Disability rights advocates said kids like Ty should not be getting arrested under Tennessee’s school threats law. And they tried to push for a broader exception for kids with other kinds of disabilities. It didn’t work.
I’m willing to put a pretty big dollop of blame on the cops. An autistic kid says something without awareness of some of the context which is shown to have NO nefarious intent behind it, and nothing to show for it but a stuffed animal - and yet they slap the cuffs on anyhow.
But we’ll find out they were at the next school shooters house 5 times and concluded that he wasn’t a threat without any more investigation than talking to him.
Oh for sure. The cops could “arrest” the kid by doing something like saying, “I’m really sorry I have to do this, Ty, but you’re under arrest.” And then say, “I have investigated and found there was no cause for arrest” immediately afterward. Maybe they couldn’t make it that quick and easy, maybe they have to get some sort of permission or do paperwork or something, but I can’t believe they have to handcuff the poor kid and take him to juvie by law.
Fair point, and certainly why I received down votes.
The catch is, and the way these initiatives take hold, is that telling your “manager” at the school, or placing a potential offender in a car for a brief period, doesn’t “seem that bad” under the context of school violence.
There are soooo many blatant disregard for the rules of humanity that are much easier to point at and say “This is wrong.”
Not condoning the behavior, I just think those making the policies like this one should have been listening to their people, and probably weren’t (surprise, surprise) because they thought this was a “minor” point they could let slide. The news has told them otherwise.
I’m willing to put a pretty big dollop of blame on the cops. An autistic kid says something without awareness of some of the context which is shown to have NO nefarious intent behind it, and nothing to show for it but a stuffed animal - and yet they slap the cuffs on anyhow.
But we’ll find out they were at the next school shooters house 5 times and concluded that he wasn’t a threat without any more investigation than talking to him.
Oh for sure. The cops could “arrest” the kid by doing something like saying, “I’m really sorry I have to do this, Ty, but you’re under arrest.” And then say, “I have investigated and found there was no cause for arrest” immediately afterward. Maybe they couldn’t make it that quick and easy, maybe they have to get some sort of permission or do paperwork or something, but I can’t believe they have to handcuff the poor kid and take him to juvie by law.
It’s hard to say here. Just like it’s standard procedure to report the “potential threat”, it’s also probably SOP to secure the individual.
Fault here lies in policy and lawmakers, IMO. This whole situation shouldn’t have to exist.
Anyone who complies with an unjust law is collaborating with the evil swine who passed it.
Fair point, and certainly why I received down votes.
The catch is, and the way these initiatives take hold, is that telling your “manager” at the school, or placing a potential offender in a car for a brief period, doesn’t “seem that bad” under the context of school violence.
There are soooo many blatant disregard for the rules of humanity that are much easier to point at and say “This is wrong.”
Not condoning the behavior, I just think those making the policies like this one should have been listening to their people, and probably weren’t (surprise, surprise) because they thought this was a “minor” point they could let slide. The news has told them otherwise.
And there’s a phrase that flows right from this, and is commonly applied to cops. 🤔