Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, January 31, 2014

An item from Chuck Shepard's News of the Weird: Jim Howe, father of two children at South Cumberland Elementary School in Crossville, Tenn., was handcuffed and briefly detained by a sheriff's deputy in November after mistakenly believing that he could walk his kids home when class let out at 2 p.m. Actually, the school allows 2 p.m. departure only for kids being picked up in cars; pupils who leave on foot must wait until 2:35. (Howe assumed that the waiting period was only to protect young pedestrians from pick-up traffic.) Deputy Avery Aytes said a rule is a rule and that if Howe failed to cooperate, he would be jailed.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

kwrx25

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

The death of critical thinking.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

As a parent, I would argue that when my children are in school, I have a right to remove them from the premises at any time I chose.

The school has no business trying to tell a parent when they may take their child out of the school.

Sounds like institutional kidnapping to me.

#1 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-01-30 03:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not even a parent and I would think the same thing, along with that any cop trying to enforce such institutional kidnapping be charged for their unlawful detention and conspiracy in kidnapping.

#2 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2014-01-30 03:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Clearly, the cop was a "progressive."

#3 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-01-30 03:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Clearly, the cop was a "progressive.""

Clearly!...The major clue is his inability to apply any common sense. I'm sure though, that he's probably aware that only Divus Barackus Miraculus, and maybe Eric Holder, can change any set rules. The parent is stupid to try to decide when and where his kid is going to be and when he can take him home.

#4 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-01-30 04:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

I imagine the father couldn't push the issue because he didn't want to get arrested in front of his kid. And the cop probably knew this too.

Otherwise, it would seem like the perfect opporunity to generate a settlement from a municipality that is giving morons badges and putting them on the street.

#5 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-30 04:11 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

4: Damn, even you should have laughed at that. Oh, well. Can't win 'em all. : )

#6 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-01-30 06:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Jest is dumb enough to think that the cop actually is a progressive.

.

#7 | Posted by Dave at 2014-01-30 09:29 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"As a parent, I would argue that when my children are in school, I have a right to remove them from the premises at any time I chose."

I agree, Old whiskey.

#9 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-01-31 02:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

As a parent, I would argue that when my children are in school, I have a right to remove them from the premises at any time I chose.

As a parent, I understand that schools have procedures that must be followed when you take your child home at a non-scheduled time. If you don't follow those procedures, you're making it harder for the school to assure the safety and well-being of all the students.

The dad should have followed the rules or taken the kids to the office to sign out and say he was taking them home early. He shouldn't have just decided for himself that the staggered student release wasn't a rule he had to follow.

#10 | Posted by rcade at 2014-01-31 09:17 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

10: Indeed. You can't just walk in, grab your kids, and leave. There are protocols about safety, not just arbitrary control. Also, consider divorced parents and how ugly that can get. Would you believe that sometimes one parent will snag a kid, unbeknownst to the other?

#11 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-01-31 11:04 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

The dad should have followed the rules

The article says he mad a mistake. He wasn't trying to flaunt the rules. A warning might have sufficed this time.

#12 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-01-31 08:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

12: Yes, cuffing was ridiculous, unless he made a big fuss, threatened violence, etc.

#13 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-01-31 09:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

making "a big fuss" is okay in my books.

#14 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-01-31 11:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

If he broke a law, if he had threatened violence, punched an administrator, scared the children with action or speech, that would all okay with you? I'm supposing here, presenting possibilities whereby I can imagine that cuffing was appropriate as a last resort. You can't just walk in and assault (verbally) people 'cause you don't like their rules; there are channels and protocols. If, on the other hand, he had walked in calmly, asked for his children, been told no and quickly put in cuffs after a calm disagreement, right on, he would have been in the right.

#15 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-01-31 11:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

The "item" doesn't explain. It doesn't explain what led to the cuffing and his being "briefly detained." So again, all of my #15 is talking about possibilities, not what actually happened.

#16 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-01-31 11:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

The police state is comming to a location near you.

#17 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-01-31 11:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

They cuff you for your own safety. Otherwise you may be resisting,that's when bad things happen

#18 | Posted by bruceaz at 2014-01-31 11:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

The whole thing is simply stupid. He was a parent picking up his child when other parents were doing the same. The fact they left on foot should be irrelevant. It's not like he walked in just took the kid and left without explanation. And to be stopped and cuffed? What the... Clearly not necessary. Again this is pretty stupid.

#19 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-01-31 11:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

More details: www.crossville-chronicle.com

#20 | Posted by YAV at 2014-02-01 12:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

(that full story will get people on both sides of the argument going even more I bet!)

#21 | Posted by YAV at 2014-02-01 12:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

If a person can't be upset about being denied access to their kids, then I don't know what normal is.

#22 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-02-01 03:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

"If a person can't be upset about being denied access to their kids, then I don't know what normal is."

Unless it is mental access to their kids. Public schools want to control that.

#23 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-02-01 03:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

"As a parent, I would argue that when my children are in school, I have a right to remove them from the premises at any time I chose."

