Girl, 12, charged by police for wetting pants

[GreenArrow]

"DANVILLE, Pa. - A 12-year-old special education student was charged with disorderly conduct after authorities said she deliberately wet her pants at school.

Her mother told the Press Enterprise of Bloomsburg that the girl urinated only because she was frightened by the principal.

<snip>

Police Chief Eric Gill said school officials were at "wit's end" with the girl, and that they believe her actions were deliberate."

They must not have much "wits" to begin with. This country is seriously sick.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16476513/

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Apparently...

the principal alleges she did it on purpose.

Which is entirely possible.

We're only hearing the parent's side of the story here.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. Thank you

I say that every time we hear one of these 'bad school' stories.

This does sound pretty gruesome though. I will be anxious to hear all the available details.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. I know of a case...

at a school for special needs students where in a student, let's call him Adam (10 y.o.), took off his pants, urinated on the instructor, picked up desks and threw them at other students, dashed out of the school into oncoming traffic, and when was forcibly restrained by the teachers, repeatedly bashed his head into the shoulder of one of the restraining teachers, whom required a trip to the emergency room.

This teacher didn't particularly want to, but ended up calling the police and pressing assault charges. When Adam's parents (who only recently and been re-rewarded custody of the boy) were contacted many hours later, they insisted it was the teachers fault and were being unreasonable. After all, Adam never acts out at home. So what if Adam wets himself? Accidents happen.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. I could tell dozens of stories

of kids who got into trouble and Mom calls the media and tells maybe half the story.

[Original Jack]

5. I'm glad someone is standing up for the truth

The girl could very well have wet her pants on purpose just to make the principal look bad.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Yes.

Or because the principal asked her to do something she did not want to do. Or because she wanted to make the principal angry. Or because...

[elehhhhna]

70. Yeah. I used to pee my pants to piss off my boss.

Your logic is totally mental. Seriesly.

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. Well then. That's entirely different. To jail with you, young lady.

:sarcasm:

Are you suggesting that a developmentally disabled 12 year old who, let's assume deliberately, peed her pants is guilty of disorderly conduct?

I find it a major reach to defend the principal or the cops, even assuming that they're factually correct.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. I am suggesting...

that they often have behaviour-troubled kids in the same environment as special educations kids.

And those behaviour-troubled kids are most certainly capable of disorderly conduct, and every other crime under the sun. And calling the cops ain't unheard of.

Have you ever had an eight-year-old child tell you "I'm going to break into your house tonight and cut your throat in your sleep, you fucking bitch," and mean it? It ain't fun.

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. Where did you get the idea she is developmentally disabled?

All I see is that she is a special ed student. She may be emotionally disturbed. That is not the same as developmentally disabled.

[lumberjack_jeff]

61. Which disabilities would support the idea that peeing ones pants is police business?

I stand corrected though, she may be in a wheelchair. She might be mentally ill.

Every disability I can imagine that relegated this child to special ed, mitigate the idea that peeing her pants (even if deliberately) is a crime.

[poverlay]

21. There is NO reason to actually charge this young lady that can be defended here.

I can fully sympathize with the teachers, principal, and police, but do not see any reason for truly charging the girl. As a possible disciplinary scare tactic~ ok, I can see it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. I would like to have more details

Like what is her disability?

I can definitely see a reason to charge a 12 year old with a crime. That is not unheard of.

[poverlay]

66. It would have to be one hell of a good reason imo. I have a very intelligent 12 yo and

I can't magine many scenarios in which it would be helpful to charge her with a crime. Not to mention that she doesn't have any developmental problems. There are too many other options and too many things I believe she doesn't fully grasp to hold her accountable to adult standards.

I agree with you that we need more detail.

[elehhhhna]

71. "she doesn't have any developmental problems"

link, please?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

75. How about a link for where she does?

[elehhhhna]

76. what does "special education" mean to you ?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

77. It can mean anything.

From developmental disabilities, to behaviour issues.

[rebel with a cause]

80. Yes, and both of these can lead to a child

wetting their clothes, intetionally or not. Either way, this is still not an issue for police involvement.

[elehhhhna]

117. so we agree. and?

[poverlay]

125. Allow me to clarify:

My daughter doesn't have any.

[goddess40]

144. there are people with high IQ's that have learning disabilities

that go undiagnosed. If a child is performing at grade level the schools won't help even though that child is achieving far below their potential because of a diagnosed or undiagnosed disorder. All to often these kids get labeled lazy, unmotivated, troublemaker... I've heard staff describe these kids as "choosing" their unproductive and self destructive behavior which is insane what kid would choose to be miserable?

