his life.
Yes, "violent"—even though he never met the girl in person.
For me anyway, it isn't so much about perceiving the student to be suicidal. I think the point is that you can't trust a 16-year-old to process such heavy information and then act responsibly in the coming minutes and hours. It's the schools job to absolutely make sure he's supervised.
Let's say he didn't kill himself, but freaked out, grabbed his Learner's Permit and decided to take off for the border. He's a highly agitated 16-year-old who's driven 10 times in his life racing down the highway. He plows into a car and kills two people, including himself.
Now there's no "mental illness" involved here. Just a kid who freaked out and ran when he should have been watched. You could argue the school is liable there too, IMO.
I work in a school dealing with these kinds of issues all the time. Just last week I had a kid telling me she's being pressured to send nude pics to a group of classmates, while they're forwarding pics of girls and claiming them to be their classmates. This is a real problem, and it would be nice if what you suggest could happen, but it can't.
Schools are under-resourced. How many staff members do you assume are available to "supervise" students throughout the day in a typical day? Students get in trouble all the time here - the administrator has to conduct interviews, bring police up to speed, call parents (both sets), keep kids and witnesses separate. Teachers meanwhile have their own classes they are trying to lead. Every single staff member has a specific job responsibility that needs to be addressed during the day.
When something like this happens you have many, many kids you are interviewing, parents you are calling, and the resources don't exist to supervise all of these students as you do everything else.
It's easy to point fingers when someone dies, and it's usually easier to assign blame to whomever is with that person last. What if this hadn't been a school? Would any other individual or institution accept the blame for a suicide, if they had no idea that the person was suicidal? I'm pretty sure grief counselors spend much time helping people deal with the guilt they feel that more wasn't done. Probably true that everyone at the school wishes they could have a do-over on this one. But is it really the school who is liable for this kid's choice? Really?
Quote:
For me anyway, it isn't so much about perceiving the student to be suicidal. I think the point is that you can't trust a 16-year-old to process such heavy information and then act responsibly in the coming minutes and hours. It's the schools job to absolutely make sure he's supervised.
Let's say he didn't kill himself, but freaked out, grabbed his Learner's Permit and decided to take off for the border. He's a highly agitated 16-year-old who's driven 10 times in his life racing down the highway. He plows into a car and kills two people, including himself.
Now there's no "mental illness" involved here. Just a kid who freaked out and ran when he should have been watched. You could argue the school is liable there too, IMO.
I work in a school dealing with these kinds of issues all the time. Just last week I had a kid telling me she's being pressured to send nude pics to a group of classmates, while they're forwarding pics of girls and claiming them to be their classmates. This is a real problem, and it would be nice if what you suggest could happen, but it can't.
Schools are under-resourced. How many staff members do you assume are available to "supervise" students throughout the day in a typical day? Students get in trouble all the time here - the administrator has to conduct interviews, bring police up to speed, call parents (both sets), keep kids and witnesses separate. Teachers meanwhile have their own classes they are trying to lead. Every single staff member has a specific job responsibility that needs to be addressed during the day.
When something like this happens you have many, many kids you are interviewing, parents you are calling, and the resources don't exist to supervise all of these students as you do everything else.
It's easy to point fingers when someone dies, and it's usually easier to assign blame to whomever is with that person last. What if this hadn't been a school? Would any other individual or institution accept the blame for a suicide, if they had no idea that the person was suicidal? I'm pretty sure grief counselors spend much time helping people deal with the guilt they feel that more wasn't done. Probably true that everyone at the school wishes they could have a do-over on this one. But is it really the school who is liable for this kid's choice? Really?
Any of his choices, for that matter? Including the one that got him in the situation in the first place.
i think mentioning this part would fuck anyones head up. You have to be careful with wording at this point.
I feel really bad for the girl involved.
i think mentioning this part would fuck anyones head up. You have to be careful with wording at this point.
Was he or she wrong? No.. it was true that the kid could be charged. Interesting that the kid could handle the idea of basically passing around a video of another person who did not consent, yet he cannot handle the idea of paying the consequences.
I would double down on this. Not only was the resource officer correct in saying the he could be charged with possession of child porn, but he should be warning all of the kids in school before it happens again.
