If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Fark: Today's big story is the kid who videoed her teacher stealing from backpacks. FARKITY FARK: Many outlets don't even mention that the principal told the kid to delete the video   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 117
    More: Sick, principals, teachers, gym class, thefts  
•       •       •

11101 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Feb 2013 at 10:18 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



117 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-27 07:04:39 AM
Future Fark:  Student charged under illegal surveillance and violation of privacy laws.
 
2013-02-27 07:51:33 AM

Earguy: Future Fark:  Student charged under illegal surveillance and violation of privacy laws.


In some places I believe she could be charged for illegal wiretapping, maybe that's if there's audio on the video.
 
2013-02-27 10:23:31 AM
Evidence sucks.
 
2013-02-27 10:24:26 AM

Barfmaker: Earguy: Future Fark:  Student charged under illegal surveillance and violation of privacy laws.

In some places I believe she could be charged for illegal wiretapping, maybe that's if there's audio on the video.


Yea if they let this stand we'll be able to video cops everywhere without them having legal recourse to taze.
 
2013-02-27 10:28:08 AM
Video proof makes it hard for the union to let her keep her job and perks.
 
2013-02-27 10:29:21 AM
I can't exactly disagree with the principal. I'm not a big fan of "justice by social media."

Similarly, a friend's wife had her iPhone go missing at the school she teaches at, and shortly thereafter, some kid's face shows up on her facebook page, posted from her phone, and she saves it and reposts it saying:

"My phone was stolen today at school and this is the likely culprit. Does anyone know who this is? Local friends, please repost this."

All I could think was... "sorry, I'm not branding some kid a thief on facebook and spreading his picture far and wide" when, for all I know... you lost your phone and didn't realize it, and he found it, or someone else stole it and left it laying around somewhere so he wouldn't get caught and this kid picked it up.

Is it highly likely the kid stole it? Sure. But I'm not going to ruin someone's good name and convict them in the court of public opinion when they can't speak up in their own defense.
 
2013-02-27 10:29:40 AM
How did the teacher not see the girl hiding in the locker?  The video shows where she hid, and it wasn't all that subtle.

/good for the kids for standing up for themselves.
 
2013-02-27 10:29:45 AM
Well hopefully the union steps in and defends this teacher from this witch hunt.
 
2013-02-27 10:29:54 AM

Earguy: Future Fark:  Student charged under illegal surveillance and violation of privacy laws.


Probably not in this case.  Federal law requires one party knowledge.  California is a two party state, but has some exceptions for recording criminal activity.
 
2013-02-27 10:30:01 AM
Girls' locker room video disappoints
 
2013-02-27 10:30:03 AM
She would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids.
 
2013-02-27 10:30:43 AM

Earguy: Future Fark:  Student charged under illegal surveillance and violation of privacy laws.


Future Farkity Fark: Enactors and enforcers of illegal surveillance and privacy laws charged with attempting to destroy evidence.
 
2013-02-27 10:31:05 AM

technicolor-misfit: But I'm not going to ruin someone's good name and convict them in the court of public opinion when they can't speak up in their own defense.


That's fair-minded but did you watch the video in TFA?  There's no way the students staged that in any way.  That teacher was going through kids' personal belongings.
 
2013-02-27 10:31:25 AM
power corrupts.
 
2013-02-27 10:31:38 AM
Many outlets don't even mention that the principal told the kid to delete the video

[citation needed]

ABC news seems to be a pretty big news outlet. Is the problem that the Bumblefark News and Fish Wrapper Weekly, and "Billy Bob's Blog He Done Writed All By Hisself" didn't report it? I'm always perplexed by complaints about how "no one is talking about X," and then points to a news story about X.
 
2013-02-27 10:32:35 AM

technicolor-misfit: All I could think was... "sorry, I'm not branding some kid a thief on facebook and spreading his picture far and wide" when, for all I know... you lost your phone and didn't realize it, and he found it, or someone else stole it and left it laying around somewhere so he wouldn't get caught and this kid picked it up.


As far as I'm concerned (and the law in some places), if you find something like an iPhone and don't attempt to return it, you stole it.
 
2013-02-27 10:33:11 AM

JustGetItRight: Earguy: Future Fark:  Student charged under illegal surveillance and violation of privacy laws.

Probably not in this case.  Federal law requires one party knowledge.  California is a two party state, but has some exceptions for recording criminal activity.


I would also assume the teacher has no legal expectation of privacy in full public view at her place of employment (which further happens to be a public institution).

Just because she happened to be alone in the locker room (so she thought) doesn't mean it's a private place.
 
2013-02-27 10:34:22 AM
I know my outlet didn't mention it
 
2013-02-27 10:37:35 AM
technicolor-misfit:
Is it highly likely the kid stole it? Sure. But I'm not going to ruin someone's good name and convict them in the court of public opinion when they can't speak up in their own defense.

I'm sure you're a great neighbor. That guy going over the fence at four in the morning is probably just going to get his football that he accidentally threw over there. Oh look, it must be in the garage. It's so dark. Good thing he brought a gun; the muzzle flash should light things up so he can see.
 
2013-02-27 10:38:05 AM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Many outlets don't even mention that the principal told the kid to delete the video

[citation needed]

ABC news seems to be a pretty big news outlet. Is the problem that the Bumblefark News and Fish Wrapper Weekly, and "Billy Bob's Blog He Done Writed All By Hisself" didn't report it? I'm always perplexed by complaints about how "no one is talking about X," and then points to a news story about X.


I do find it interesting that it wasn't prominently featured in the SacBee which is the local fish wrap.
 
2013-02-27 10:38:55 AM

cdiv: technicolor-misfit: All I could think was... "sorry, I'm not branding some kid a thief on facebook and spreading his picture far and wide" when, for all I know... you lost your phone and didn't realize it, and he found it, or someone else stole it and left it laying around somewhere so he wouldn't get caught and this kid picked it up.

As far as I'm concerned (and the law in some places), if you find something like an iPhone and don't attempt to return it, you stole it.



Fair enough, but her original post was at 4:32... barely more than an hour after school let out. I don't think that's enough time to declare unequivocally that he was going to make no attempt to return it.

He could certainly have turned it in at the office or something, but I can't swear that he simply chose not to. I'd have to give him a little more grace time before making that assumption. He may have just not known the best way to proceed.

I'm a firm believer in erring on the assumption of innocence until I've got strong evidence to the contrary.
 
2013-02-27 10:40:44 AM
I would think the girl would be charged for attempted CP, since the video was taken in a girls locker room.
 
2013-02-27 10:41:12 AM
There are many reasons to stow away in a girls locker room with a camera phone. Spying on a gym teacher ranks low on the list.
 
2013-02-27 10:42:02 AM

Disposable Rob: technicolor-misfit:
Is it highly likely the kid stole it? Sure. But I'm not going to ruin someone's good name and convict them in the court of public opinion when they can't speak up in their own defense.

I'm sure you're a great neighbor. That guy going over the fence at four in the morning is probably just going to get his football that he accidentally threw over there. Oh look, it must be in the garage. It's so dark. Good thing he brought a gun; the muzzle flash should light things up so he can see.



That's a specious conclusion to draw based on the fact that I won't contribute to publicly shaming a 13 year old based on sketchy details and unsubstantiated assumptions.
 
2013-02-27 10:42:42 AM
...but I'm sure you'd serve as a wonderful rabble-rouser on a lynch mob.
 
2013-02-27 10:44:54 AM
Maybe if she put her backpack in her locker instead of putting herself in her locker this could have been avoided. If it wasn't for people like her,there wouldn't be any thievery in this world, would there?
 
2013-02-27 10:48:26 AM

Vernon Freedom: Maybe if she put her backpack in her locker instead of putting herself in her locker this could have been avoided. If it wasn't for people like her,there wouldn't be any thievery in this world, would there?


If it wasn't for kids in lockers, I don't know what high school would be like.

// the pussification of America, continued
 
2013-02-27 10:48:50 AM

Vernon Freedom: Maybe if she put her backpack in her locker instead of putting herself in her locker this could have been avoided. If it wasn't for people like her,there wouldn't be any thievery in this world, would there?


+1
 
2013-02-27 10:49:40 AM

technicolor-misfit: I can't exactly disagree with the principal. I'm not a big fan of "justice by social media."



The student only recorded it to use as evidence for a proper investigation. The principal promised to investigate, but is demanded that (what he thought was) the only copy of the evidence related to the case should be destroyed.