[High Plains]

89. Wow, that's some defensive apologetics you've got going.

Don't break your spine bending over backwards to defend this bit of ridiculousness.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

114. LOL.

Asking for more details before deciding is "defensive apologetics?" It's bending over backwards?

:rofl:

[Zorra]

62. She may be suspected of being an al Qaeda suicide urinator;

under the Patriot Act, she doesn't have the right to a trial.

[poverlay]

67. Does this mean herr boosh is going to want to inspect her undies without a warrant? n/t

[Zorra]

86. That's a definite yes if they are sent through the mail. n/t

[cool user name]

127. Excellent point.

It's off to Gitmo she goes!

:sarcasm: (just in case people think I'm being serious)

[cool user name]

126. I was thinking the samething too, lumberjack ...

I mean, assuming the girl did it purposely, does it warrant a disorderly conduct charge, given her age, much less her disability?

I was reading ridiculous after ridiculous comment until I came to yours. Thanks for sticking up for the actual victim here.

:thumbsup:

[rebel with a cause]

13. When did wetting your pants constitute police action!

Even if it is on purpose!!!!!!!

Special Education usually means that the child has problems of some kind. :nuke:

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. I had a 9 year old convicted arsonist in my class one year

He came to school wearing an ankle bracelet and went home to juvenile detention for that whole school year.

He had burned his next door neighbor's house down - when he was 8.

Yes, special ed means they are disabled. But some are not cognitively impaired. So there is a possiblity that this girl did this on purpose.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. arson is a bit different than urination.

So if one assumes that the child peed her pants on purpose, the appropriate response is to have her arrested?

You folks have lost your brains. If you have done this on purpose perhaps you should be arrested as well.

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. I will repeat

We only know what Mom told the media. There very well could be lots more to the story. Mom often leaves out details.

Until I know what her disability is and the rest of the details, I refuse to pass judgment.

As I said in another post, a parent recently told me her son was suspended for walking in the hall. Turns out he walked out of class, roamed the halls and hid. The school had to call security and restrain him when he started to attack the principal and the security person who were trying to get him to come out of the closet.

It never ceases to amaze me how parents twist these stories around.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. You've all but had the kid lynched by association.

And we are not relying on what the mom told the media:

"DANVILLE, Pa. (AP) - Authorities are dropping a disorderly conduct charge
against a 12-year-old special education student who they accused of
deliberately wetting her pants at school."

Now unless you have somehow interpreted 'Authority' as 'mom', and I could very well understand how that confusion might arise, that seems to clearly indicate that a 12 year old girl was arrested for deliberately wetting her pants at school. Not arson. Not assault. Not your entire list of really bad crimes. She peed her pants.

[proud2BlibKansan]

43. You don't teach, do you?

Remember the story last year about the kid who was suspended for speaking Spanish at school? That happened in my city, in a district not far from where I live. You want to know what really happened? My friend teaches at that school and was there when this incident happened.

The kid threatened to kill the principal IN SPANISH. So he got suspended. Dad called the media. The story was on every local TV station. It was in at least 2 local newspapers. The AP picked up the story. There were several LONG threads here on DU about it.

Every single story left out the part where the kid threatened to kill the principal. See, Dad didn't tell the media that part. And after all the media attention, the suspension was overturned and the kid was allowed to come back to school.

After all, the school was overreacting for suspending a child for speaking Spanish, right? :sarcasm:

[Warren Stupidity]

47. So our urinating child is now an assassin?

Based on what evidence?

Based on absolutely no evidence at all you have decided that this kid must have done something very bad. I guess that is actually an admission that ARRESTING A KID FOR PEEING IN HER PANTS IS IDIOTIC.

Oh by the way, my wife worked for three years as a teacher's aid dealing with emotionally and learning disabled middle and high school kids, and we have plenty of horror stories. My niece had a four year period of severe emotional disturbance. Luckily she had great support in the school system, people who dealt with her terrifying outbursts with professional compassion. She matured through her crisis and is a wonderful bright kid and is doing great in college. Thankfully she did not run into somebody like you.

[proud2BlibKansan]

51. Go back and read my posts again

I am merely asking you to withhold judgment until we have all the details. And I pointed out numerous examples of partial stories parents told to make the school look bad and the child appear persecuted.

You ask about evidence. I am pointing out that we do not have any way of knowing if we even have all the evidence.

