How kicking a trash can became criminal for a 6th grader | Public Radio International

The kicker-- the kid in question is the grandson of a police officer.

IMO, officer in this situation should be ashamed and is not fit to work. I'm sure a bright guy like him probably has tons to fall back on once he loses his job though.

Reading the story, it sounds like he was prosecuted and a judge found him guilty. Could there be more to the story? I have no idea because it looks a little excessive for a 11 year old, but why would he end up being prosecuted and how could he be found guilty?

A lot of people have to agree that the kid should be charged before it would actually go anywhere. This kid was, like someone else said, found guilty by a judge.

 

Maybe his defense attorney should have done a better job in court...but nah....let's place the entire blame on the police officer. That's the norm these days...

 

I only know what this article tells me. Based on that alone, it's absurd to say he should be fired.

This appears to be a true case of somebody not realizing how to work with a autistic kid. One of my children has autism and in stressful situations he has moments as well. They have gotten alot better through therapy, sadly not all kids have access to that.

To me, this reeks of a suit under the ADA against the school if the parents want it.

 

Didn't say that the Judge made a bad decision, but there's also a slight issue with putting the word of a cop against the word of a child into play. Not exactly a fair fight.

 

Either way, he's not in the situation if some SRO, probably not the most educated guy by the looks of it, doesn't get to play God with the kid's future. He isn't charged with that by the Judge if the SRO isn't filing a report stating it.

Also worth pointing out:

 

No trial by jury, no right to bail or a public trial. Those things kind of stack the deck against juveniles, especially in a situation like this one. I doubt a jury finds the kid guilty, but unfortunately it's an SRO and a Judge who obviously favored his word over common sense.

 

 

How do Juvenile Proceedings Differ from Adult Criminal Proceedings? - FindLaw

To me, this reeks of a suit under the ADA against the school if the parents want it.

 

Didn't say that the Judge made a bad decision, but there's also a slight issue with putting the word of a cop against the word of a child into play. Not exactly a fair fight.

 

Either way, he's not in the situation if some SRO, probably not the most educated guy by the looks of it, doesn't get to play God with the kid's future. He isn't charged with that by the Judge if the SRO isn't filing a report stating it.

 

Prosecutor had to go on with the charges, and judge found him guilty. I'm certain the kid probably had an attorney. Why do you only blame the officer?

 

What about the school, the prosecutor, the judge and the defense attorney?

Prosecutor had to go on with the charges, and judge found him guilty. I'm certain the kid probably had an attorney. Why do you only blame the officer?

 

What about the school, the prosecutor, the judge and the defense attorney?

 

They are all complicit to me.

 

In this situation, the deck was kind of stacked against the kid though. It's a trial where it's the officer's word against a kid's, a kid who is autistic, and by definition has severe communication difficulties. Not really a fair fight.

They are all complicit to me.

 

In this situation, the deck was kind of stacked against the kid though. It's a trial where it's the officer's word against a kid's, a kid who is autistic, and by definition has severe communication difficulties. Not really a fair fight.

 

Why do you say it was officers words against the kid? There were witnesses in both incidents that there were reports.

Why do you say it was officers words against the kid? There were witnesses in both incidents that there were reports.

 

Why wouldn't you say it's the officer's word against the kids? Did the witnesses decide what charge they were going to present?

Why wouldn't you say it's the officer's word against the kids? Did the witnesses decide what charge they were going to present?

 

Then I guess the kids defense attorney was terrible then. If an officer made up a charge and it went to court, wouldn't the defense bring in the witnesses to say that's not the way it happened. So if someone punches a guy in the face next to me but the officer charges me, there's nothing I can do because it's the officers word against mine. I can't bring witnesses that swear under oath it wasn't me and the officer doesn't have to prove it was me? I guess I still don't understand.

 

And don't get me wrong, I did say it seemed excessive, but I am not about to call the officer an idiot because there may be more to the story. I am leaning towards the defense attorney was the idiot.

 

They are all complicit to me.

 

In this situation, the deck was kind of stacked against the kid though. It's a trial where it's the officer's word against a kid's, a kid who is autistic, and by definition has severe communication difficulties. Not really a fair fight.

 

Yet your thread title and post only mentions the "cop with no sense".

 

Why wouldn't you say it's the officer's word against the kids? Did the witnesses decide what charge they were going to present?

 

The officer didn't either most likely. I'd say that was up to the prosecuting attorney, wouldn't you?