Quote:
-Resource officer tells student that he could be charged with possession of child pornography.
i think mentioning this part would fuck anyones head up. You have to be careful with wording at this point.
Was he or she wrong? No.. it was true that the kid could be charged. Interesting that the kid could handle the idea of basically passing around a video of another person who did not consent, yet he cannot handle the idea of paying the consequences.
I would double down on this. Not only was the resource officer correct in saying the he could be charged with possession of child porn, but he should be warning all of the kids in school before it happens again.
absolutely and i agree on that. hence why if there was a case on this, that would be the only thing i could see. But i dont think the school is at fault at all.
It is only illegal for a police officer to interrogate a minor without parental consent if they have taken the minor into custody ie: arrested them.
This kid was simply called to the principal's office. The schools are allowed more leeway with questioning a student because they are responsible for protecting other students at school as well, in this case the girl.
When a parent is lecturing their kid: "Do you know what could happen to you if you got caught doing this? You could go to jail, they could charge you with so and so."
When police officer is lecturing this student: Do you know that you could be charged for child pornography for doing this?
I don't see much difference. The kid wasn't arrested, he wasn't placed in cuffs, he was called to the principals office and questioned routinely. I can't imagine how the school could have handled this any differently.
Ahmed the clock kid actually got cuffed and taken to police headquarters. That's scare tactics.
Read what I wrote immediately following "you could go to jail". "You could be charged with so and so" depending on what the lecture was about.
When I'm lecturing my kid, inevitably when he's old enough for a phone and the responsibility that comes with it, you better be damned sure that I'm going to tell him all of the bad that can come with it, including charges like that when I'm lecturing him.
Quote:
and 'you face charges of child pornography'? They're exactly the same in your eyes?
Read what I wrote immediately following "you could go to jail". "You could be charged with so and so" depending on what the lecture was about.
When I'm lecturing my kid, inevitably when he's old enough for a phone and the responsibility that comes with it, you better be damned sure that I'm going to tell him all of the bad that can come with it, including charges like that when I'm lecturing him.
Come on. Telling a kid about the dangers of not using your phone responsibly is not in the same Universe as telling a kid he's going to potentially be charged with it.
You wouldn't relay that to your kid while lecturing, simply because you don't believe in the law?
But who should be held liable? Just the school, apparently. We should sue the district and fire the administrator in question. Also, anyone else working at the school who might have prevented the kid from walking out the door that day.
Everyone else should get taxpayer-funded counseling to help them understand they have no guilt in the situation.
But who should be held liable? Just the school, apparently. We should sue the district and fire the administrator in question. Also, anyone else working at the school who might have prevented the kid from walking out the door that day.
Everyone else should get taxpayer-funded counseling to help them understand they have no guilt in the situation.
It's nuts.
"This psychologist cannot count the number of adolescent sex offenders I have met who have a sense that what they are doing is 'wrong' but were ignorant that their conduct was criminal, let alone a felony, or actions which could put them on the Sex Offender Registry. In the teenage digital social world, if both parties want to talk about sex, that seems like 'consent' to them. Ignorance does not excuse this conduct, but it does help to explain why he did this, and to the degree that ignorance was an underlying cause of his crime, this problem can be easily fixed with education."
That's the other thing. It's being made out here that he was practically put in an isolated jail cell with a noose and a loaded gun.
Once the meeting was over and the mother was on her way, he was asked to sit outside in the waiting room of the office while awaiting the arrival of his mother. That is standard procedure. The kid got up and walked out of campus.
What would you have them do? Assign an officer to him to hold him there? He wasn't in custody. He was asked to wait outside the principals office, as thousands of students are asked to do every day.
Did they charge him with that? Yes or no? Did they tell his mother, in his presence, that this can likely be dealt with without charges? Yes or no?
They're both really bad right? And can affect your future even after release?
I know you will counter with the indignity of having to register as a sex offender. But if the kid was so stupid/naive not to realize what he was doing was wrong how could he know consequences that were not explained to him?
Also the article states, and the mother confirmed, that the officer was trying to keep this out of the courts. Meaning no jail time and quite possibly no requirement to register as a sex offender.
Dude, you need to calm down and read.
Quote:
However I do think that once they chose to go down that road of having the police interrogate and threaten him with possibly being charged with a serious crime they should never have let him leave the office until the parents had arrived and taken responsibility for him. That is the one thing I disagree with.