Now if you want to use that as an excuse to bash me and my abilities to work with kids, that's quite a leap. Ask your wife how many times parents exaggerated or misrepresented their child's behavior when they misbehaved at school. It certainly is not unheard of.

[Occulus]

55. Considering the charges were dropped, I'd say we DO have all the details. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

63. Can we please stick to this topic?

The principal said she peed her pants on purpose.
The police charged her with disorderly conduct.
Mom said that she did it because she was scared.

What's to withhold judgement about? Withholding judgment implies that if the principal and the cops are right, and mom is wrong, they acted appropriately.

They didn't, and no amount of comparing her to arsonists and people who make death threats will change that.

Here's the thing I find troubling. If the arguments in this thread were changed just a bit, substitute "african-american" for "special ed" there would be justifiable outrage. Every defense of the schools (and police's) actions here are predicated on assumptions related to group identity - "I dunno, special ed students can be really scary".

I find it odd that, even here, I'm the only one who sees the predjudice that this implies.

This topic hits close to home for both of us.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

82. ...

"Here's the thing I find troubling. If the arguments in this thread were changed just a bit, substitute "african-american" for "special ed" there would be justifiable outrage. Every defense of the schools (and police's) actions here are predicated on assumptions related to group identity - "I dunno, special ed students can be really scary"."

You think so? Because it seems to me that the phony outrage directed at the principal and police are predicated on the assumption that 12 year old girls can't commit disorderly conduct.

[rebel with a cause]

90. Sorry, but you are wrong on so many levels.

I have worked with girls who were very capable of disorderly conduct. I have no disillusions about what children, both male and female are capable of. And your charge of racism is way off target. I may be considered white, but my children are not and I would have been just as outraged if this had been any 12 year old child charged with a crime for wetting her pants.
I would have been outraged if it had been an adult charged with a crime for wetting their pants. This is just not a crime. Please!

Are we so desperate to fill our prisons that we are looking for new types of things to charge people for crimes that are ludicrous. Let's focus on things that are problems in our schools, like bullying, racism, and other factors that are much more damaging than the janitor having to be called to mop up the urine. There are factors in our schools that is causing the rash of school shootings, perhaps we should be working on them.

Since you brought up race, my children were racially targeted all through school. At times my complaints were met with concern by teachers, but as they got older, they were told to "deal with it". There was no punishment for the kids that were using racially derogatory names in the classroom as well as on school grounds. To me this is more of a case of disorderly conduct than someone wetting their pants. I will stop here because I am losing patience with this type of ...........

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

92. My charge of racism?

What the fuck are you talking about?

[rebel with a cause]

108. Ok, I misread, but

to be truthful with you, the way I misread it made more sense than the actual way it is written. the fact the girl is special ed or not does not make a difference in how she should have been treated. And whether the girl was white, black, latin, asian or polka dot the outrage should have been the same. Arresting someone for wetting their clothes is ridiculous. Hope I got it right this time!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

109. Of course her being special ed doesn't any difference.

And I never said it should, any more than I made any accusations of racism.

What kind of conversation are you having?

"Arresting someone for wetting their clothes is ridiculous."

Well, duh. Which is why there's probably a lot more going on.

[rebel with a cause]

112. Uggggggggggggggh!

As I scream at my keyboard. NO THERE IS NOT!!!!!!!!! I have read the whole thread and no no no no there is nothing more to it.

By the way, have you reread your post, because evidently you are misreading it as much as I did.

[KayLaw]

95. I don't think the outrage is phony.

Also, no one is saying that a 12-year-old girl can't commit disorderly conduct. I hear people saying that a little girl who wets her pants is not guilty of disorderly conduct and certainly does not need to be taken into police custody.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

97. I do.

None of these people were there. They don't know what happened. But that didn't stop them from flying off the handle.

[rebel with a cause]

111. And what handle have you flew off of?

Look I was not there, but I have worked with children. I have a degree that includes special training on the development and behavior of children. I know what children are capable of, both good and bad. But the arguement here is that wetting ones clothes is not an arrestable offense. If she had been charged with assault, or if the school said she was charged with distruction of property, that would have been different. but she was not. She was charged with disorderly conduct for wetting her clothes. Period. There is no more to the story. Wet clothes = disorderly conduct arrest.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

115. I didn't fly off the handle.

I didn't say anybody should be fired. I didn't say this country is seriously sick. I didn't sarcastically remark that the cops should have just gone and tasered her. I didn't scream at my keyboard in rage.