If she had recorded it and tried to form a mob via facebook, I might agree that it should be deleted from the site, but this is closer to a police officer deleting dashcam video after being accused of busting someone's taillight during a traffic stop.
 
2013-02-27 10:50:58 AM

technicolor-misfit: I can't exactly disagree with the principal. I'm not a big fan of "justice by social media."

Similarly, a friend's wife had her iPhone go missing at the school she teaches at, and shortly thereafter, some kid's face shows up on her facebook page, posted from her phone, and she saves it and reposts it saying:

"My phone was stolen today at school and this is the likely culprit. Does anyone know who this is? Local friends, please repost this."

All I could think was... "sorry, I'm not branding some kid a thief on facebook and spreading his picture far and wide" when, for all I know... you lost your phone and didn't realize it, and he found it, or someone else stole it and left it laying around somewhere so he wouldn't get caught and this kid picked it up.

Is it highly likely the kid stole it? Sure. But I'm not going to ruin someone's good name and convict them in the court of public opinion when they can't speak up in their own defense.


Well if they have the phone they could just delete the posts...
 
2013-02-27 10:53:53 AM
I am not the least bit surprised that the principals first reaction is to try and cover it up. Part of the problem in our schools is this systematic and union driven "We Do No Wrong" system that is almost as corrupt as the cops.
 
2013-02-27 10:54:37 AM

technicolor-misfit: I can't exactly disagree with the principal. I'm not a big fan of "justice by social media."

Similarly, a friend's wife had her iPhone go missing at the school she teaches at, and shortly thereafter, some kid's face shows up on her facebook page, posted from her phone, and she saves it and reposts it saying:

"My phone was stolen today at school and this is the likely culprit. Does anyone know who this is? Local friends, please repost this."

All I could think was... "sorry, I'm not branding some kid a thief on facebook and spreading his picture far and wide" when, for all I know... you lost your phone and didn't realize it, and he found it, or someone else stole it and left it laying around somewhere so he wouldn't get caught and this kid picked it up.

Is it highly likely the kid stole it? Sure. But I'm not going to ruin someone's good name and convict them in the court of public opinion when they can't speak up in their own defense.


I'm pretty much on board with you. Guilt by media or social media is a scary scary thing.

I've seen some "social media justice" among a few people I knew and it was scary how quickly people get dammed and angry.
"I'm going to post this on facebook right away but then hesitate to call the cops when people tell me to'

A few blocks away there was this hilarious fiasco when one resident put up a photo of someone walking through the alley saying that they had just broken into a house and took a computer out of it.
Ended up being about 100 posts telling this woman to call the police, damning this guy, tracking him down, racist remarks, pleas for order, cursing how the city is going, threats to move and the original poster admitting that she didn't call the police.
It turns out that the guy was a new renter down the street from her and she saw him go into his own apartment....
 
2013-02-27 10:56:51 AM

technicolor-misfit: ...but I'm sure you'd serve as a wonderful rabble-rouser on a lynch mob.


Slippery slope. I'm not advocating for a lynch mob, while you are advocating for covering up crimes by eliminating evidence.
 
2013-02-27 10:56:55 AM
Nancy Drew got all techie on us.
 
2013-02-27 10:57:50 AM

technicolor-misfit: I can't exactly disagree with the principal. I'm not a big fan of "justice by social media."

Similarly, a friend's wife had her iPhone go missing at the school she teaches at, and shortly thereafter, some kid's face shows up on her facebook page, posted from her phone, and she saves it and reposts it saying:

"My phone was stolen today at school and this is the likely culprit. Does anyone know who this is? Local friends, please repost this."

All I could think was... "sorry, I'm not branding some kid a thief on facebook and spreading his picture far and wide" when, for all I know... you lost your phone and didn't realize it, and he found it, or someone else stole it and left it laying around somewhere so he wouldn't get caught and this kid picked it up.

Is it highly likely the kid stole it? Sure. But I'm not going to ruin someone's good name and convict them in the court of public opinion when they can't speak up in their own defense.


...which is why she said "this is the likely culprit", and not "this is absolutely, definitely the dirty rotten thief".
 
2013-02-27 11:03:44 AM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Many outlets don't even mention that the principal told the kid to delete the video

[citation needed]

ABC news seems to be a pretty big news outlet. Is the problem that the Bumblefark News and Fish Wrapper Weekly, and "Billy Bob's Blog He Done Writed All By Hisself" didn't report it? I'm always perplexed by complaints about how "no one is talking about X," and then points to a news story about X.


The linked article has just one mention of it, in the 9th paragraph, a quote from the girl herself. I'd think an authority figure ordering a witness to delete evidence would be the headline, but what do I know?
 
2013-02-27 11:08:37 AM

Earguy: Future Fark:  Student charged under illegal surveillance and violation of privacy laws.


I am betting that the school uses video cameras already, for monitoring hallways, parking lots, etc..  And thus, they have the required California warning signs posted that these premises are under video monitoring, etc..

And, thus, the student's taping is covered, because the teacher had warning.  The warning is not specific to the one posting, it is generic to the area being taped.
 
2013-02-27 11:22:00 AM
I grew up in Linden, small farming community.

My favorite part of the story is that the teacher is a "30 year veteran"...meaning that the woman is in her 50s. What the hell??? If at 50 your moral compass is so ascew that you are stealing from your students...you are a real piece of crap.
 
2013-02-27 11:28:58 AM
jesuschristmarie
 
2013-02-27 11:30:59 AM
To be fair to the principal, the story could be that they didn't want someone posting this all over the 'net, and that the teacher would get adequately investigated, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was an attempted coverup.

Also, did all of the "other" news outlets go off of the same interview? Maybe it hadn't come up before.

Good for the student, I can't believe nobody noticed her in that locker. Holy fark, she might as well have been sitting on the bench.

...And California has some pretty odd privacy laws, not sure the teacher's lawyer won't try for an "illegal recording" type of approach. Just having signs might not cover it, otherwise, that would mean that we'd see hosted 'toilet cams' from California places, and nothing could be done about it.
 
2013-02-27 11:31:00 AM

technicolor-misfit: JustGetItRight: Earguy: Future Fark:  Student charged under illegal surveillance and violation of privacy laws.

Probably not in this case.  Federal law requires one party knowledge.  California is a two party state, but has some exceptions for recording criminal activity.

I would also assume the teacher has no legal expectation of privacy in full public view at her place of employment (which further happens to be a public institution).

Just because she happened to be alone in the locker room (so she thought) doesn't mean it's a private place.


I almost added that too, but since it was in a locker room there's probably an expectation of privacy.

WhyKnot: My favorite part of the story is that the teacher is a "30 year veteran"...meaning that the woman is in her 50s. What the hell??? If at 50 your moral compass is so ascew that you are stealing from your students...you are a real piece of crap.


Maybe a legit mental health issue.  I once worked for an organization who's head made close to $200,000 in Alabama in the early 1990s.  Her husband was an even higher paid attorney.

Came to work one morning and picked up the paper to read that she'd been arrested for shoplifting $300 worth of clothes and trinkets from local store.  Turns out she'd been doing it for a couple of years, her husband had been coming in later and making it right, but the store finally got tired of putting up with it.

She was in her mid 50s, very smart, and very professional but something in her mind just went click every so often and she couldn't resist the urge to steal.

Legit mental health problem or not, she's got to go.  You can't have a teacher that's stolen from students on staff.
 
2013-02-27 11:40:24 AM
This might have really gotten interesting if she had not told the principal she already forwarded the video and instead "deleted" it in front of him as he asked.  Had she done that, we could get to see with 100% certainty what the intention was in asking her to delete the video.
 
2013-02-27 11:40:57 AM

Mikey1969: To be fair to the principal, the story could be that they didn't want someone posting this all over the 'net, and that the teacher would get adequately investigated, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was an attempted coverup.



And if the "investigation" shows no wrongdoing, what then?

Student: But I saw the teacher rummaging through the backpacks. I even showed you the video.
Principal: What video?
 
2013-02-27 11:49:19 AM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Many outlets don't even mention that the principal told the kid to delete the video

[citation needed]

ABC news seems to be a pretty big news outlet. Is the problem that the Bumblefark News and Fish Wrapper Weekly, and "Billy Bob's Blog He Done Writed All By Hisself" didn't report it? I'm always perplexed by complaints about how "no one is talking about X," and then points to a news story about X.