#1 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-01-30 03:43 PM | Reply | Flag

Did you miss the new Programing memo recently?

"Your children are NOT yours"
www.youtube.com

Sorry but ANYONE who would say that, let alone green light the spot then AIR it, are just the WORST kind of control freak authoritarians.

#24 | Posted by GotTruth at 2014-02-01 03:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

From Yav's link, this parent was being a belligerent jerk. The school had a procedure it followed for children leaving the school on foot that let them out after the cars and buses were gone so that it would be a safer situation. He didn't want to do that and he didn't want to wait in the car line, even though he had driven there to pick up his children.

When my oldest was a kindergartner, I got yelled at by the principal once for walking him in to the cafeteria and sitting down with him until his teacher came to get his class. I was pissed off, but it was a safety issue: The school couldn't have a bunch of adults in the building each morning who hadn't gone through security sign in.

#25 | Posted by rcade at 2014-02-01 09:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

They cuff you for their own safety. Otherwise you may be resisting while bad things happen to you.

FTFY

#26 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2014-02-01 09:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

The school had a procedure it followed for children leaving the school on foot that let them out after the cars and buses were gone so that it would be a safer situation. He didn't want to do that and he didn't want to wait in the car line, even though he had driven there to pick up his children.

Someone should not be forced to wait in line in a car for a "safer situation" when an administrator's burden of keeping children safe ends when their parent arrives.

Also, think long and hard about the environmental damage caused by allowing cars to idle for long periods of time. Maybe these administrators live in a world where caring for the environment is meaningless, but I don't.

#27 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2014-02-01 10:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

#27 I turn my car off in carpool when waiting for it to start.

Parents who do this piss me off. You see a few every afternoon pull into the teacher parking lot jump out run in grab their kid and leave. They have to leave through the same exit as carpool so they slow all the people who waited in line down.

It is not only a safety issue but it is a courtesy issue.

#28 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-02-01 10:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

Parents who do this piss me off. You see a few every afternoon pull into the teacher parking lot jump out run in grab their kid and leave. They have to leave through the same exit as carpool so they slow all the people who waited in line down.

Yep. I even had some pull in front of the entire line to pick up their child. Some people have a ridiculous sense of personal entitlement.

#29 | Posted by rcade at 2014-02-01 11:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

Someone should not be forced to wait in line in a car for a "safer situation" when an administrator's burden of keeping children safe ends when their parent arrives.

Heaven forbid that a parent have to wait in line and follow the same rules as every other parent. We should all be able to do what we want, when we want, no matter the consequences.

If you don't like a rule, you shouldn't have to make an effort to have it changed. You should just be able to break it, any time you like.

#30 | Posted by rcade at 2014-02-01 11:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

www.youtube.com

I "think" this is the video of it, at least it sounds like it. Was on a "police brutality" youtube black hole session and came across it the other day.

Guy was pretty calm and articulate to be honest.

#34 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-02-01 01:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If a person can't be upset about being denied access to their kids, then I don't know what normal is."

If this is addressed to me, that's not what I said.

"Unless it is mental access to their kids. Public schools want to control that."

Broken record. Feel free to back up your inane, monolithic statements, though. It would also be interesting to know whether "public schools" in this context means teachers, administrators, special educators, school boards... And whether it means conservative folks who do those jobs as well as liberal folks. Methinks your ideology and preconceptions are getting in the way of reality.

25: Oh, Rcade, stop being reasonable and logical about safety issues. Any parent should be able to do whatever they want. It's a PUBLIC school and they are members of the PUBLIC. Fascist.

"Heaven forbid that a parent have to wait in line and follow the same rules as every other parent."

Another good line.

#35 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-02-01 02:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

We should all be able to do what we want, when we want, no matter the consequences.

Who said that, Captain Strawman?

If you don't like a rule, you shouldn't have to make an effort to have it changed. You should just be able to break it, any time you like.

Nothing puts liberal nuance on the shelf like an individual refusing to lick the boots of an authority figure.

#36 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2014-02-01 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I'd bet a million dollars that Rcade is one of those people who "get over" a mile and a half before the traffic cones tell you to merge lanes, and complains that all the people blowing by him to merge at the end aren't following the (his) rules.

#37 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2014-02-01 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your scenario is weird. When you get to the cones either everybody is going pretty slow, in which the norm is to let one merging car in, or everybody is going fast and nobody has trouble merging.

#38 | Posted by rcade at 2014-02-01 03:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your scenario is weird.

Weird? Hardly.

I refuse to believe you live in a place where people understand a zipper merge and why it is the fastest manner to do so.

#39 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2014-02-01 03:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

I get over when I realize a merge is coming up and let people in when the merge requires it. If you wait until the last second to merge because you think that's faster for everybody, I've never heard that one before.

In any case, it's an odd way to call me an obsequious rule follower. It's too complicated.

I followed the drop-off and pick-up rules at my kids' elementary school because it was best for everybody -- just like the zipper merge you are advocating.