"But the arguement here is that wetting ones clothes is not an arrestable offense."

Nobody's having that argument. A child wetting her clothes in school is not an arrestable offense. (although one could argue that an adult wetting his/her clothes in public is.)

What we do know is that a principal called the police. And the police came. And a girl was charged with disorderly conduct.

And said disorderly conduct involved, although we have no way of knowing if it was limited too, public urination.

Why this is even a news story, I don't know.

[rebel with a cause]

118. I sould use my good sense and not post again, but

I have one last thing to say to you. Some people fight for things they believe in, some people fight for the underdog, some people fight for justice, and some people just like to fight.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

123. Right.

And some people read this story about a girl who wets her pants and the principal calls the police on her, jerk there knees, and come to the conclusion that the principal's just a big bully tyrant, and without using anything approaching common sense decide that they're fighting for the underdog, justice, and things they believe in.

"some people just like to fight."

You said a mouthful.

[cool user name]

131. Rebel, he's being obtuse on purpose ...

He either gets it, or just wants to win the argument.

Either way, it's not worth it. Thanks for sticking up for the actual victim though. :hi:

Some people actually do get it. For that, I appreciate it.

[rebel with a cause]

137. Thanks,

I had left. Came back and saw his last post and just decided to let him have the last word. That is what I saw as being being most important to him.

[cool user name]

130. They can't commit disorderly conduct by peeing.

End of story.

[cool user name]

129. You're not the only one.

I have a little sister who is developmentally disabled. She's a great person and does have her outbursts. She's had accidents in her pants plenty of times and get this; she's not an arsonist or some sociopathic monster.

Indeed. She would probably have wet her pants in the same situation - but only because she has this fascination with people in uniform (paramedics, doctors, police, fire, vets) ... she'd probably accidentally pee in her pants out of the excitement.

Doesn't warrant a disorderly conduct charge any which way you want to construct it.

[Sapphire Blue]

116. You "refuse to pass judgment." You're not referring to the girl & her mom, are you?

I ask because you certainly seem to be judging them.

[rebel with a cause]

31. I sub taught here for a few years

but before that I worked with youths with behavior problems. We had children that had done all types of real crimes, but here in Illinois there was what was known as an "infancy law." No one under the age of 13 could be charged with a crime. They have changed that now, I believe, but I am unsure of what it is now.

When I worked in children's homes we had, at different times, kids anywhere from five to seventeen in our facilities. The only restraints that could used was physical. When the children became too aggressive, like when they attempted to kill staff members, we would call out the police and they would talk to them, and then the kids would come back in the house and life went on as usual. Some of the children were just kids who had been abused and needed to know someone could care about them, but some were in a much worse condition. I worked my last year there with children who were sexual perpetrators, so I know what children are capable of. If wetting the pants is the worse thing done by this girl, they should thank their lucky stars. IMHO

[High Plains]

91. So what if she did it on purpose?

Are you seriously arguing she should be arrested for that? Perhaps people who hold that view should find another field of work.

[Kerrytravelers]

99. Another article said the parents were part of the decision to call the police.

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/16390984.htm

Not that I necessarily agree with the decision, I don't know, I don't have the case history or the IEP in front of me. It does change the perspective for me that the parents were involved in the decision. Depending on the district, but in mine, we can't make decisions like that without the ok of the parents, or it could be a lawsuit- and that includes coercing parents into anything they disagree with. It would be easier to understand what happened if there were more details in the articles, but more details would be a violation of the child's right to privacy.

[fishnfla]

146. ATTENTION HYSTERICAL SPECULATORS!!

Jesus Y'all, get the fucking facts straight afore y'all slit each other's back open with the goddamned claws.

1. The mom was in on the decision to call the police.
2. She and the school admin later thought it was the wrong thing to do
3. The charges were dropped

BIG FUCKING HINT: this is what becomes of over reacting, ESPECIALLY TO A SITUATION YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT

<crosses fingers, hoping some of the people on this thread are kicked out of jury pools>

[cool user name]

128. She didn't burn anyone's house down.

Quite a difference between lighting fires and peeing in one's pants, would you agree?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

79. No, it doesn't constitute police action.

Which is why Occam's Razor says urination wasn't the only behaviour the kid was doing.

[elehhhhna]

69. If she did it on purpose she needs more help than if she DIDN'T.

That Principal probably subscribes to the "dunk the baby in scalding water for punishment" method of potty-training. Bet me.