CNN ran the story this morning around 6:45am, and there was no mention of the principal requesting deletion.  It wasn't until I was looking for a link to submit that the principal/deletion thing was mentioned, and on the ABC article it was included in the interview, but not addressed as an issue.

/submitter
 
2013-02-27 11:59:25 AM

HMS_Blinkin: How did the teacher not see the girl hiding in the locker?  The video shows where she hid, and it wasn't all that subtle.

/good for the kids for standing up for themselves.


People get into habits and stop paying attention to things around them, it's just human nature to "streamline" those interactions that we repeat often. The criminality of the act has no bearing on whether or not you pay attention to things around you, especially if you're the kind of teacher that'd steal from your students.
 
2013-02-27 12:00:15 PM
Not suspended for video taping in girls locker room?
Whats this world coming to?
 
2013-02-27 12:01:15 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: There are many reasons to stow away in a girls locker room with a camera phone. Spying on a gym teacher ranks low on the list.


What if said gym teacher is a hot blonde with big jugs having an affair with the 18 year old captain of the cheerleading team?

/ for those of you following along at home; that's 2 hot chicks, over the age of 18, havin' an affair
 
2013-02-27 12:20:34 PM

JustGetItRight: WhyKnot: My favorite part of the story is that the teacher is a "30 year veteran"...meaning that the woman is in her 50s. What the hell??? If at 50 your moral compass is so ascew that you are stealing from your students...you are a real piece of crap.

Maybe a legit mental health issue. I once worked for an organization who's head made close to $200,000 in Alabama in the early 1990s. Her husband was an even higher paid attorney.

Came to work one morning and picked up the paper to read that she'd been arrested for shoplifting $300 worth of clothes and trinkets from local store. Turns out she'd been doing it for a couple of years, her husband had been coming in later and making it right, but the store finally got tired of putting up with it.

She was in her mid 50s, very smart, and very professional but something in her mind just went click every so often and she couldn't resist the urge to steal.



Indeed. Google 'Kleptomania'.
 
2013-02-27 12:46:40 PM

Mikey1969: To be fair to the principal, the story could be that they didn't want someone posting this all over the 'net, and that the teacher would get adequately investigated, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was an attempted coverup.


Nice attempt to be fair, but assuming the story is reasonably accurate it was a coverup attempt.   The sole proper action for the principal to have taken once viewing the video would have been to immediately pick up the phone and call the police.

She didn't video him sleeping on the job or helping a kid cheat on a test, she videoed him committing theft.  That's not a violation of policy to be dealt with administratively, it is a crime and any investigation is the responsibility of the police.

Nope, he did what every good school administrator tries to do - get rid of the evidence because it will make his school look bad.  Hopefully, there's a mandatory reporting law that can get him charged too.
 
2013-02-27 12:59:48 PM

fredklein: technicolor-misfit: I can't exactly disagree with the principal. I'm not a big fan of "justice by social media."

Similarly, a friend's wife had her iPhone go missing at the school she teaches at, and shortly thereafter, some kid's face shows up on her facebook page, posted from her phone, and she saves it and reposts it saying:

"My phone was stolen today at school and this is the likely culprit. Does anyone know who this is? Local friends, please repost this."

All I could think was... "sorry, I'm not branding some kid a thief on facebook and spreading his picture far and wide" when, for all I know... you lost your phone and didn't realize it, and he found it, or someone else stole it and left it laying around somewhere so he wouldn't get caught and this kid picked it up.

Is it highly likely the kid stole it? Sure. But I'm not going to ruin someone's good name and convict them in the court of public opinion when they can't speak up in their own defense.

...which is why she said "this is the likely culprit", and not "this is absolutely, definitely the dirty rotten thief".



Without better evidence that "this is the likely culprit," I wouldn't say "this is the likely culprit."

Had she said "we believe this young man may be in possession of the phone," I might have shared it.

It's every bit as likely that some other kid took the phone and then ditched it for fear of getting caught. And I'm not going to hang the label of "thief" around some 13 year old's neck EVEN WITH just enough distancing legalese to protect me from a libel suit.
 
2013-02-27 01:16:41 PM

technicolor-misfit: fredklein: technicolor-misfit: I can't exactly disagree with the principal. I'm not a big fan of "justice by social media."

Similarly, a friend's wife had her iPhone go missing at the school she teaches at, and shortly thereafter, some kid's face shows up on her facebook page, posted from her phone, and she saves it and reposts it saying:

"My phone was stolen today at school and this is the likely culprit. Does anyone know who this is? Local friends, please repost this."

All I could think was... "sorry, I'm not branding some kid a thief on facebook and spreading his picture far and wide" when, for all I know... you lost your phone and didn't realize it, and he found it, or someone else stole it and left it laying around somewhere so he wouldn't get caught and this kid picked it up.

Is it highly likely the kid stole it? Sure. But I'm not going to ruin someone's good name and convict them in the court of public opinion when they can't speak up in their own defense.

...which is why she said "this is the likely culprit", and not "this is absolutely, definitely the dirty rotten thief".


Without better evidence that "this is the likely culprit," I wouldn't say "this is the likely culprit."

Had she said "we believe this young man may be in possession of the phone," I might have shared it.

It's every bit as likely that some other kid took the phone and then ditched it for fear of getting caught. And I'm not going to hang the label of "thief" around some 13 year old's neck EVEN WITH just enough distancing legalese to protect me from a libel suit.


Dude. Life gets a LOT easier once you stop caring about right, wrong, or other people.
 
2013-02-27 01:18:47 PM

HMS_Blinkin:
How did the teacher not see the girl hiding in the locker?  The video shows where she hid, and it wasn't all that subtle.

/good for the kids for standing up for themselves.


She may have been wearing darker clothes.  Besides, I'd never think a teenage human could fit into one of those half-lockers.

randomjsa: I am not the least bit surprised that the principals first reaction is to try and cover it up. Part of the problem in our schools is this systematic and union driven "We Do No Wrong" system that is almost as corrupt as the cops.


Yes I'm sure it is all the union's fault, you festering anal boil.
 
2013-02-27 01:22:40 PM
the student in question?
collider.com
 
2013-02-27 01:23:04 PM

Keeve: Girls' locker room video disappoints


farm9.staticflickr.com
I'll get the ball rolling.
 
2013-02-27 01:37:35 PM
No Porky's yet?
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-27 01:45:39 PM

randomjsa: I am not the least bit surprised that the principals first reaction is to try and cover it up. Part of the problem in our schools is this systematic and union driven "We Do No Wrong" system that is almost as corrupt as the cops.


I'll usually be the first to bash a union, but this isn't union.  It is school administrator.

Alabama's teachers and school administrators aren't union in the traditional sense (no collective bargaining) and their first reaction would exactly the same thing.

It is a combination of a protect the kingdom mentality and some kind of twisted thinking that leads them to believe that the law simply stops at the border of their campus and/or the door to their classroom and thus they can simply do whatever suits them.
 
2013-02-27 02:24:15 PM
maybe the video on the site is from the 2nd camera the student set up
 
2013-02-27 02:40:39 PM
Typical Democrats at work. One steals, the other hides the theft, but both are sure they're still victims.
 
2013-02-27 02:49:42 PM
Administrator trying to cover up evidence?  That's good for a promotion.  My alma mater had an issue a few years after I graduated, while I was employed there, where some members of the football team allegedly violated another member with a wooden dildo.  The principal retrieved the dildo from the locker room and got rid of it, never to be found.  The next year he was relieved of his position, and promoted with a fat raise to the district office.
 
2013-02-27 02:50:13 PM
gallery.webwhitenoise.com

Hidden girl's gym room camera footage, you say?
 
2013-02-27 02:54:31 PM

technicolor-misfit: I can't exactly disagree with the principal. I'm not a big fan of "justice by social media."


Hi Judge Dugan. How's your day going? Handling the press ok?
 
2013-02-27 03:10:39 PM

You Are All Sheep: Barfmaker: Earguy: Future Fark:  Student charged under illegal surveillance and violation of privacy laws.

In some places I believe she could be charged for illegal wiretapping, maybe that's if there's audio on the video.

Yea if they let this stand we'll be able to video cops everywhere without them having legal recourse to taze.


It  seems to be legal to record public officials in public places performing public functions.  But officially, stealing and beating up citizens are not public functions, so perhaps such activities are protected.

/No? OK
 
2013-02-27 03:12:34 PM

JustGetItRight: Mikey1969: To be fair to the principal, the story could be that they didn't want someone posting this all over the 'net, and that the teacher would get adequately investigated, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was an attempted coverup.

Nice attempt to be fair, but assuming the story is reasonably accurate it was a coverup attempt.   The sole proper action for the principal to have taken once viewing the video would have been to immediately pick up the phone and call the police.

She didn't video him sleeping on the job or helping a kid cheat on a test, she videoed him committing theft.  That's not a violation of policy to be dealt with administratively, it is a crime and any investigation is the responsibility of the police.

Nope, he did what every good school administrator tries to do - get rid of the evidence because it will make his school look bad.  Hopefully, there's a mandatory reporting law that can get him charged too.


Witness tampering and attempted destruction of evidence.
 
2013-02-27 03:14:35 PM

Vernon Freedom: Maybe if she put her backpack in her locker instead of putting herself in her locker this could have been avoided. If it wasn't for people like her,there wouldn't be any thievery in this world, would there?


So would you blame someone for stealing your mower if you left it in the garage with the door up while you were in the back yard?

Or would that be your fault for not locking your stuff down like fort knox.....


My take on it is if you don't own it leave it the fark alone. Just because you can get to something doesn't mean you can take it. This biatch be stealing and EVERYONE hates a thief (unless you're also a thief...)
 
2013-02-27 03:20:15 PM

BarkingUnicorn: JustGetItRight: Mikey1969: To be fair to the principal, the story could be that they didn't want someone posting this all over the 'net, and that the teacher would get adequately investigated, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was an attempted coverup.

Nice attempt to be fair, but assuming the story is reasonably accurate it was a coverup attempt.   The sole proper action for the principal to have taken once viewing the video would have been to immediately pick up the phone and call the police.

She didn't video him sleeping on the job or helping a kid cheat on a test, she videoed him committing theft.  That's not a violation of policy to be dealt with administratively, it is a crime and any investigation is the responsibility of the police.

Nope, he did what every good school administrator tries to do - get rid of the evidence because it will make his school look bad.  Hopefully, there's a mandatory reporting law that can get him charged too.

Witness tampering and attempted destruction of evidence.


Bullshiat. Power does what it wants.
 
2013-02-27 03:45:12 PM

technicolor-misfit: I can't exactly disagree with the principal. I'm not a big fan of "justice by social media."

Similarly, a friend's wife had her iPhone go missing at the school she teaches at, and shortly thereafter, some kid's face shows up on her facebook page, posted from her phone, and she saves it and reposts it saying:

"My phone was stolen today at school and this is the likely culprit. Does anyone know who this is? Local friends, please repost this."

All I could think was... "sorry, I'm not branding some kid a thief on facebook and spreading his picture far and wide" when, for all I know... you lost your phone and didn't realize it, and he found it, or someone else stole it and left it laying around somewhere so he wouldn't get caught and this kid picked it up.

Is it highly likely the kid stole it? Sure. But I'm not going to ruin someone's good name and convict them in the court of public opinion when they can't speak up in their own defense.


In any of the scenarios you put forward, the kid is guilty of theft.

Unless the phone is at the lost and found, or unless the thief took a picture of someone else.  But you didn't put forward either of those options.  I wonder if that's because you think if you find a phone, you get to keep it?  That makes you a thief too.
 
2013-02-27 03:52:41 PM
This idea that people under the age of 18 are not entitled to the same access to justice as adults has got to stop. It is not the principal's decision to make, if the students want to proceed with the accusation against the theif that stole their belongings. If the teacher rummaged through the principal's desk or purse, I'm sure they would react much differently.

I am kind of bitter about this subject, as someone who was sentanced to time in a facility at 16 with no crime committed, just one adult's suggestion that I be put away for awhile. I was not allowed to speak in my own defense and no evidence was offered at my 30 second "hearing".

These are two different situations, I know...but the idea that minors are not automatically granted the same police protection and/or rights is really disturbing to me.
 
2013-02-27 03:55:32 PM
It looks like the teacher is just pilfering loose change she thinks won't be noticed missing...It's not like she's opening wallets and taking out wads of cash.
 
2013-02-27 04:28:24 PM

technicolor-misfit: I can't exactly disagree with the principal. I'm not a big fan of "justice by social media."

Similarly, a friend's wife had her iPhone go missing at the school she teaches at, and shortly thereafter, some kid's face shows up on her facebook page, posted from her phone, and she saves it and reposts it saying:

"My phone was stolen today at school and this is the likely culprit. Does anyone know who this is? Local friends, please repost this."

All I could think was... "sorry, I'm not branding some kid a thief on facebook and spreading his picture far and wide" when, for all I know... you lost your phone and didn't realize it, and he found it, or someone else stole it and left it laying around somewhere so he wouldn't get caught and this kid picked it up.

Is it highly likely the kid stole it? Sure. But I'm not going to ruin someone's good name and convict them in the court of public opinion when they can't speak up in their own defense.


Yep, the principal was acting exactly like a responsible leader should. He had seen the evidence himself, and since he would have to be the one to proceed in the situation, there was no need for the video to make it out into the world were it would be sensationalized...Which is exactly what happened, and why a bunch of Farkers are commenting on it.
 
2013-02-27 04:29:31 PM

technicolor-misfit: I can't exactly disagree with the principal. I'm not a big fan of "justice by social media."

Similarly, a friend's wife had her iPhone go missing at the school she teaches at, and shortly thereafter, some kid's face shows up on her facebook page, posted from her phone, and she saves it and reposts it saying:

"My phone was stolen today at school and this is the likely culprit. Does anyone know who this is? Local friends, please repost this."

All I could think was... "sorry, I'm not branding some kid a thief on facebook and spreading his picture far and wide" when, for all I know... you lost your phone and didn't realize it, and he found it, or someone else stole it and left it laying around somewhere so he wouldn't get caught and this kid picked it up.

Is it highly likely the kid stole it? Sure. But I'm not going to ruin someone's good name and convict them in the court of public opinion when they can't speak up in their own defense.


Trolling? DNRTFA? Dumb? Can't tell.
 
2013-02-27 04:39:12 PM

lostcat: Yep, the principal was acting exactly like a responsible leader should. He had seen the evidence himself, and since he would have to be the one to proceed in the situation, there was no need for the video to make it out into the world were it would be sensationalized...Which is exactly what happened, and why a bunch of Farkers are commenting on it.


I hope my sarcasm meter is broken.  A leader would call the police and turn over the evidence.

A school administrator (who are typically as far from leaders as one can get) will attempt to make the problem go away and hide the evidence.  For reference, see State of Pennsylvania v. Graham B. Spanier.
 
2013-02-27 04:40:53 PM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-02-27 04:44:04 PM

JustGetItRight: lostcat: Yep, the principal was acting exactly like a responsible leader should. He had seen the evidence himself, and since he would have to be the one to proceed in the situation, there was no need for the video to make it out into the world were it would be sensationalized...Which is exactly what happened, and why a bunch of Farkers are commenting on it.

I hope my sarcasm meter is broken.  A leader would call the police and turn over the evidence.


... Why the hell would they do that?
 
2013-02-27 04:46:27 PM

lostcat: He had seen the evidence himself, and since he would have to be the one to proceed in the situation[...]



No, the police are the ones who investigate crimes, even those that occur on school property.

But even if the principal was going to properly investigate, and take the correct course of action based on the evidence, what possible benefit is there to destroying the video?

Teacher: Your honor, I was wrongly terminated because I was falsely accused of stealing money.

Judge: Mr. Principal, did you have evidence that Ms. Teacher stole money?

Principal: Yes your honor, I had a video.

Judge: Can you show it to the court?

Principal: No, I destroyed it.
 
2013-02-27 04:47:18 PM
It is a difference in degree but not kind between "delete the video and let us handle this quietly" and "Tell Sandusky not to bring kids into the locker room anymore, and let's handle this quietly."
 
2013-02-27 04:49:40 PM

ko_kyi: It is a difference in degree but not kind between "delete the video and let us handle this quietly" and "Tell Sandusky not to bring kids into the locker room anymore, and let's handle this quietly."


And "just classify all the evidence and don't tell the American public, let's handle this quietly."
 
2013-02-27 04:50:29 PM

JustGetItRight: lostcat: Yep, the principal was acting exactly like a responsible leader should. He had seen the evidence himself, and since he would have to be the one to proceed in the situation, there was no need for the video to make it out into the world were it would be sensationalized...Which is exactly what happened, and why a bunch of Farkers are commenting on it.

I hope my sarcasm meter is broken.  A leader would call the police and turn over the evidence.

A school administrator (who are typically as far from leaders as one can get) will attempt to make the problem go away and hide the evidence.  For reference, see State of Pennsylvania v. Graham B. Spanier.


I'm not sure where you work, but in most places of business, employers avoid bringing the police in on internal situations like this (i.e. petty theft). But if you think the answer to all problems is to get the police involved, get your employees arrested, create a scandal around your organization, create an outraged parents group, then by all means...Have fun.
 
2013-02-27 04:56:51 PM

ialdabaoth: ko_kyi: It is a difference in degree but not kind between "delete the video and let us handle this quietly" and "Tell Sandusky not to bring kids into the locker room anymore, and let's handle this quietly."

And "just classify all the evidence and don't tell the American public, let's handle this quietly."


A teacher stealing cash out of students' backpacks.
Iran-Contra.

Yes, I see the similarities.
 
2013-02-27 04:57:09 PM

liam76: Well hopefully the union steps in and defends this teacher from this witch hunt.


3/10
 
2013-02-27 04:58:22 PM

lostcat: JustGetItRight: lostcat: Yep, the principal was acting exactly like a responsible leader should. He had seen the evidence himself, and since he would have to be the one to proceed in the situation, there was no need for the video to make it out into the world were it would be sensationalized...Which is exactly what happened, and why a bunch of Farkers are commenting on it.

I hope my sarcasm meter is broken.  A leader would call the police and turn over the evidence.

A school administrator (who are typically as far from leaders as one can get) will attempt to make the problem go away and hide the evidence.  For reference, see State of Pennsylvania v. Graham B. Spanier.

I'm not sure where you work, but in most places of business, employers avoid bringing the police in on internal situations like this (i.e. petty theft). But if you think the answer to all problems is to get the police involved, get your employees arrested, create a scandal around your organization, create an outraged parents group, then by all means...Have fun.



The school administrators are usually quick about calling police on students suspected of the same crime, so why shouldn't the police be called when it's a teacher committing the theft?
 
2013-02-27 05:16:23 PM

randomjsa: I am not the least bit surprised that the principals first reaction is to try and cover it up. Part of the problem in our schools is this systematic and union driven "We Do No Wrong" system that is almost as corrupt as the cops.


You just HAD to throw a union jab in there didn't ya, Skippy? The probable reasoning is that the principal wanted to not have his school get negative press, and would have rather handled the teacher internally. Now, I'm not excusing that awful kind of reasoning. I think that both the principal and the teacher should be fired. But it wasn't anything to do with the union; It was about the reputation of the school that the principal was freaking out about. Wrong-headed and stupid, certainly. But, you being you, decided to blame it on "union thugs".
 
2013-02-27 05:33:45 PM

the ha ha guy: lostcat: JustGetItRight: lostcat: Yep, the principal was acting exactly like a responsible leader should. He had seen the evidence himself, and since he would have to be the one to proceed in the situation, there was no need for the video to make it out into the world were it would be sensationalized...Which is exactly what happened, and why a bunch of Farkers are commenting on it.

I hope my sarcasm meter is broken.  A leader would call the police and turn over the evidence.

A school administrator (who are typically as far from leaders as one can get) will attempt to make the problem go away and hide the evidence.  For reference, see State of Pennsylvania v. Graham B. Spanier.

I'm not sure where you work, but in most places of business, employers avoid bringing the police in on internal situations like this (i.e. petty theft). But if you think the answer to all problems is to get the police involved, get your employees arrested, create a scandal around your organization, create an outraged parents group, then by all means...Have fun.


The school administrators are usually quick about calling police on students suspected of the same crime, so why shouldn't the police be called when it's a teacher committing the theft?


I see. You are just making assertions based on your emotional response to something about these stores. You tell me that something "usually" happens, and then cite one, sensationalized story that appeared here on Fark as proof to support your assertion.

The very fact that the administrator in your example made a bad decision is seen in the fact that the story made it to Fark. In this case, the principal was (hopefully) trying to handle the incident internally without bringing a lot of negative publicity to a school. The video was leaked anyway, and here we are...Getting our panties all wadded because of what happened.
 
2013-02-27 05:34:59 PM

lostcat: JustGetItRight: lostcat: Yep, the principal was acting exactly like a responsible leader should. He had seen the evidence himself, and since he would have to be the one to proceed in the situation, there was no need for the video to make it out into the world were it would be sensationalized...Which is exactly what happened, and why a bunch of Farkers are commenting on it.

I hope my sarcasm meter is broken.  A leader would call the police and turn over the evidence.

A school administrator (who are typically as far from leaders as one can get) will attempt to make the problem go away and hide the evidence.  For reference, see State of Pennsylvania v. Graham B. Spanier.

I'm not sure where you work, but in most places of business, employers avoid bringing the police in on internal situations like this (i.e. petty theft). But if you think the answer to all problems is to get the police involved, get your employees arrested, create a scandal around your organization, create an outraged parents group, then by all means...Have fun.


Wow, you sure managed to pack a lot of fail in two sentences.

If the employee was stealing the change out of the coke machine or swiping and reselling selling toner cartridges, the decision to handle administratively would be perfectly appropriate but the employer isn't the victim here so whether to involve the police or not isn't their call. The decision to involve law enforcement rests solely in the hands of the people who were robbed.  In this case the victims were not even fellow employees but students - minors entrusted to the care of the school.

SO, if you're a school administrator and decide to cover up crimes your employees commit against students, enjoy the hell out of trying to cover it up, seeing the police involved anyhow, watching your employees and maybe you also arrested, creating even further embarrassment for your organization, having outraged parents AND facing potential civil actions for failing to properly protect the minor students under your care.

As for me, I'll just stick with doing the right thing and call the victim's parents and cops.
 
2013-02-27 05:39:12 PM
I'm not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that the police only need to be brought into a theft case where the thief has been identified if the other party decides to press charges.

The police don't need to be notified of a situation if the parties affected work out an agreement. Granted, many people work it out by saying, "I'm calling the police." They are not "moral overseers" who have to be aware of every wrongdoing.
 
2013-02-27 05:43:38 PM

JustGetItRight: lostcat: JustGetItRight: lostcat: Yep, the principal was acting exactly like a responsible leader should. He had seen the evidence himself, and since he would have to be the one to proceed in the situation, there was no need for the video to make it out into the world were it would be sensationalized...Which is exactly what happened, and why a bunch of Farkers are commenting on it.

I hope my sarcasm meter is broken.  A leader would call the police and turn over the evidence.

A school administrator (who are typically as far from leaders as one can get) will attempt to make the problem go away and hide the evidence.  For reference, see State of Pennsylvania v. Graham B. Spanier.

I'm not sure where you work, but in most places of business, employers avoid bringing the police in on internal situations like this (i.e. petty theft). But if you think the answer to all problems is to get the police involved, get your employees arrested, create a scandal around your organization, create an outraged parents group, then by all means...Have fun.

Wow, you sure managed to pack a lot of fail in two sentences.

If the employee was stealing the change out of the coke machine or swiping and reselling selling toner cartridges, the decision to handle administratively would be perfectly appropriate but the employer isn't the victim here so whether to involve the police or not isn't their call. The decision to involve law enforcement rests solely in the hands of the people who were robbed.  In this case the victims were not even fellow employees but students - minors entrusted to the care of the school.

SO, if you're a school administrator and decide to cover up crimes your employees commit against students, enjoy the hell out of trying to cover it up, seeing the police involved anyhow, watching your employees and maybe you also arrested, creating even further embarrassment for your organization, having outraged parents AND facing potential civil actions for failing to properly prot ...


Who said he was trying to cover up anything? You are just assuming that. Just as I'm assuming that he wanted to try to get everyone involved together to work through the problem privately rather than turn it into a public circus, with students being distracted by the possible need to appear in public court to testify against a (well-liked) teacher.

A good administrator is going to try to avoid that situation and handle something like this privately.

Again, I say that if you would prefer to have the police cars pull up to the school, have the police wander the halls, have students questioned, have the teacher lead away by police in handcuffs, then you probably wouldn't be very popular with the school board that appointed you.
 
2013-02-27 05:44:26 PM

lostcat: I'm not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that the police only need to be brought into a theft case where the thief has been identified if the other party decides to press charges.

The police don't need to be notified of a situation if the parties affected work out an agreement. Granted, many people work it out by saying, "I'm calling the police." They are not "moral overseers" who have to be aware of every wrongdoing.


Correct, but you're still missing the point.  The administrator couldn't work out anything.  He wasn't the victim and yet he took it upon himself to attempt to destroy evidence possessed by the actual victim - a minor.

At the VERY LEAST, he should have called the victim's parents.  Since this a) appears to have not been a one time incident and b) he's probably governed by some form of mandatory reporting he should have also called the police.
 
2013-02-27 05:49:01 PM

lostcat: Who said he was trying to cover up anything? You are just assuming that. Just as I'm assuming that he wanted to try to get everyone involved together to work through the problem privately rather than turn it into a public circus, with students being distracted by the possible need to appear in public court to testify against a (well-liked) teacher.

A good administrator is going to try to avoid that situation and handle something like this privately.

Again, I say that if you would prefer to have the police cars pull up to the school, have the police wander the halls, have students questioned, have the teacher lead away by police in handcuffs, then you probably wouldn't be very popular with the school board that appointed you.


And again, HE DOES NOT HAVE EITHER THE RIGHT OR THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION.  HE WAS NOT THE VICTIM.

By attempting to get the evidence of a crime destroyed, he has himself committed a crime.

And by the way, attempting to 'work through the problem privately' is the very definition of a cover up.
 
2013-02-27 05:53:08 PM

lostcat: the ha ha guy: lostcat: JustGetItRight: lostcat: Yep, the principal was acting exactly like a responsible leader should. He had seen the evidence himself, and since he would have to be the one to proceed in the situation, there was no need for the video to make it out into the world were it would be sensationalized...Which is exactly what happened, and why a bunch of Farkers are commenting on it.

I hope my sarcasm meter is broken.  A leader would call the police and turn over the evidence.

A school administrator (who are typically as far from leaders as one can get) will attempt to make the problem go away and hide the evidence.  For reference, see State of Pennsylvania v. Graham B. Spanier.

I'm not sure where you work, but in most places of business, employers avoid bringing the police in on internal situations like this (i.e. petty theft). But if you think the answer to all problems is to get the police involved, get your employees arrested, create a scandal around your organization, create an outraged parents group, then by all means...Have fun.


The school administrators are usually quick about calling police on students suspected of the same crime, so why shouldn't the police be called when it's a teacher committing the theft?

I see. You are just making assertions based on your emotional response to something about these stores. You tell me that something "usually" happens, and then cite one, sensationalized story that appeared here on Fark as proof to support your assertion.

The very fact that the administrator in your example made a bad decision is seen in the fact that the story made it to Fark. In this case, the principal was (hopefully) trying to handle the incident internally without bringing a lot of negative publicity to a school. The video was leaked anyway, and here we are...Getting our panties all wadded because of what happened.



And you're assuming that he would have an impartial investigation despite destroying the evidence after only one viewing, without allowing anyone else involved to see the evidence that he based his findings on, and without retaining even one copy of the evidence he would need to defend the school against a wrongful termination lawsuit.

You know how cops will sometimes demand that people delete video from their phones when caught beating someone into a pulp? I bet you think they're just trying to protect the sanctity of the Internal Investigation too...
 
2013-02-27 05:58:59 PM

JustGetItRight: lostcat: I'm not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that the police only need to be brought into a theft case where the thief has been identified if the other party decides to press charges.

The police don't need to be notified of a situation if the parties affected work out an agreement. Granted, many people work it out by saying, "I'm calling the police." They are not "moral overseers" who have to be aware of every wrongdoing.

Correct, but you're still missing the point.  The administrator couldn't work out anything.  He wasn't the victim and yet he took it upon himself to attempt to destroy evidence possessed by the actual victim - a minor.

At the VERY LEAST, he should have called the victim's parents.  Since this a) appears to have not been a one time incident and b) he's probably governed by some form of mandatory reporting he should have also called the police.


Again you are assuming that the principal, or superintendent, was not planning on taking any action.

According to the article, the teacher is on administrative leave, and the school district is investigating the matter.

"The teacher is on administrative leave,. The Linden School District told ABCNews.com that it is investigating the matter, but the superintendent did not immediately respond to requests for further information."

There is nothing in the story to indicate how much time has passed since the student showed the video to the principal. It could have been just a couple of days, it could have been weeks. But you are assuming that the principal just sat on the information and was planning to do nothing. Again, I'm not sure where you are coming up with this assumption. I think that something like this would warrant some consideration before contacting parents. You might want to try to verify who had money stolen and who just said that they had money stolen. The stakes are also high. Someone's job is on the line, and you don't know if this teacher has some sort of behavioral issue that might mitigate the situation.

Again...Escalating this to a public incident with the police involved is something that most people would want to avoid, especially with minors involved in the situation.
 
2013-02-27 06:03:00 PM

JustGetItRight: lostcat: Who said he was trying to cover up anything? You are just assuming that. Just as I'm assuming that he wanted to try to get everyone involved together to work through the problem privately rather than turn it into a public circus, with students being distracted by the possible need to appear in public court to testify against a (well-liked) teacher.

A good administrator is going to try to avoid that situation and handle something like this privately.

Again, I say that if you would prefer to have the police cars pull up to the school, have the police wander the halls, have students questioned, have the teacher lead away by police in handcuffs, then you probably wouldn't be very popular with the school board that appointed you.

And again, HE DOES NOT HAVE EITHER THE RIGHT OR THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION.  HE WAS NOT THE VICTIM.

By attempting to get the evidence of a crime destroyed, he has himself committed a crime.

And by the way, attempting to 'work through the problem privately' is the very definition of a cover up.


No he's not the victim, but he is the representative of the school to the parents. In a way he is responsible for the crime. If he can go to the parents and explain the situation, he may avoid a public situation. He may not. Some parents may choose to press charges, but at least he had the opportunity to go to them and explain the situation, and offer some course of action that didn't involve the courts and their minor children getting articles written about them.
 
2013-02-27 06:05:40 PM
Cover up?

So when you get into an accident with an uninsured driver and agree to settle the matter without notifying the police and your insurance company, is that a cover up?

If somebody steals something from me and I catch them and demand that they give it back, and they do, and I choose not to get the police involved, is that a cover up?

If you think those situations are "cover ups" then I can see why you think that the principal not calling the police in before doing his own investigation is a cover up.
 
2013-02-27 06:08:04 PM

the ha ha guy: lostcat: the ha ha guy: lostcat: JustGetItRight: lostcat: Yep, the principal was acting exactly like a responsible leader should. He had seen the evidence himself, and since he would have to be the one to proceed in the situation, there was no need for the video to make it out into the world were it would be sensationalized...Which is exactly what happened, and why a bunch of Farkers are commenting on it.

I hope my sarcasm meter is broken.  A leader would call the police and turn over the evidence.

A school administrator (who are typically as far from leaders as one can get) will attempt to make the problem go away and hide the evidence.  For reference, see State of Pennsylvania v. Graham B. Spanier.

I'm not sure where you work, but in most places of business, employers avoid bringing the police in on internal situations like this (i.e. petty theft). But if you think the answer to all problems is to get the police involved, get your employees arrested, create a scandal around your organization, create an outraged parents group, then by all means...Have fun.


The school administrators are usually quick about calling police on students suspected of the same crime, so why shouldn't the police be called when it's a teacher committing the theft?

I see. You are just making assertions based on your emotional response to something about these stores. You tell me that something "usually" happens, and then cite one, sensationalized story that appeared here on Fark as proof to support your assertion.

The very fact that the administrator in your example made a bad decision is seen in the fact that the story made it to Fark. In this case, the principal was (hopefully) trying to handle the incident internally without bringing a lot of negative publicity to a school. The video was leaked anyway, and here we are...Getting our panties all wadded because of what happened.


And you're assuming that he would have an impartial investigation despite destroying the evidence after o ...


And you're assuming that he wouldn't have an impartial investigation?

What does that say about you and me?
 
2013-02-27 06:13:13 PM

lostcat: And you're assuming that he wouldn't have an impartial investigation?



No, I'm assuming that he CANNOT have an impartial investigation, because by definition an investigation with no evidence cannot be impartial.

Regardless, what right does a school administrator have to demand the destruction of other people's property, especially when said property depicts a crime being committed?
 
2013-02-27 06:22:12 PM

the ha ha guy: lostcat: And you're assuming that he wouldn't have an impartial investigation?


No, I'm assuming that he CANNOT have an impartial investigation, because by definition an investigation with no evidence cannot be impartial.

Regardless, what right does a school administrator have to demand the destruction of other people's property, especially when said property depicts a crime being committed?


Again, you are assuming that he "demanded" the destruction of the video. From the article...

"He said that he'll investigate it and he told us to delete the video, but I had already sent it to my dad," she said.

That's paraphrased by the student in an interview with a journalist. There's no real information on which to base the substance of the discussion. He could have said, "I demand that you delete that video or I will suspend you." Or he could have said, "Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Please delete the video, because I don't want it to end up on YouTube before I've had a chance to talk to the teacher and hear her explanation of what she's doing."

Also, I think, based on some other comments, that the principal may have been concerned about the legality of recording video of someone on school grounds without their knowledge or consent. Again, he had all the evidence he needed to confront the teacher (note that she's been suspended).
 
2013-02-27 06:24:25 PM
JustGetItRight:

A school administrator (who are typically as far from leaders as one can get) will attempt to make the problem go away and hide the evidence.  For reference, see State of Pennsylvania v. Graham B. Spanier.

The axe you brought to grind is so hugely obvious that I just can't take anything you say as impartial and considered with logic.
 
2013-02-27 06:36:08 PM

lostcat: Again, he had all the evidence he needed to confront the teacher (note that she's been suspended).



The police are currently investigating, and they will almost certainly want to see the evidence, as would a judge if the case goes to trial.

So, if the principal took it to the police, that invalidates your original assertion that he wanted to keep it quiet.
If the student took it to the police, as appears to be the case, the police investigation itself is likely why she has been suspended.


lostcat: That's paraphrased by the student in an interview with a journalist. There's no real information on which to base the substance of the discussion. He could have said, "I demand that you delete that video or I will suspend you." Or he could have said, "Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Please delete the video, because I don't want it to end up on YouTube before I've had a chance to talk to the teacher and hear her explanation of what she's doing."



The principal knew that the teacher committed a crime. The principal asked for (what he thought was) the only copy of the evidence be destroyed.

Call it what you will, but the principal did knowingly and purposely want to destroy evidence relating to a criminal investigation.
 
2013-02-27 06:39:34 PM

lostcat: JustGetItRight:

A school administrator (who are typically as far from leaders as one can get) will attempt to make the problem go away and hide the evidence.  For reference, see State of Pennsylvania v. Graham B. Spanier.

The axe you brought to grind is so hugely obvious that I just can't take anything you say as impartial and considered with logic.



Ah, so you are a school administrator. It all makes sense now.

I'm sorry I wasted my time responding to your posts, since it's obvious that in your imaginary world administrators are incapable of doing wrong.
 
2013-02-27 06:41:59 PM

the ha ha guy: lostcat: JustGetItRight:

I'm sorry I wasted my time responding to your posts, since it's obvious that in your imaginary world administrators are incapable of doing wrong.


It seems almost axiomatic to me that those who decide what 'right' and 'wrong' are are incapable of doing wrong themselves.
 
2013-02-27 06:45:21 PM

the ha ha guy: lostcat: Again, he had all the evidence he needed to confront the teacher (note that she's been suspended).


The police are currently investigating, and they will almost certainly want to see the evidence, as would a judge if the case goes to trial.

So, if the principal took it to the police, that invalidates your original assertion that he wanted to keep it quiet.
If the student took it to the police, as appears to be the case, the police investigation itself is likely why she has been suspended.


lostcat: That's paraphrased by the student in an interview with a journalist. There's no real information on which to base the substance of the discussion. He could have said, "I demand that you delete that video or I will suspend you." Or he could have said, "Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Please delete the video, because I don't want it to end up on YouTube before I've had a chance to talk to the teacher and hear her explanation of what she's doing."


The principal knew that the teacher committed a crime. The principal asked for (what he thought was) the only copy of the evidence be destroyed.

Call it what you will, but the principal did knowingly and purposely want to destroy evidence relating to a criminal investigation.


There was no criminal investigation.

Do you understand that?

If the student or her father had gone to the police, there would an investigation by the police.

They (or just she) chose to go to the principal. He was the investigator.

Why is that so hard to understand? Do people really just think that the police have to be involved in solving all of our problems?
 
2013-02-27 06:48:38 PM

the ha ha guy: lostcat: JustGetItRight:

A school administrator (who are typically as far from leaders as one can get) will attempt to make the problem go away and hide the evidence.  For reference, see State of Pennsylvania v. Graham B. Spanier.

The axe you brought to grind is so hugely obvious that I just can't take anything you say as impartial and considered with logic.


Ah, so you are a school administrator. It all makes sense now.

I'm sorry I wasted my time responding to your posts, since it's obvious that in your imaginary world administrators are incapable of doing wrong.


I work in marketing for a professional-services firm. Not sure what my career has to do with being able to argue what the right thing to do in a situation is.

In your imaginary world, administrators seem to all be nefarious villains who support the criminal activity of those they manage.

Again, I have to wonder about your extremely negative view  and generalization.
 
2013-02-27 06:52:50 PM

lostcat: the ha ha guy: lostcat: Again, he had all the evidence he needed to confront the teacher (note that she's been suspended).


The police are currently investigating, and they will almost certainly want to see the evidence, as would a judge if the case goes to trial.

So, if the principal took it to the police, that invalidates your original assertion that he wanted to keep it quiet.
If the student took it to the police, as appears to be the case, the police investigation itself is likely why she has been suspended.


lostcat: That's paraphrased by the student in an interview with a journalist. There's no real information on which to base the substance of the discussion. He could have said, "I demand that you delete that video or I will suspend you." Or he could have said, "Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Please delete the video, because I don't want it to end up on YouTube before I've had a chance to talk to the teacher and hear her explanation of what she's doing."


The principal knew that the teacher committed a crime. The principal asked for (what he thought was) the only copy of the evidence be destroyed.

Call it what you will, but the principal did knowingly and purposely want to destroy evidence relating to a criminal investigation.

There was no criminal investigation.

Do you understand that?

If the student or her father had gone to the police, there would an investigation by the police.

They (or just she) chose to go to the principal. He was the investigator.

Why is that so hard to understand? Do people really just think that the police have to be involved in solving all of our problems?



Against my better judgment...

http://www.news10.net/news/article/232343/2/Mastermind-of-student-st in g-tells-her-story

"the Linden School District and the San Joaquin County Sheriff's Department are investigating."

"No criminal charges have yet been filed. That decision will be up to the district attorney."

There is a criminal investigation.

Do you understand that?

Someone did go to the police, there is an investigation by the police.

/But let's not let a silly thing like facts get in the way of your white knighting.
 
2013-02-27 06:57:15 PM

lostcat: In your imaginary world, administrators seem to all be nefarious villains who support the criminal activity of those they manage.



"After all the kids left she stayed in there and went through people's backpacks," Justine said, adding, "I saw her take money and then I told people and nobody believed me."

When she did get proof, she was told to delete it.

Does this sound like the actions of a principal who wants an impartial investigation and is willing to follow up with criminal charges if a crime was committed?
 
2013-02-27 07:01:01 PM

the ha ha guy: lostcat: the ha ha guy: lostcat: Again, he had all the evidence he needed to confront the teacher (note that she's been suspended).


The police are currently investigating, and they will almost certainly want to see the evidence, as would a judge if the case goes to trial.

So, if the principal took it to the police, that invalidates your original assertion that he wanted to keep it quiet.
If the student took it to the police, as appears to be the case, the police investigation itself is likely why she has been suspended.


lostcat: That's paraphrased by the student in an interview with a journalist. There's no real information on which to base the substance of the discussion. He could have said, "I demand that you delete that video or I will suspend you." Or he could have said, "Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Please delete the video, because I don't want it to end up on YouTube before I've had a chance to talk to the teacher and hear her explanation of what she's doing."


The principal knew that the teacher committed a crime. The principal asked for (what he thought was) the only copy of the evidence be destroyed.

Call it what you will, but the principal did knowingly and purposely want to destroy evidence relating to a criminal investigation.

There was no criminal investigation.

Do you understand that?

If the student or her father had gone to the police, there would an investigation by the police.