That's the other thing. It's being made out here that he was practically put in an isolated jail cell with a noose and a loaded gun.
Once the meeting was over and the mother was on her way, he was asked to sit outside in the waiting room of the office while awaiting the arrival of his mother. That is standard procedure. The kid got up and walked out of campus.
What would you have them do? Assign an officer to him to hold him there? He wasn't in custody. He was asked to wait outside the principals office, as thousands of students are asked to do every day.
Again, I don't see where the parents have a case. I just think that once they chose to go down the road that they did prior to the parents arriving they had a responsibility to ensure he remains there until the parents can assume responsibility.
And yes thousands of kids are asked to sit and wait unsupervised but I am certain the majority of cases are overwhelming for more mundane offenses. Laying a possible felony sexual crime on a child and then letting him sit there alone is not the same thing as if he had shot a spitball in class.
That said, IMO that is poor judgment on their parts which they will have to personally live with. I agree it doesn't warrant a lawsuit.
I've agreed with you most of the way here, but not sure I see the logic on this one. How would claiming they were never gonna charge him help their case? If anything it would make them seem more irresponsible, since they then threatened a kid with false information that led to his suicide.
At least if they were going to charge him, they'd be informing the child of the circumstances as you'd expect them to do.
"She (Maureen Walgren) stated Corey would fulfill it without a problem," Heun wrote in his report.
The kid secretly recorded his encounter, then played it for some of his friends. It got back to the girl, who was understandably very upset by it.
The kid killed himself, and we can only speculate as to why. Maybe it's because he was so afraid of the consequences of being charged with child pornography, but maybe it was because he betrayed the one girl who was giving it to him and he felt terrible about hurting her.
So, yeah, they MIGHT do that. They might also charge him with child porn.
It's a messy, hairy situation. Any of these kids, including the victim, could have ended their life over this kind of embarrassment.
It is not likely possible that the school was resourced enough to be able to supervise all of the students as they came in and out of the administrator's office.
My discussion would be more about right and wrong, not f-ck the police.
Quote:
Heun suggested the case might be resolved with what is typically called a "station adjustment," a legally sanctioned way of reprimanding minors without formally arresting them.
So, yeah, they MIGHT do that. They might also charge him with child porn.
Got you. Fair enough.
I don't think minors who willingly record themselves, either video/photo/audio should be considered the victims in the same way that those who are unwillingly recorded.
If a teenager or group of teenagers secretly recorded girls where they had an expectation of privacy, whether that was in the privacy of a bedroom or in a locker room, they should be held accountable to a very, very high standard. I don't think felony charges of production/possession/distribution of child pornography are out of the question.
There are other questions about whether the consequences of such charges/convictions are appropriate, and seemingly are influencing the discussion on this thread.
Some times we can conclude that people in authority didn't display the best wisdom given the circumstances and as a result the outcomes were not what they should have been. But they are just human and trying to do their best to deal with stressful situations on the fly. They can be guilty of having made some mistakes in how they handled things without automatically being legally responsible.
Um - if the recording includes sexual content of a minor - it's child pornography right?
You are correct that it would be better for the perps if they "simply" apply lesser charges.
Not sure who you are trying to protect, but try thinking about your daughter being secretly recorded having sex and then having that recording shared without her consent.
If it was your daughter - you wouldn't want to have the full weight of the law going against those who did her harm?
If so, you are truly more generous in your mercy than I suspect most parents would be.
Some times we can conclude that people in authority didn't display the best wisdom given the circumstances and as a result the outcomes were not what they should have been. But they are just human and trying to do their best to deal with stressful situations on the fly. They can be guilty of having made some mistakes in how they handled things without automatically being legally responsible.
Should have reversed "completely" and "nothing", hopefully the point wasn't lost. .
I have a 14 y/o daughter and 16 y/o son. My guess is this kid had more issues than simply getting caught recording a sexual encounter.
It is a sad situation but the school has a duty to protect the innocent students as well. This kid was a major asshole in recording and then showing this video to others. He got called out on it and lost it. But if my daughter was the girl....I would want that kid labeled as a sexual predator and to have charges pressed. Hard lessons....but much needed.
Now, instead of the perp committing suicide, the girl does so. Does the school deserve to be held legally liable for not holding her until parents come pick her up?
Should she be held in the same room and with the same people who she has just learned have been witnesses to her personal moment? How should these kids be supervised and held?
Logistically what some people expect from the school is not realistic given the resources available to them.
Hell, adjudicating it with an old-fashioned ass kicking is a major improvement on a permanent scarlet letter. The Puritans of old would have just put the kid in the stocks for a while.
I have a 14 y/o daughter and 16 y/o son. My guess is this kid had more issues than simply getting caught recording a sexual encounter.
It is a sad situation but the school has a duty to protect the innocent students as well. This kid was a major asshole in recording and then showing this video to others. He got called out on it and lost it. But if my daughter was the girl....I would want that kid labeled as a sexual predator and to have charges pressed. Hard lessons....but much needed.
Minors don't even get tried as adults for Murder, so I'd agree with you.
Ideally they have the wisdom for someone (school nurse, guidance counselor) to sit with her until the parents arrive. But if not, while unfortunate I don't think they are legally responsible.
Dude...this is the swizzle stick warrior, so yeah...think about that.
BTW, Dan and Britt - asking "well, what if this were YOUR daughter" is a bit disingenuous, since the entire purpose of criminal law is to remove the emotions from justice as much as possible so as to avoid the excesses that inevitably mark vigilante justice. I would have laughed my ass off if the guy who shot my grandfather way back when had been beaten to death with a claw hammer when he was in prison, but that doesn't mean that a)I'm an impartial observer b)that claw hammer beatings are an appropriate punishment.
Also, there has been changes to the sex offender laws recently that have helped protect minors who are convicted of such crimes. I've been trained on that, but can't speak with conviction as my memory of the details is a little fuzzy right now.
Either way - it seems the better discussion for us might be about what those consequences should be.
I'm with you - I don't think a 14 or 16 year old who uses poor judgment should have to carry the same burden that say, a 24 or 26 year old should.
BTW, Dan and Britt - asking "well, what if this were YOUR daughter" is a bit disingenuous, since the entire purpose of criminal law is to remove the emotions from justice as much as possible so as to avoid the excesses that inevitably mark vigilante justice. I would have laughed my ass off if the guy who shot my grandfather way back when had been beaten to death with a claw hammer when he was in prison, but that doesn't mean that a)I'm an impartial observer b)that claw hammer beatings are an appropriate punishment.
I agree. That line of question is appeasing to one's emotions. So by that logic, only fathers of daughter's can make the right calls in their emotional states? The kid fucked up by recording the sexual encounter. Charge him with invasion of privacy or any other unlawful recording of a sex act with his peer. But to think that it's appropriate to charge a teen with sex crime because of this doesn't seem right, especially when such crimes have lifetime impact.
And coming from a couple of educators defending the actions of the school while vilifying a stupid kid's stupid actions (even if it is criminal) by bringing in the emotional aspects of the victim is cheap. The school being completely wrong in their approach (by trying to scare him) and the teen being completely wrong in his criminal actions are not mutually exclusive.
And coming from a couple of educators defending the actions of the school while vilifying a stupid kid's stupid actions (even if it is criminal) by bringing in the emotional aspects of the victim is cheap. The school being completely wrong in their approach (by trying to scare him) and the teen being completely wrong in his criminal actions are not mutually exclusive.
So those who are charged with educating students who are facing risks shouldn't be using fear to educate them on those risks?
I agree about the dichotomy of arguments here - they aren't the same thing and can/should be argued separately.
The arguments encouraging the consideration of the victims point of view are made to counter the dismissal of the seriousness of the offense, not in relation to whether the potential punishment fits the alleged crime.
See, I'm in favor of, not opposed to, the separation of these arguments (as I've tried to do on this thread).
It's in the separation of these arguments that we find both common ground and distinctions in belief.
Greg appears to be arguing against using the law as it is written due to a concern about the possible punishment. If I accepted his version of those possible punishments I might find it easier to agree with him.
2)The consequences of conviction on a sexual offense are so severe and so lasting that they inevitably have an enormous deleterious effect on the convicted.
3)Someone who threatens a teen with such charges should realize how devastating the threat of such charges would be, both in terms of the possible punishment and the social shame.
