Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:55 am**

Geez it's a crime to sleep?? Really?

Posted: **Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:57 am**

Lorini wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:55 amGeez it's a crime to sleep?? Really?

No one was arrested. As far as I can tell, just the noise of the taser was used to startle the kid awake. Don't know why they couldn't achieve that with a dropped book.

Posted: **Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:39 pm**

Lorini wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:55 am Geez it's a crime to sleep?? Really?

To pretend you can't be woken by routine methods? Sets a good precedent.

Posted: **Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:44 pm**

Lorini wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:55 am Geez it's a crime to sleep?? Really?

None of the school staff can physically touch him without risking a lawsuit. I don't advocate pulling out a gun and firing it into the air either, but this is about as mild an infraction as possible for security. It's not much different from pulling out a night stick and banging it on a desk. Both are designed for non-lethal force, neither was used on the student at all, and it got him to pay attention.

A mild disciplinary action (maybe a shift or two off without pay?) is all I'd want for the guard, just to drive home the fact that it's still a weapon, not a toy, so don't play with it.

The kid can also have a few days off. He'd be getting the better part of the deal.

Posted: **Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:00 pm**

I recall a few kicked over desks when I was in HS. The ominous ticking of a taser is tame in comparison.

Posted: **Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:21 pm**

Sorry folks, I didn't mean crime as in arrestable crime. I should have quoted this:

Would the teacher pouring water on him while he fake-sleeps be considered an assault? While I don't at all agree with the implied taser threat, you really can't let that kind of insolence fly.

Another option would be to contact the parents, advise them of the situation in front of the Sleeping Beauty, in that he was now suspended and they needed to drop what they are doing and come pick him up. That really only is effective if they give a shit, though.

Why is this a big deal? I don't agree with this sentiment in the slightest. If he is fake sleeping, tell him to go home and sleep. If he doesn't want to go home then treat him in every way as if he's not actually at school, as if he's a truant. And then call it a day.

Assuming the parents don't give a shit is unnecessary and mean. Some kids are insolent, it's a way of testing boundaries for them.

Posted: **Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:24 pm**

I think in the moment they were just trying to get him out of there. He's pretending to sleep and then pretending not to wake up. It's disruptive to the class. We put a lot on our teachers. Is it too much to ask to have disruptive students removed from he classroom? You can't expect a teacher to teach around that.

Posted: **Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:47 pm**

Lorini wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:21 pm Assuming the parents don't give a shit is unnecessary and mean. Some kids are insolent, it's a way of testing boundaries for them.

I don't necessarily side with the idea that sleeping students need to be dealt with, so I'm sympathetic.

That said, no one assumed anything. The sentence that you're referring to is intended to be read "but this only works if the parents care enough for it to matter". It is most definitely not a statement of fact (or even implied) about the level of caring of the parents in question.

This works if (x). If (y) it won't work.

You *could* read it as a statement of condemnation of parents who don't care, and *if* this guy's parents don't care, well they suck too.

If they care, awesome.

Posted: **Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:21 pm**

I read it as 'the parents probably don't care enough for it to matter' otherwise why even bring that up? I will accept your reading, but to me it was an extraneous negative statement.

Posted: **Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:23 pm**

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:24 pm I think in the moment they were just trying to get him out of there. He's pretending to sleep and then pretending not to wake up. It's disruptive to the class. We put a lot on our teachers. Is it too much to ask to have disruptive students removed from he classroom? You can't expect a teacher to teach around that.

Yes as I was saying he should be dealt with as a student that would not leave the class. Whatever that may be. I don't have a problem with him being removed, he should be removed. I had a problem with him being tased or otherwise treated worse just because he was faking sleep. Kids do a lot of stupid shit we all know that but in my opinion we need to boil down exactly what is happening and then react to that. This student wouldn't participate in class. Do what you normally do to remove those kinds of kids from a class, how they do it is basically irrelevant and if you react to every kind of way that kids can do this in some different way, then you're asking for controversy.

Posted: **Thu Sep 13, 2018 4:36 pm**

Lorini wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:21 pm I read it as 'the parents probably don't care enough for it to matter' otherwise why even bring that up? I will accept your reading, but to me it was an extraneous negative statement.

I said, "that is only effective if the parents give a shit". It's pretty clearly a condition or qualifier to success, not a condemnation of parents I know nothing about.