They (or just she) chose to go to the principal. He was the investigator.

Why is that so hard to understand? Do people really just think that the police have to be involved in solving all of our problems?


Against my better judgment...

http://www.news10.net/news/article/232343/2/Mastermind-of-student-st in g-tells-her-story

"the Linden School District and the San Joaquin County Sheriff's Department are investigating."

"No criminal charges have yet been filed. That decision will be up to the district attorney."

There is a criminal investigation. ...


The article linked at the top of the page mentioned nothing about a police investigation. I'm just going by the facts presented.

Based on the fact that the article you linked to is the local news source itself, while the article linked for this thread is the national news site using the original, local article as a source, I'm guessing that the police joined the investigation at the request of the school district. Especially given that it says that the school district and sheriff's department are investigating.

Sounds to me like the school district decided to get the police involved, or were forced to get the police involved because the whole mess got out of hand after the video was leaked to the press.

Again, is this the best thing for the students at the school? I maintain that handling it privately, with only the affected parties involved, would have been healthier for everyone.
 
2013-02-27 07:02:48 PM

the ha ha guy: lostcat: In your imaginary world, administrators seem to all be nefarious villains who support the criminal activity of those they manage.


"After all the kids left she stayed in there and went through people's backpacks," Justine said, adding, "I saw her take money and then I told people and nobody believed me."

When she did get proof, she was told to delete it.

Does this sound like the actions of a principal who wants an impartial investigation and is willing to follow up with criminal charges if a crime was committed?


I've already addressed this.
 
2013-02-27 07:04:09 PM

JustGetItRight: Earguy: Future Fark:  Student charged under illegal surveillance and violation of privacy laws.

Probably not in this case.  Federal law requires one party knowledge.  California is a two party state, but has some exceptions for recording criminal activity.


For just video recording...it is just one party consent...two party is just for audio recording

That principal wanted the video to cover it up....I work for a school and know all about this type of stuff.....smart for this young lady to send video to her father
 
2013-02-27 07:07:32 PM
fark it, just bring and his parents in for a PTA meeting, douse the kid in gasoline, light him on fire, then turn on the school's PA system and say "anyone who wants to see what happens to dirty snitches, come to S304."
 
2013-02-27 07:15:48 PM

lostcat: I'm guessing that the police joined the investigation at the request of the school district.



If so, this is precisely why the principal should have wanted the original evidence preserved, assuming he wanted justice and not a cover-up.


lostcat: Again, is this the best thing for the students at the school? I maintain that handling it privately, with only the affected parties involved, would have been healthier for everyone.



I believe that if someone is caught committing a crime, their guilt should be proven in a court of law with both sides able to review all the available evidence, not in an independent investigation where the evidence is deleted before the accused is allowed to see it.

And even if the teacher were fired without police involvement, how could the principal defend the school against the inevitable wrongful termination suit? Should the judge really be expected to accept "a student made you a video, but I eated it" as reasonable proof that the termination was justified?

If the investigation would have been impartial, and ended with the teacher being fired, this student's choice to make backups of the video saved the school board tens of thousands of dollars.
If the investigation would have resulted in a cover-up, this student's choice to make backups of the video ensured that the teacher's crimes will not go unpunished.

Regardless of the outcome, backing up the video was the correct course of action for everyone involved, despite the short term inconvenience of having media coverage.
 
2013-02-27 07:39:03 PM

the ha ha guy: I believe that if someone is caught committing a crime, their guilt should be proven in a court of law with both sides able to review all the available evidence, not in an independent investigation where the evidence is deleted before the accused is allowed to see it.


Why? Why do you value 'justice' over power?
 
2013-02-27 07:52:40 PM
the ha ha guy:

Regardless of the outcome, backing up the video was the correct course of action for everyone involved, despite the short term inconvenience of having media coverage.

I never once said that backing up the video was a bad thing to do. I only said that the principal was doing anyone in that position should have done, which was to try to limit the potential for negative exposure for the school, its students and its faculty.

I disagree that anyone committing a crime should be taken to court and publicly declared a criminal.

I prefer to live in a country where if someone commits a minor crime ("petty theft" is the term in California), is discovered, and the two parties involved come to an arrangement, there's no need to get the police involved. The police are not there to be notified of all wrong doing. They are there to handle situations where a crime has been committed and the offender is unknown, or is know and the offended party wishes to press charges (again, for minor infractions, not violent crime).

In fact, I think that if the police see a minor crime (theft) being committed, the party who was stolen from has to press charges in order for them to make an arrest. Maybe I just saw too much TV as a kid. I could always ask the attorneys who sit across the hall from me, but I think they have better things to do with their time.
 
2013-02-27 07:58:30 PM
Next people will be saying that defense attorneys shouldn't defend suspected criminals in court.

Yes, they have to defend people, even if those people are incredibly guilty. It's their job.

It's also the job of PR people for tobacco companies to spin everything so cigarettes don't seem as damaging to health as they are.

It's the job of advertising people to make people want to buy useless crap that they don't need.

It's the job of the principal and superintendent of a public school to protect that school's public image.

Am I happy about any of these? No. But I recognize when someone is doing what they are supposed to be doing based on their job description.
 
2013-02-27 08:13:23 PM

lostcat: I never once said that backing up the video was a bad thing to do. I only said that the principal was doing anyone in that position should have done, which was to try to limit the potential for negative exposure for the school, its students and its faculty.



At the time of the request, the principal had no backup of his own. Thus, he was removing his access to evidence that the school board would need during the inevitable wrongful termination suit.

Would it really be better for the students to have a long drawn out wrongful termination case, complete with the usual "veteran teacher wrongfully fired" media circus that draws, and an inevitable ruling that the school must pay tens of thousands of dollars out of their already nonexistent budget?
 
2013-02-27 08:40:51 PM

randomjsa: I am not the least bit surprised that the principals first reaction is to try and cover it up. Part of the problem in our schools is this systematic and union driven "We Do No Wrong" system that is almost as corrupt as the cops.


I don't get why you're so anti-union. I would think being surrounded by sycophants who defend you unconditionally would be your only chance to succeed in this world.
 
2013-02-27 08:42:04 PM

lostcat: Next people will be saying that defense attorneys shouldn't defend suspected criminals in court.

Yes, they have to defend people, even if those people are incredibly guilty. It's their job.

It's also the job of PR people for tobacco companies to spin everything so cigarettes don't seem as damaging to health as they are.

It's the job of advertising people to make people want to buy useless crap that they don't need.

It's the job of the principal and superintendent of a public school to protect that school's public image.

Am I happy about any of these? No. But I recognize when someone is doing what they are supposed to be doing based on their job description.


I disagree with this comment: "It's the job of the principal and superintendent of a public school to protect that school's public image." The role of the principal and superintendent is to create a safe and healthy environment to facilitate learning, not to protect a school image.

Under your thought process Penn State administrators 'did what they were suppose to do'.
 
2013-02-27 09:22:50 PM

rogue_L_chick: This idea that people under the age of 18 are not entitled to the same access to justice as adults has got to stop. It is not the principal's decision to make, if the students want to proceed with the accusation against the theif that stole their belongings. If the teacher rummaged through the principal's desk or purse, I'm sure they would react much differently.

I am kind of bitter about this subject, as someone who was sentanced to time in a facility at 16 with no crime committed, just one adult's suggestion that I be put away for awhile. I was not allowed to speak in my own defense and no evidence was offered at my 30 second "hearing".

These are two different situations, I know...but the idea that minors are not automatically granted the same police protection and/or rights is really disturbing to me.


You sound brown.

Sorry that happened to you.  I know it still hapens and it pisses me off too.
 
2013-02-27 09:44:52 PM
Wow. Lostcat is completely out of touch with reality or is just trolling.

Anybody who asks for evidence to be destroyed is in the wrong. No matter who they are or why they think it is a good idea.
 
2013-02-27 09:58:44 PM

Benjamin Orr: Wow. Lostcat is completely out of touch with reality or is just trolling.

Anybody who asks for evidence to be destroyed is in the wrong. No matter who they are or why they think it is a good idea.


But only if you can prove that it happened.
 
2013-02-28 10:51:13 AM

Benjamin Orr: Wow. Lostcat is completely out of touch with reality or is just trolling.


I thought he was trolling.  Now I'm beginning to think he's the principal involved in this story or maybe even Graham Spanier.
 
Displayed 117 of 117 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report