#40 | Posted by rcade at 2014-02-01 03:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

my very amateur analysis:

common courtesy > rules > protocols > ordinances > laws ~ regarding human behavior / child > parent (family) > community > town/city > county > state > country > world ~ regarding autonomy versus or in cooperation with the collective. Moving up the ladder it becomes increasingly complex negotiating where autonomy ends & the collective begins.

School is a process where the child's autonomy & the community's interest in the child's contribution begins, & the parents complete responsibility for the child ends; the latter is often difficult at best.

i can understand that Ms Perry-Harris in the clip seems to be talking about this complex negotiation. She doesn't say "your children are not yours" (a paraphrase, not quote), but she does say [we have to push past the notion that children belong to their parents]. That can be interpreted as authoritarian; she also says in another clip that a human fetus is "a thing," which is technically true but sounds very de~humanizing. (she's probably a reptilian LiH)

i can also see how selfish & privileged it is not to have to negotiate all these relationships, as a non~parent. Very rarely someone might have a semi~emergency / last~minute appointment necessitating breaking in line (who normally waits their turn); as opposed to the louts who flout common courtesy every day or frequently because of disorganized lives or utter self~centeredness (in all sorts of circumstances).

there are kids who begin school having been taught common courtesy & those who have none & must be taught at school, only to return to a home where common courtesy is an alien concept.

#41 | Posted by kenx at 2014-02-01 08:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ugh. The stupid pickup "procedures" at schools these days are so unbelievably stupid.

When I was in school, at the end of the day they rang a bell. We then left the school, through the nearest door, and got the hell off the school grounds as quickly as possible. If getting picked up, you found the car. If walking, you walked.

#42 | Posted by DarkVader at 2014-02-01 08:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

#42 | POSTED BY DARKVADER

Is the way it was for us as well, last bell rang we left. Bus, pickup, or walk.

So in this "wait in line" scenario, do you actually have to wait until you're at the front of the line for your kid to come out or do they all leave and then walk to the respective car which then pulls out and leaves?

Not trying to be snarky, just trying to understand the safety aspect of it. If cars are pulling out as the kids get in the car while other kids are walking to theirs, what is the difference if the kid that are walking leave at the same time?

#43 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-02-01 08:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

No the kids all wait in one spot the cars pull up load about 10 cars at a time those pull away and the next 10 cars pull forward. So if kids were walking there would be a line of cars if the kids cut between the cars just as the line pulled forward and some parent was not paying attention you would end up with a kid pancake.

So not having a bunch of kids wandering around the carpool line is a good thing. Then figure an elementary school with small kids and lots of SUV's and Minivans and you could easily get a kid walking who was too short to be seen in front of the car.

The rules while annoying at times are not arbitrary.

#44 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-02-01 09:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

#44 | POSTED BY TAOWARRIOR

Gotcha, thanks.

#45 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-02-01 09:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

44, 45: Look at that: DR clarity and civility. I'm a little disturbed by that. :)

#46 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-02-01 09:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

#46 | POSTED BY PRAGMATIST

*&%# you prag.....better? >:)

#47 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-02-01 09:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

this is an old story....

As a parent, I would argue that when my children are in school, I have a right to remove them from the premises at any time I chose.

The school has no business trying to tell a parent when they may take their child out of the school.

Sounds like institutional kidnapping to me.

#1 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 201

YES absolutely..

EXCEPT.....the rules were well known and if they were in a handbook that he signed acknowledging that he was aware of the rule, then he was in the wrong. If this is the case I remember, he made more than one mistake. First, if you don't like the rule, the board is under local control...for now...there are many ways to change the rule....

just as the school as the OBLIGATION to teach discipline and following the rules which is why any parent must show an ID to take their kids.,...

IF the only part of this story were that he wanted to take his kids and that was it, that's one thing, but as usual in any case like this....the whole truth behind it might change opinions.

if this is the case I'm thinking of, the man was threatening to the school official and that certainly isn't a good lesson

#48 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-02-01 09:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Some people have a ridiculous sense of personal entitlement.

That's a rich comment considering the OWS liberal these days..

#49 | Posted by boaz at 2014-02-01 09:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

47: Much, thank you. I was beginning to worry about you guys. (Actually not; you're both reasonable, from what I've seen.)

49: That's a rich comment, given that Rcade is far from an "OWS liberal."

#50 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-02-01 10:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

I never said RCADE was an OWS liberal.

#51 | Posted by boaz at 2014-02-01 10:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

51: You quoted his comment. Why would you do that unless saying that he is one, or rather a stereotypical rw view of one, or that he supports said typical OWS liberal, or rather the stereotypical view of one?

#52 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-02-01 11:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's a rich comment considering the OWS liberal these days..

The issue I'm talking about has nothing to do with politics, and you should know better than to make it one. There are ridiculously self-entitled jerks who think the rules don't apply to them on all sides. A parent thinking he can make his own rules at school pick up could be a Republican, Democrat or none of the above.

#53 | Posted by rcade at 2014-02-02 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort