Daylight Savings Time Puts Kid in Jail for 12 Days 881
Jherek Carnelian writes "Cody Webb was jailed for calling in a bomb threat to his Hempstead Area high school (near Pittsburgh). He spent 12 days in lockup until the authorities realized that their caller-id log was off an hour because of the new Daylight Savings Time rules and that Cody had only called one hour prior to the actual bomb threat. Perhaps it took so long because of the principal's Catch-22 attitude about Cody's guilt — she said, 'Well, why should we believe you? You're a criminal. Criminals lie all the time.'"
Let the lawsuit commence! (Score:4, Interesting)
These are the people we want teaching our children? Or we want our children to become/emulate? I'm not sure which is more shocking -- the fact that they jumped to conclusions based on a couple of pieces of evidence or the fact that it took 12 days for some bright person to remember the switch in Daylight Time.
Money! (Score:5, Interesting)
Give the Students More Credit (Score:5, Interesting)
I like to believe that, in America at least, we avoid this "Catch-22" wherein we assume from the get go that the alleged criminal is innocent until proven guilty. Which gives them no motive to lie. After the fact, it may be revealed they were lying but you have to prove it first. Most of the time, they are caught within their lies and their guilt is exposed that way.
Relying on one instance of evidence that relies heavily on technology, is a pretty shaky case in my opinion. The principal has graciously illustrated why this is a risky assumption to make. I don't think I need to expound on my general feelings of how the RIAA uses the same techniques in their settle out of court cases but there is definitely a direct relationship here.
I feel that, as a society, we don't give our children enough credit. I've posted about this before [slashdot.org] and I'm sure I'll post about it again. If you don't apply the same ideas of justice & freedom to children, how can you expect them to grow up with those same virtues instilled? You can't, really. Once they turn 18, they still remember a lot prior to being 18. Any injustices they suffered are probably not forgotten.
While I have not raised a child, I have volunteered at local grade schools to teach the children about engineering. I go and set up some sort of challenge that involves engineering with limited resources. One of my most horrific experiences wasn't watching some child verbally or physically assault another child, it was actually a teacher/student exchange. The challenge was to build a tower out of cards and after several failures and few successes, I decided to wrap up with some basics in mechanical engineering. I asked the class why they chose a square structure to build their tower in. One particularly energetic imp told me it was clearly the most stable. I corrected him and said that actually a dome is a more stable structure. But he persisted and asked why were 99% of buildings made in a square formation. I really didn't have an answer
I pretty much blame myself for not encouraging the kid to research it on his own. But I thought about it a lot afterwards and wondered if we don't give our children enough credit. Does this happen often? Do children get stereotyped as "the problem child" with no possible second chance? Are they doomed once teachers look for this type of behavior. I hope not but this story with the principal assuming the kid was wrong is just another example, though my personal example is probably a case of no exoneration.
Re:I'd laugh, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in my HS days I found a VCR in a locker. The VCR had been stolen from a classroom. I reported it to the administration office. The VP promptly accused me of getting "cold feet" about the theft and called the cops on me, even though I was in class when the supposed theft occurred two days prior (there was an exam, thus I had a reasonable alibi). None of my explanations mattered, nor apparently did the B&E that I committed in opening the locker. She was fixated that I (or my buddy who was with me) had stolen the VCR. Cops were called and we were separated and interviewed by the sheriff.
Funny thing, we both told the sheriff the same story, but when pressed we both confessed to the B&E portion (which was a crime as there was a lock on the locker). I actually did it, but out of some sense of loyalty he confessed to it. Ultimately the VPs single mindedness that we stole it was in our favor, as once the unit was dusted for prints, ours were nowhere to be found. No charges on the B&E because the VP continued to insist that we must have stolen it somehow, and simply wiped our prints off it. You can't argue with people like that. They're nearly as fanatical as those FSM creationist folks
-nB
Re:Be careful what you wish for (Score:5, Interesting)
I think a morning show radio personality here in Tampa said it best: "These kinds of things (referring to the shootings at VT) happen in a free society. And that's that unless we all want to live in a police state."
It's along the same lines as the infamous, possibly misquoted, possibly misattributed Ben Franklin quote: "They that would trade essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither."
So what is it? Do you want free society, where safety is sometimes an issue, or do you want a police state, where you might possibly be safer, but have no rights? Because those are your choices.
Sounds like (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Give the Students More Credit (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Give the Students More Credit (Score:4, Interesting)
But seriously: track that kid down. Whatever the cost. He deserves vindication. This isn't a matter of which building is best. (Though I'd recommend the geodesic dome article on Wikipedia for why they're not used.) It's a matter of whether you've taught this kid to suppress his own reason.
Re:Wrongful impronment indeed - but who is to blam (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stupid Time Change! (Score:5, Interesting)
First. Let a tax be laid of a louis per window, on every window that is provided with shutters to keep out the light of the sun.
Second. Let the same salutary operation of police be made use of, to prevent our burning candles, that inclined us last winter to be more economical in burning wood; that is, let guards be placed in the shops of the wax and tallow chandlers, and no family be permitted to be supplied with more than one pound of candles per week.
Third. Let guards also be posted to stop all the coaches, &c. that would pass the streets after sunset, except those of physicians, surgeons, and midwives.
Fourth. Every morning, as soon as the sun rises, let all the bells in every church be set ringing; and if that is not sufficient?, let cannon be fired in every street, to wake the sluggards effectually, and make them open their eyes to see their true interest.
The essay was either sharp social commentary regarding man's (and government's) attempts to rule everyone's lives by the clock (even going so far as to mandate daylight should only occur during certain hours of the day!), or Franklin was at least half off his rocker when he wrote it. I choose to believe the former.
Re:Guilty until proven innocent has CONSEQUENCES (Score:3, Interesting)
These sorts of incidents (wrongful arrest) are usually worth about $20,000 if the person is NOT held for any significant time and NOT charged inappropriately with a crime. This is very likely to be a mid six-figure settlement against the city, due to the length of time he was incarcerated, the charges that were filed and maintained, and the appalling lack of evidence in the first place. The high school may not bear true legal responsibility in a strict sense, but if they're smart they'll settle for a 5-figure sum to avoid the litigation and the risk of a jury award. If he has a good attorney and invests his money, this kid will be wealthy for the rest of his life. And he should be, I think.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Principle should still be held accountable (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Guilty until proven innocent has CONSEQUENCES (Score:5, Interesting)
A few years ago, in Pontoise (a small town near Paris), several men (about 15 if I remember well) were put to jail after someone anonymously reported them to have raped their own children. Of course, they've lost everything and their wifes got whatever was left at the divorce. Until one policeman noticed that all those divorced were initiated BEFORE the anonymous report and that all the wifes had the same lawyer, who was eventualy identified as the anonymous source. Those people were released, but most of them were already destoyed.
All too true (Score:5, Interesting)
If you don't apply the same ideas of justice & freedom to children, how can you expect them to grow up with those same virtues instilled? You can't, really. Once they turn 18, they still remember a lot prior to being 18. Any injustices they suffered are probably not forgotten.
Too true my friend, too true. A good example from my own past is cops.
I was a teenager and I got pulled over for having a crappy car. Twice in two different cities. I wasn't speeding, I wasn't playing loud music - I was just trying to get to work. How do I know that's what I was pulled over for? Both times the cop said so.
I was searched. My car was searched "for drugs". One cop told me to get my "piece of shit car out of his city and not come back".
That was close to 20 years ago. I'm now nearing 40, have a nice job, and drive a brand new Prius. Or my minivan. I am invisible to cops, and haven't had any reasons given in the last 20 years to dislike them.
But still every time I pass one on the road I think "motherfuckers".
Re:Can you say... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Can you say... (Score:3, Interesting)
and get mixed up with another email that emailed her a threat and end up sitting in jail for 11 days?? No thanks!
Re:Can you say... (Score:4, Interesting)
I could put this another way. Without the right to a public jury trial, the state is free to implement a revolving door policy whereby a person could be arrested, be held for a few days while they are encouraged to "help with roadside landscaping", released when charges are dropped only to be re-arrested and have the process repeat itself.
The filing of charges is the first step in a criminal prosecution. It is up to both the prosecutor and defendant to agree to have charges dropped. The defendant is not required to agree with this. The state cannot arbitrarily drop charges once a criminal prosecution begins without ignoring their 6th amendment obligations.