Posted: **Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:02 pm**

Lorini wrote: ↑Mon Sep 10, 2018 5:57 pm At least it's a start.

Unsurprisingly the police are doing everything in their power to exonerate this officer. They found mary jane in his apartment - guess the death penalty was reasonable!

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:05 am**

Lorini wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:55 am Geez it's a crime to sleep?? Really?

Put yourself in the position of the teacher or one of the other students in the class. He's f'ing around on THEIR time.

I agree that a taser shouldn't be used in anything other the way they are trained to use it. That student needed to be dealt with though, ASAP. If he wants to waste his time, that's fine but he should do it elsewhere. The teacher and the rest of the class have a right to use their time productively.

That really only is effective if they give a shit, though.

I read that as an 'if' statement. That approach would work IF the parents care. That statement does not imply that this kid's parents care or don't care, it has nothing to do with this kid's parents.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:41 am**

They allowed the kid to win. If they just look at him as just another disruptive kid and followed whatever their procedures are for a disruptive kid then he does not get all the drama he was looking for.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:42 am**

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:02 pm
Lorini wrote: ↑Mon Sep 10, 2018 5:57 pm At least it's a start.
Unsurprisingly the police are doing everything in their power to exonerate this officer. They found mary jane in his apartment - guess the death penalty was reasonable!

Yeah I was disappointed at the way he was being characterized, he was a 'good' person yada yada yada. I mean I'm glad he was a good person but the type of person he was had nothing to do with him being murdered by an idiot police officer. He could have been shooting heroin and he still didn't deserve to be murdered.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:45 am**

Unless the kid is snoring, I'm not sure how a silent kid with his eyes closed is much different from a silent kid with his eyes open, as far as disrupting the class.

It's rude to the teacher, I'll give you that, but a high school student has no choice about being in class, and a college student has paid for the privilege, so to speak.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:47 am**

Lorini wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:41 am They allowed the kid to win. If they just look at him as just another disruptive kid and followed whatever their procedures are for a disruptive kid then he does not get all the drama he was looking for.

Their normal procedure is to tell the kid to leave. He was pretending to sleep and not responding. So their next move, I assume, is physical force. This officer attempted to avoid physical force by threat of non-lethal force. Apparently it worked. It's against policy though and probably not a good habit. So low the officer is on the hotseat, as they should be.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:50 am**

Lorini wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:42 am
Yeah I was disappointed at the way he was being characterized, he was a 'good' person yada yada yada. I mean I'm glad he was a good person but the type of person he was had nothing to do with him being murdered by an idiot police officer. He could have been shooting heroin and he still didn't deserve to be murdered.

Agree 100%. All the pot proves is that the PD is scrambling to win the PR war and cover this officer.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:58 am**

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:45 am Unless the kid is snoring, I'm not sure how a silent kid with his eyes closed is much different from a silent kid with his eyes open, as far as disrupting the class.

It's rude to the teacher, I'll give you that, but a high school student has no choice about being in class, and a college student has paid for the privilege, so to speak.

I dunno… If the classroom was aware that he was asleep. Students will be disrupted by wondering when the teacher is going to do something about such a rude student... Other kids will wonder if they too can get away with rude behavior of their own style.

Seems kinda obvious to me that a silent kid with his eyes closed is much different from a silent kid with his eyes open, and that kids would be distracted by the former and not the latter.

Likewise, a silent cab driver with his eyes closed is much different from a silent cab driver with his eyes open.

Now in one, you are distracted because you may die, granted.... In the other, you are distracted because you know Mrs.Crabtree is not going to take kindly to the sleeping student and you are wondering how and when it's going to be addressed.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:59 am**

What the flyin' F am I seeing here? Can they really be that blatant about trying to create a cover up?

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:02 am**

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:50 am Agree 100%. All the pot proves is that the PD is scrambling to win the PR war and cover this officer.

Canada is about to become pot enabled. The idea that you can find pot after the fact and that shows what a bad person the murdered person was, is about to become a non-issue up here.

Also, it's fucking pot. Cops finding pot after murdering someone is like telling me they found 100 unpaid parking tickets and that he was known to the Police for all the jaywalking he's been caught doing. So what?