4)A kid who has such a video or pictures, even in this case where there was no consent, should not be marked as a violent sexual predator (assuming no other offenses).
5)Process and procedure is a poor excuse to hide behind.
More than one assumption here.
First - you are assuming the trigger. This is what the family's attorneys want you to do. I haven't seen any evidence that this is the case. Again, it could be that he was distraught with guilt over his actions or the hurt he caused, or couldn't live with the embarrassment he caused his family. Or possibly he was only thinking about a possible life-time consequence and was looking to avoid it. My guess is that it's a lot more complex than your assumption.
Second - the consequence is assumed to be life-long. Are you sure that a conviction at his age would mean life-long registering? I've already told you that there have been updates to the law - could very well be that you are off in your assumption.
This story brings up at least three separate arguments that have been addressed on this thread:
1. School liability: Did the school handle the investigation properly? If not, was there a realistic way to better handle it?
2. Criminal prosecution: Should minors who record and distribute sex acts be charged with child pornography? What about if those acts are surreptitiously recorded/possessed/distributed?
3. Consequences: How long should sex-offender status be linked to a convicted felon? What about if they are a minor?
You seem to be allowing your concern with #3 (where we most likely agree) influence your arguments in #1 and #2 (where we might agree).
That isn't a sexual offense though
Quote:
"On what planet is a 16 year old making a video with another 16 year old "child pornography." Illegal due to the lack of consent? Absolutely. But child pornography? For a girl that, for all we know, may have actually been weeks or months older? That would be an obscenely inappropriate charge."
I agree. But, as I have said, certainly some charges were warranted."
That after they broke up is when he made the video public.
Whether she is slightly older or not does not make a difference.
We all knew better than our parents and the younger generations know better than us. It's just the way it is.
It's a tragedy all the way around. Why did the girl allow herself to be recorded? Why did the boy decide it was alright to release that video after they broke up?
Any one of us old farts would have done the same thing if we had the technology growing up.
The power of being accepted by ones' peers at that age trumps all.
I will opine one thing. If I were the father of that girl, I would sue the parents of that boy if they go ahead with a lawsuit. It's a tragic situation. By god if one is going to make money, they both should.
You are correct - they were written to protect children, not with the intent of punishing them.
Maybe true - certainly in some cases. We've all read about the drunk who was caught publicly urinating and had to register as a sex offender for life. The thing is that the laws are being rewritten and it is not safe to assume they are the same as they were even five years ago.
No argument with you there. These charges are serious and even the threat of them can be devastating.
I don't know why he would be marked as violent nor have a read anywhere that anyone suggests he should be.
To each their own. I certainly wouldn't expect to make an all-knowing definitive statement of liability of the judgment of someone on the field of battle, having never been there, without being told about the processes and procedures that those in the field face in similar circumstances. I don't believe for a minute that they would hesitate to point out that I know nothing about what it's like. I would welcome the insights they could share.
I'm not directly comparing these two very different situations, just saying that if you want to judge the wisdom of those in a particular situation it might help to listen to those who have been in that situation.
Quote:
and just the "taping without consent" charge he could have been put on the sexual offender registry for the rest of his life.
That isn't a sexual offense though
Really?
Ask a certain sports reporter.
She'll beg to differ.
That even makes it worse.
Quote:
She didn't know he was recording.
That even makes it worse.
You should know that in this case, it is unlikely that there would have ever been a conviction of child pornography. The girl who was secretly recorded was not viewed in the recording. It was dark and the girl could be heard, but not viewed.
No.. only the ones who have done something to deserve such a threat.
Because she wasn't a child. If you don't think that sexual offence and conviction doesn't come up when a prior's check is run?, well you're squeezing marbles.
Quote:
In comment 13479744 Deej said:
Quote:
with pics of another 16 year old nude is a sex offender. I dont feel safer at night knowing that such a teen is charged with a crime.
A sex offender? No. but, I do think it would absolutely appropriate to charge him with a crime. What type of crime is open for debate. but, what he did is not innocent.
I think that's a theory of crime that was employed by Stalin.
2) I agree with those saying the child pornography threat seems a bit much. This was clearly done as a misguided threat. But, then their counter claim that they can handle this without any charges wasn't for them to say. That is up to the girl and her parents and the authorities.