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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 17 of 117 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report