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:05 am**

Unagi wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:58 am Likewise, a silent cab driver with his eyes closed is much different from a silent cab driver with his eyes open.

Unless he's driving the class, wtf does this have to do with anything? There are comparisons, and then there are...I don't know what that is.

If the class let's him be a distraction, then he's a distraction. The same thing could be said about outlandish clothing, which is why school uniforms exist. I'm not a fan of school uniforms, either.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2018 10:19 am**

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:05 am
Unagi wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:58 am Likewise, a silent cab driver with his eyes closed is much different from a silent cab driver with his eyes open.
Unless he's driving the class, wtf does this have to do with anything? There are comparisons, and then there are...I don't know what that is.

If the class let's him be a distraction, then he's a distraction. The same thing could be said about outlandish clothing, which is why school uniforms exist. I'm not a fan of school uniforms, either.

That 'their eyes being open' is key to the task at hand.... but don't let my poor analogy distract you.

My only point was to say: a (seemingly) sleeping student will be a distraction to the class.... none of this "if the class let's him be".

Forcing kids to wear a uniform in class is not a good comparison to forcing kids to be awake.

I guess I'm just saying I can see how consciousness is a pretty low bar to ask students to keep above...

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2018 10:35 am**

Unagi wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:58 am
GreenGoo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:45 am Unless the kid is snoring, I'm not sure how a silent kid with his eyes closed is much different from a silent kid with his eyes open, as far as disrupting the class.

It's rude to the teacher, I'll give you that, but a high school student has no choice about being in class, and a college student has paid for the privilege, so to speak.
I dunno… If the classroom was aware that he was asleep. Students will be disrupted by wondering when the teacher is going to do something about such a rude student... Other kids will wonder if they too can get away with rude behavior of their own style.

Seems kinda obvious to me that a silent kid with his eyes closed is much different from a silent kid with his eyes open, and that kids would be distracted by the former and not the latter.

Likewise, a silent cab driver with his eyes closed is much different from a silent cab driver with his eyes open.

Now in one, you are distracted because you may die, granted.... In the other, you are distracted because you know Mrs.Crabtree is not going to take kindly to the sleeping student and you are wondering how and when it's going to be addressed.

You're really comparing cab driving with your eyes closed to a kid in a school being a jackass? This cannot be the first time this school has had a disruptive kid, I refuse to believe that. What did they do before that worked? They should do that again. Forget about the fake sleeping, treat the kid as being disruptive and go back to teaching.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2018 10:46 am**

OMG, I am NOT comparing ….
oh never mind.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2018 10:48 am**

Unagi wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 10:46 am OMG, I am NOT comparing ….
oh never mind.

Dude, you go Goo'd.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2018 10:53 am**

Lorini wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 10:35 am This cannot be the first time this school has had a disruptive kid, I refuse to believe that. What did they do before that worked? They should do that again. Forget about the fake sleeping, treat the kid as being disruptive and go back to teaching.

I basically read it the way LB described it.

They tried to wake him, he refused to budge... They called in the one person who is allowed to escalate (this is all in line with your statement so far)... and that officer decided to scare him "awake" (I'm assuming this kid was totally faking it) - and used the sound of a tazer to do it. No one was arrested. No one was touched. No one was hurt. The adult was basically firing a warning shot, a warning shot - with a non-lethal device. I am not sure what the officer should have done instead? Physically lift the child up and bring them out of the classroom physically?

My analogy of the cab driver was just to make one point: Eyes being open/Consiousness is indeed required to being a participant in the classroom, just like it is when driving a vehicle. If you're asleep you aren't doing either even if you are in the seat. And that there is a difference in Levels of Distraction to be had in a classroom with a child who is silent with their eyes open vs. a classroom with a child who is snoozing.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:36 pm**

Looks like Jason Van Dyke's team has opted for a jury trial in the Laquan McDonald shooting trial. He had until today to make the decision to go bench trial or jury. 11 jurors had been selected, from what I have read there is no clear lean to the jury.

CHICAGO — Chicago police Officer Jason Van Dyke decided on a jury trial Friday in the Laquan McDonald case.

A motion to move the trial outside of Cook County is still pending, to be decided Monday.

Cook County Judge Vincent Gaughan said the full jury will be sworn in Monday morning. Opening statements are expected to follow.