The civil suit is generally a red herring displayed before people as a solution. The fact of the matter is that most of the agencies that might be affected by such a civil suit have insurance policies that help cover losses brought about by the civil suits. This is a planned and acceptable alternative that favors those that are being sued, therefore it is promoted as the primary tool to use in these circumstances.
However it is not always the best way to fix the problem. A grand jury has all of the authority and right to order investigations, subpoena witness and actually indict capital crimes. In fact one of the very next steps in the criminal prosecution, in this case since the kid was charged with a felony, is the district attorney presenting evidence before the grand jury in order to actually indict the kid for that felony.
After saying all of this, states laws vary and the structure of the grand jury may be modified by the state constitution. My advice on the grand jury may only apply in certain states. My stance on the right to public jury trial applies over all the states.
Re:All too true (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Can you say... (Score:3, Interesting)
Reasonable risk management (Score:1, Interesting)
At the extreme is arresting all childer, their parents, friends, etc. and shutting down the school until every room in the school and home of the 'accused' are thoroughly searched to ensure there is no threat.
At the other, we ignore it as a typical stupid teenager prank and when the bomb goes off we deal with a lot of fallout.
What is reasonable? A principal is not a bomb expert. Hopefully the police are better trained in this field. Once she had the number and approximate time confirmed, I don't think she was wrong in calling the police and detaining the boy.
What should the cops have done? Can't they hold him for 24 hours without charges? Take him to the cop shop, get a search warrent for his house, search the school and when nothing turns up, apologize and let him go? Maybe even this is too extreme. I'm not sure.
I agree that what happened was over kill. But I am trying to figure out what would be the proper thing to do.
Re:Can you say... (Score:2, Interesting)
and probably incompetent Principle. The question is whether any of the kid's civil rights
were violated. I'm hoping that they were, because instead of screwing around in a state court, the parents can go Federal and sue the teacher under Title 42 for violation of civil rights under color of law.
I don't know enough of the details as to whether a civil rights violation has happened or not, but if it has, that Principal, Police Department and School District might as well just sign a check and a consent order and get it over with, because if they don't,
they're going to pay, and pay and pay.
BTW, odds are pretty good that the Principal won't get fired even though she appears to richly deserve it. Teachers are protected by Civil Service Laws and that makes them pretty untouchable even for instances of utter criminal stupidity like this one.
Re:Please knock it off. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can you say... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nice (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Can you say... (Score:1, Interesting)
The Geneva Convention quite plainly says that if there is any doubt about whether a detainee qualifies as a POW, there is supposed to be a hearing on the question, in the form of a "competent tribunal" (literal term used in the Geneva Convention). Until that happens, detainees are supposed to be treated AS a prisoner of war with all the rights and priviledges therein. Period. Bush can't designate people "enemy combatants", because he obviously isn't a tribunal, and some of the people in Gitmo sure weren't being treated as the POWs they should have been.
People pointed this out from the very start, but Bush and his legal advisors just skipped that step until, finally, the Supreme Court [wikipedia.org] forced them to follow it. Years after it should have happened, prisoners are finally getting their hearings, very slowly (and there is debate about whether they really qualify as "competent tribunals"). So, Bush et al. were indeed originally breaking the Geneva Convention, apparently did not know or think that they were (even though it's freaking obvious in Article V of the convention [wikisource.org] what should have been done), and they only started doing the right thing because they were legally forced to.
How is anybody in the world supposed to take Bush seriously when he talks about "freedom, liberty, and justice"? Yes, these are bad people in Gitmo, but so what? They don't deserve due process? That doesn't sound like "liberty and justice for all" to me, and some of the people involved were U.S. citizens.
Worse, what kind of precident does this set for the situation when U.S. or allied troops are captured by an enemy? Can some tinpot dictator somewhere else in the world be inspired to designate those prisoners as "enemy combatants" and deny them their rights as POWs? Or leave people in prison for indefinite periods of time without charge or hearings about their POW status? The whole thing jeapordizes the protections of the Geneva Conventions for OUR troops -- also something that military personel pointed out when this whole thing started.
So, I agree with you, except that while this travesty is bad now, I think it is potentially much worse in the future. If Bush et al. can twist the Geneva Conventions so perversely in a country with a strong history of freedom and rule of law, what do our troops have to look forward to someday in legally dubious nations that could be even more "creative" with their interpretation of the Geneva Convention?