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 )
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.