Lead defense attorney Dan Herbert on Friday again asked Gaughan to strike the current jury panel based on visible protests outside the courthouse that could prejudice jurors. That motion was denied.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:51 pm**

Lorini wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 10:35 am You're really comparing cab driving with your eyes closed to a kid in a school being a jackass?

A silent, unobtrusive jackass. I personally wouldn't call him a jackass at all until he refused to acknowledge their attempts to wake him up, but that's me. i.e. sleeping in class is not being a jackass in my book.

Anyway, this is boring. I'm bored now.

Gonna sleep at my desk for a bit (during lunch!).

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:03 pm**

Lorini wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:41 am They allowed the kid to win. If they just look at him as just another disruptive kid and followed whatever their procedures are for a disruptive kid then he does not get all the drama he was looking for.

My opinion on this would be dependent on what those procedures are. The basic idea, for me, is to minimize the disruption to everyone else. So the moment he pulls the "I'm sleeping" bit, the clock is ticking. That disruption needs to be dealt with fast, so as to return everyone else to their normally scheduled programming as soon as possible.

If the kid is sleeping due to a messed up home life, that's a separate issue that needs to be dealt with and I'd be on the side of being supportive of that kid...away from class. Once they help him sort out his issues, he can rejoin his classmates and sin no more.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:39 pm**

omg, just let the kid sleep. If it becomes a habit, then investigate.

Geezus, you people are a nightmare. There are REAL problems in schools that are hard enough to handle, that take time, effort and money to work through. Being distracted by something like this is almost certainly a waste of those resources. This is clearly a molehill. Out of all the actors in this little scenario, It's the adults that have behaved the worst, and even then only mildly so.

I don't know where any of you went to school, but a kid sleeping was about as disruptive as him not being in class at all. I.e. it was not even a little disruptive.

Did you guys not have anyone sleep/rest his eyes/day dream in your classes before? If it's systematic of a larger problem, sure. We haven't enough info to make a judgment on that. If you want to speculate, have at it. But it's speculation and not relevant to this scenario.

This is a throw your hands up in exasperation moment.

a) Is a kid sleeping in class a problem? Sure.
b) Is it disruptive? Not really.
c) Does it require home intervention? Without more evidence, are you f**king kidding me?

*boggle* at this whole thing.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:59 pm**

From what I understand he wasn't sleeping. He was pretending to sleep so as to ignore instructions from teachers/staff.

Solution for sleeping, wake kid up. Chronic sleeping, send to principal or counselor. Kid pretending to sleep...what do you do? You have to forcibly remove him.

I don't know where any of you went to school, but a kid sleeping was about as disruptive as him not being in class at all. I.e. it was not even a little disruptive.

Don't know where you went to school but where I went, sleeping in class wasn't allowed. So it didn't happen. Or as soon as it was noticed, it was ended. We never got to faking sleep in spite of numerous attmpts to awaken.

And I went to a high school for the tier 2 exceptional and/or tier 1 hopeless in Hippytown USA.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:51 pm**

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:59 pm From what I understand he wasn't sleeping. He was pretending to sleep so as to ignore instructions from teachers/staff.

Solution for sleeping, wake kid up. Chronic sleeping, send to principal or counselor. Kid pretending to sleep...what do you do? You have to forcibly remove him.

That is my understanding as well. Either slept/pretended to sleep during class, class ended teacher tried to wake him, it pretended to keep sleeping.
I was addressing the various posts about how disruptive sleeping in class is, which seems ridiculous on the face of it.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:59 pm Don't know where you went to school but where I went, sleeping in class wasn't allowed. So it didn't happen. Or as soon as it was noticed, it was ended. We never got to faking sleep in spite of numerous attmpts to awaken.

And I went to a high school for the tier 2 exceptional and/or tier 1 hopeless in Hippytown USA.

I don't know what any of that last bit means.

I seriously doubt any school's policy is that sleeping in class is ok. Enforcing it with Zero Tolerance seems like wasted effort. Because having witnessed it throughout my high school career, nothing bad ever came of not enforcing it.

I went to a typlical public high school in middle class suburbia in a well funded city. I'm sure Universities had their own rankings of which school's marks could be trusted and which could not, but I don't know anything about that.

Let's chalk it up to difference of opinion that may or may not be a direct result of our own experiences. That said, I struggle to envision how an unmoving, silent body (even a dead one. Ok this I can see

) could be disruptive UNLESS everyone decides to let it be disruptive, ESPECIALLY the teacher. Stopping the class to focus on a sleeping student seems like a sure way to disrupt the class for everyone.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:42 pm**

We I was in school we all got to stone the student who was sleeping.
Didn't happen often. Usually new kids.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2018 6:02 pm**

If it helps, I think the uniformly reactive discussion is all about management after the teacher has already attempted to wake the "sleeping" child and has become apparent that he is resisting authority of the teacher and school. That can't be left unaddressed or the teacher will be dealing with it from that student, and likely now others as well, from then on.

Whether the teacher should have tried to wake the kid in the first place isn't what we are bent about, or focusing on. Maybe the teacher could have ignored him and dealt with it afterwards, maybe she needed to give him specific or time-sensitive instructions right then. Don't know, can't argue either way. But since she did try to wake him, and he made it an issue, then that's the issue we are addressing.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:32 pm**

There were several comments about the seriousness of a student sleeping in class.

If people are going to make comments, I'm gonna comment on those comments.

I've already agreed with lawbeef as to the facts of this particular case.

People are free to discuss whatever they like, including the original case. Have at it.

It's a free (well, $2,000 a year apparently) internet forum.

Posted: **Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:09 am**

Just to be clear. My comments were all directed at this specific scenario where a Junior in Highschool is pretending he cannot be woken up.

Some kid who randomly dozes off briefly in class (I've done that!) - not what we (most of us) are talking about here.

Posted: **Sat Sep 15, 2018 11:58 am**

And my comments were directed at a disruptive kid. If his sleeping is not disruptive, then let him sleep. Noting that if he's faking it and everyone ignores him, he'll probably do something else to not be ignored.

Posted: **Sat Sep 15, 2018 1:27 pm**

If I wanted attention, sleeping wouldn't be my first choice. Doesn't he have access to an internet forum?

No one said kids are smart, I guess.

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:35 am**

CNN

Police say they have a confession from a US Border Patrol agent they suspect of being a serial killer, but many loose ends and questions remain -- chiefly, whether prosecutors will seek the death penalty.

It could take as long as 90 days to determine whether prosecutors will pursue capital murder charges against Juan David Ortiz, 35, accused of killing four women in and around the border town of Laredo, Texas, Webb County District Attorney Isidro Alaniz said during a Monday news conference.

And there's another loose end: Are there more victims?
...
[Chief Deputy Federico Garza of the Webb County Sheriff's Office] provided additional details about what happened after would-be victim Erika Pena escaped Ortiz, who was holding her at gunpoint, and ran to a state trooper who was fueling up at a nearby gas station -- essentially cracking the case for police.

Ortiz, a supervisory Border Patrol agent with access to U.S. Customs and Border Protection intelligence, went home after Pena jumped out of his truck around 9:14 p.m. Friday, and Garza said he was ready for a showdown. He had numerous weapons at his home in north Laredo, the chief deputy said.
...
Ortiz also posted goodbye messages to his family after Pena escaped, telling his wife and kids he loved them and "Doc Ortiz checks out. Farewell," said Yanira de Leon, a spokeswoman for the Webb County District Attorney's Office.

Roughly three hours after Pena's escape, law enforcement officers were alerted to be on the lookout for Ortiz, and it took another hour before state troopers first encountered him. In that time, he killed two more victims, according to a police affidavit.

When the troopers found his truck at a gas station in Laredo, Ortiz had gone inside to use the restroom, Garza said. He had left a gun in his vehicle. Troopers confronted him and one tried to deploy a Taser on Ortiz, but he escaped. From there, he ran to Hotel Ava, formerly a Ramada Inn, and hid in the hotel's parking garage.

When a Webb County SWAT team and state troopers found him around 2:34 a.m. Saturday, Ortiz appeared ready to die, Garza said.
...
Police weren't fooled and took him into custody, where he gave a verbal confession to killing four women between September 3 and early Saturday, all of whom he picked up in a prostitution hub of Laredo.

He selected the women, who he knew, based on their vulnerability and "the dislike that he had for this community of people," Garza said.

Octopus Overlords

Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly

Re: Cops behaving badly