Either way I can't imagine the humiliatioin of doing this accidentally or worse, on purpose.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

78. Yes, and I'm sure she's getting as much help as possible.

The principal is a trained professional and knows the difference between a kid wetting herself and disorderly conduct and when and if police need to be called.

[rebel with a cause]

81. Evidently not!

See follow up article where charges were dropped and authorities admit it was the WRONG call.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

84. Yeah.

According to some guy who was never there.

[elehhhhna]

119. oh yes. wasting law enforcements time on this is helpful to everyone involved.

[ripple]

83. Even if it was intentional, arresting her was completely inappropriate

It doesn't sound as though she was a danger to herself or to others. And why didn't they take no for an answer when she refused to wash the pots and pans at the school. It sounds to me like the teachers and principal got into a power struggle with her and decided to 'teach her a lesson', so to speak. Bad move.

[goddess40]

87. If she did it on purpose then there are deeper issues

that shouldn't involve the police but a psychologist. The schools use the police as a convenience to rid themselves of students that require too much work. Not that sometimes police intervention isn't warranted but usually not.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

96. Yes.

And I'm willing to bet there's already a school psychologist involved with the student.

"The schools use the police as a convenience to rid themselves of students that require too much work."

Well, that's an unfair assumption based on no evidence.

[goddess40]

143. school psychologist aren't there for the children

in the same sense as a private psychologist is, school psychologists test students and give rough diagnosis's to see if the district must provide different services then the general population.



Well, that's an unfair assumption based on no evidence.]


As far as the use of the police, I've spent many hours in our schools and I've seen it happen. Also to assume the opposite is true isn't based on any evidence either but I have several therapist, psychologists and parents that would argue that my point of view is correct. The police aren't trained to deal with juveniles, they treat them as adults with less rights and they surely aren't trained to deal with people that are having any sort of breakdown.

[Union Thug]

2. Danville's Finest earning their keep! n/t

[JeffR]

4. I've worked with special needs children (and adults)

and it's quite possible she did this deliberatly. That in no way excuses the ridiculous charge of disorderly conduct. (Ferfuxsake)

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. I am a special ed teacher

and I have a 12 year old this year who calls me a "fucking bitch" every day. When I give him work, he throws it on the floor and says "fuck that".

So don't let the age fool you.

Yes she may have done it deliberately. What I find interesting is the article doesn't say what her disability is. If she is retarded, charging her with a crime (even if it was deliberate) is cruel.

I would lean toward not calling the cops or criminalizing her behavior, but I don't know the history. And like I said, 12 year olds can be quite challenging.

[JeffR]

25. No question they can be challenging

and I agree that the issue of what her disability actually is, is crucial to the whole story.

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. She may be learning disabled

which means she knows better than to wet her pants.

[Union Thug]

14. I worked with both SBD and DD kids for almost ten years...

With the SBD kids, they might piss on themselves during a restraing, but we would call the parents to deal with it. We only called in the cops if there was a clear danger to the child or to others.

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. We only know what the mother told the media

Maybe she also assaulted someone?

I have a new student who is quite challenging. His mother told me he got suspended in his last school for walking in the hall. So I pulled out his discipline record and pointed out to Mom that yes, he was walking in the hall AFTER he had walked out of class and refused to come back. He left class, hid in a closet and they had to call security to restrain him. But hey, if she wanted to be in denial and believe he was suspended for walking in the hall, then I guess she has that right.

[High Plains]

93. Why keep repeating that canard about we don't know the whole story.

It's over. The cops dropped the charge. This arrest is indefensible, and it really frightens me that someone with these attitudes has control over children.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

110. The principal dropped the charges.

And we still don't know any more about the story than we did to begin with.

[JeffR]

26. Good point n/t

[KEVINSDESK]

10. Schools call the cops and a drop of the hat

It started about 15 years ago, with ADD and Ridlin and
schools.  Administrators not wanting their teachers to be
responsible for the children's actions during the class.
Teachers have too much to do. Too many students, too little
time and to little money.  The money that the schools and the
education department does get, which is plenty.  Especially
when you look at it on a per student basis. Is subject to and
spent at the top and and none of it gets down to the schools.
Teachers are told too that they cannot discipline. They must
talk and chat and utilze "problem resolution." What
ever happened to parental responsibility? So now they are
resorting to calling the police every time and crying wolf to
the police. If they don't call the police and something
horrific happens there blamed.  I don't blame them for losing
patience, and not being willing to deal with any child that is
not there to learn. But I do blame them for using excuses
instead of skills. And I do blame the parents.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. That is just not true

I am a special ed teacher. We absolutely can NOT call the cops at the drop of a hat. No way. We MUST have a reason - like to report a crime - to call them. And we also have to call school district security. In my district, we have to call the superintendent's office and fill out about 12 pages of paperwork EVERY time we call the cops.

In my school, we have called the cops maybe twice in ten years. One time a girl started a fire in the restroom. The other time a car was stolen out of our parking lot.

[MetaTrope]

12. At least the cops didn't taser her

this time...

[Eugene]

16. AP: Pant Wetting Charge Against Girl Dropped

Pant Wetting Charge Against Girl Dropped


Friday January 5, 2007 3:46 AM

DANVILLE, Pa. (AP) - Authorities are dropping a disorderly conduct charge
against a 12-year-old special education student who they accused of
deliberately wetting her pants at school.

Superintendent Steve Keifer said Thursday that it was a mistake to bring
police into a case of school discipline.

"I think the situation was one where the parents and school officials were
frustrated, and that's why it was done," Keifer said. "At the same time,
it was probably not a good idea."

The mother said the girl urinated only because the principal frightened her.
The mother said in Thursday's Press Enterprise that the incident occurred
last month, after the girl, classmates and teachers ate a holiday lunch at
Danville Middle School.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6324088,00.html

[SeattleGirl]

18. Glad the charges were dropped. I think schools are relying

entirely too much on the cops for things these days. I realize that sometimes the cops do need to be involved, but charging a 12 year old special ed girl with "disorderly conduct" for wetting her pants is going way to far.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. "probably not a good idea"

Possible winning entry for "understatement of the year".

I'm sure somebody with half a brain in the Danville government pulled the plug on this idiocy. Rumor has it lawyers were six deep outside the mother's house.

[rodeodance]

19. umm.. She is a special education student to top it off.

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. I am inviting you to come spend a day in my special ed class

Not ALL special ed kids are cognitively impaired. There are more and more of them who are emotionally disturbed. I have a majority of them this year. They are smart and can work at grade level, but literally go berzerk when they are frustrated. And yes, many do have criminal records already.

I have taught kids with juvenile records of arson and assault (sexual, physical and verbal) and burglary and car theft.

And I teach ELEMENTARY school. Grades K through 5.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. There you go again.

Here is a quiz:

a) "arson"
b) "assault (sexual, physical and verbal)"
c) "burglary"
d) "car theft"
e) "deliberately peeing one's pants"

One of these things is not like the other. One of these things is just not the same. Can you figure out which one it is?

[rebel with a cause]

33. Before I finish my song.

:evilgrin:

[Warren Stupidity]

35. I couldn't remember the rest of it.

But it did occur to me that urination is a possible remedy for arson, as per J. Swift Gulliver's Travels. Only on DU would we be discussing the merits of arresting a child for wetting her pants.

[rebel with a cause]

40. We had a kid that habitually wet the carpet in his room,

Earlier we had a boy try to sit the house on fire so we could not report him for attempting to perp on another youth, and yes the urination would have been helpful in that situaltion if he had been successful. ;-)

And yes, only here. Well, perhaps we should speculate that only on a liberal thread would both sides be argued.

[Occulus]

50. Only on DU would we find people defending the arrest

But it always seems to be from certain posters that we find out why. Funny, that.

Edited to add: at least one of these people have the temerity to pull this crap in the Science Forum.

Yeah. Pretty fucking ballsy, I must say....

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. I have made several points all through this thread

1. We do NOT have all the details. Perhaps she also assaulted someone or set fire to the restroom or pulled a weapon on the principal. We don't know. All we know is what Mom told the media. And parents are rarely honest in these 'my kid got in trouble at school and I am calling the media' stories.

2. We do NOT know what her disability is. So it is impossible to decide how fairly the school treated her.

3. 12 year olds are very capable of criminal acts.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. Yes you have.

"1. We do NOT have all the details. Perhaps she also assaulted someone or set fire to the restroom or pulled a weapon on the principal. We don't know. All we know is what Mom told the media. And parents are rarely honest in these 'my kid got in trouble at school and I am calling the media' stories."

You have consistently implied that this child has committed serious crimes with no evidence at all. And you simply ignore the second story posted in this thread, wherein the 'authorities' describe the charge, the reason for the charge, and the obvious conclusion that they dropped the idiotic charge.

"2. We do NOT know what her disability is. So it is impossible to decide how fairly the school treated her."

Her disability is irrelevant to her arrest for pants peeing. Pants peeing is not and never should be a crime. Nobody should be arrested for peeing in their pants.

"3. 12 year olds are very capable of criminal acts. "

There you go again. Without any evidence you keep implying that this kid must have done something REALLY BAD. Instead, in an act of utter idiocy, the police arrested a 12 year old kid for urinating in her pants. Try dealing with the facts as presented.

[proud2BlibKansan]

45. I am dealing with the reality that parents RARELY tell the truth

when they call the media to report these incidents. It happens A LOT. I am sorry you apparently lack the reasoning skills necessary to see that.

[NorthernSpy]

101. unlike public school administrators, I suppose...

:eyes:

[Occulus]

42. Let's turn this on its head.

Suppose you have an employee whose employer allows only scheduled restroom breaks, and limited in number per shift. (Yes- this is slowly becoming a trend among employers.) Further suppose that the employee really has to go, but isn't allowed to, repeatedly and increasingly desperately complains about it, and finally loses control of their bladder on the shop floor. The employer decides this was intentional- despite all protestations on the part of the employee- and calls the police, citing 'disorderly conduct'. The employee is later fired, not for refusing to follow instructions, but for committing a 'crime' on his employer's property.

All YOU hear about is that an employee was charged with a crime- say, disorderly conduct- for wetting their pants on the shop floor. Before you say, "oh, that's just ridiculous," consider the shit WalMart puts its own employees through.

Who is at fault, in your opinion? Employer or employee? Does the employee bear any responsibility? Assume his/her bladder was empty at the start of the shift.

[Occulus]

54. The above post is fifteen hours old, and has garnered no response.

I thought I should call attention to that.

[rebel with a cause]

68. I suppose because many people went to bed at that time.

:7

I had a teacher like that when I was five to six. I also had a problem with my bladder not maturing as quickly as it should have and could not "hold my water". I was not in special ed nor was I arrested, but I was humiliated horribly by this teacher. About thirty years later I spoke to a classmate and she tearfully told me that the teacher had done the same thing to her. I didn't even remember it happening to anyone else, and she said she didn't remember it happening to me.

So my answer to your question would be that I blame the employer because no one should have the right to restrict when another person can relieve their bodily functions such as going to the bathroom.

[proud2BlibKansan]

39. Here's a quiz for you

Which of these phrases were uttered by my students today:

a) "My I go to the nurse? My eyebrow hurts."

b) "If you don't let me go to the bathroom right now, I am going to pee on the floor."

c) "You are a fucking bitch"

d) "Can I stab her with these scissors?"

e) All of the above

[Occulus]

44. I think your job is starting to cause you to assume the very worst about people

and I think that makes you incapable of doing your job as well as it needs to be done.

[proud2BlibKansan]

46. And I think you have no right to judge me and how I do my job

until you have actually OBSERVED me at my job.

[Occulus]

48. I don't think any of us need to, after reading the terrible (and terribly inaccurrate) assumptions

you've made about this poor kid. I also know for certain that, were I your child, I wouldn't trust you enough to come to you with anything, because I know you would believe the worst- and blame the victim.

Which you did, repeatedly, on this thread. You deserve to have your judgement called into question.

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. Can you not read???

I have NOT made any assumptions. I have pointed out that we do NOT HAVE ALL THE FACTS. We NEVER get all the facts in these stories, yet there are always DUers ready to jump to the conclusion that the school messed up.

And by pointing out that there could indeed be other facts that Mom left out when she contacted the media, I am accused of blaming the victim. Un friggin real.

Come and do my job for one day. Have ONE conference with a parent. I suspect you couldn't last more than 5 minutes.

[Occulus]

53. While it is true we do not have all the facts,

MOST of us have common sense.

I'll address your truculent smacktalk first:

The parents would not last five minutes if they disputed the facts. The conference would be over. Period. Records, or should I say, recordings, do indeed speak for themselves. Unfortunately for you, the subject I was going to teach before life smacked me in the head was such that I could provide audible, visual, and irrefutable recorded multimedia evidence of nonperformance. That was and is part of that particular teaching job. Conferences with defiant parents would have been a snap- start a tape and let it roll. Then start two more of other students. Subjective topics- things like, oh, music- are like that. And the participants either learn that, or leave. It's just that simple.

You want to blame the victim, or should I say, you want us to want to be willing to do so. For some reason. Anything at all. Maybe she did this. Maybe she did that. And so on. With, I might add, no evidence to the contrary.

I think your complete glossing over of the fact that the charges were dropped is, frankly, shocking. Even the people who brought the charges knew they were wrong, and yet somehow, completely defying both logic and reason, you seem to think their initial decision could have been maybe if this thing or that thing applied somehow perhaps possibly the right thing to do.

I just don't know what to say. You're wrong, you've been wrong, the dropping of the charges proves you're wrong, and you persist. Honestly- I don't think you can be helped. You've decided you're going to be obtuse, no matter how much logic and reason and common sense spatters upon your person.

My apologies for wasting our time. It's obvious I won't be getting anywhere with you. Good night and good bye.

[rebel with a cause]

56. there is also the point that most newspapers

check out both sides of the story before they publish. It cuts down on libel suits. Although there are rules sometimes that keep the teachers and principles from talking about the case, I am sure the school has legal representation to handle it, plus the police would have no such rules. Records would also in all probability have shown the full range of the charges. If there had been more to the story, the newspaper should have investigated, and reported it before they ever printed any coverage of the story.

I'm with you, this horse has been beat to death, it is time to close the stable doors and hit the hay. :7 As many corny sayings that I could come up with. Good night.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

102. Nonsense.

Neither the school nor the police would have anything to say to the press about student behavior. Even court documents would be sealed.

There is only one side of the story being heard here.

[rebel with a cause]

106. Oh please.

Read the whole thread before you try telling me what is and isn't being heard here. The school has made statements as well as other authorities (which I take to be the police). There are no court records because it did not get to court. There would be a police blotter that may have been open to the press, even if the name had been repressed. Hense there are always newspaper reports that state "unnamed juvenile has been charged with". Besides I have relatives in the news business and know that this is usually done and things are checked out before a story gets published. Again, please........

[rebel with a cause]

49. I don't doubt any of these things, but

this is the population that you work with. I was taught not to respond to what the youths in our facility said, and that meant sometimes we were forced to listen for hours to every name in world we could be called. One day, after about three hours of name calling and threats, I told a youth I was tired of the names he was using and challenged him to come up with some new ones. Well, he did and ended up cracking up at the stupidity of them. Crisis ended until the next time.

I had a six year old detail to me one morning how he was going to kill me and cut me into pieces, and I do mean details that made the hairs stand up on my neck and arms. This was done while he threw small pieces of furniture at me and was because he was not getting his breakfast when he wanted it. (very early morning)

I worked with more than one youth that had sexually assaulted others including toddlers.

I've had these youths spit in my face, twist my fingers and hands, scratch me, attempt to bite me/hit me/kick me.

I had one twelve year old attempt to kill me to keep me from reporting on his activities. And I had to continue working with him every day after this.

Yes, children can also be criminals. I worked with arsons, thieves, car thieves, homicide attempters, rapist, and I am sure there are some that I am forgetting. Was our facility set up to work with this population? No, but we did it as best we could. And we did not call the police on anyone for wetting their clothes, even those who did it on the couches, etc.

And you do not want to hear the stories I could tell about parents!!!

[cool user name]

132. LMAO ...

Laughing that that actually had to be multiple choiced.

No disrespect to proud2blib, but it really is that simple.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

38. Even if she did it out of spite - you don't give a kid a criminal record for that

As bad as some things in the old days were, I recall the cops often not charging young kids for minor delinquencies and instead talking to the parents. Those were the days when the police actually lived in the communities they policed and knew people by their names.

[annarbor]

57. As a mom to a Spec Ed kid....

who has fallen asleep and wet his pants three times this semester, I am stunned to hear that the police would be called to enforce something so trivial. Also, the assumption was made that the parents placed the call to the media, quite often the media pick up stories off the crime blotter so let's not assume that the parent's are lying about their child's behavior. I also might add that my ex and I have dealt with teachers and administrators that have no clue as to how to deal with Spec Ed students.

All in all, calling the police for an incident like this is inappropriate.

Ann Arbor

[lonestarnot]

58. WTF!?

:shrug:

[sniffa]

59. what? no taser?

the cops must have been rookies.

[bdamomma]

60. the country is turning into a police state, and really cracking up

[Geek_Girl]

64. Ok let's say she was a normal child and Deliberately Peed her pants to cause trouble

Do you really think that a 12 year should be charged and arrested for peeing her pants? What kind of bizarre world do we live in?

:crazy:

[rebel with a cause]

73. Exacto!

When did peeing your pants become a crime?

Good golly, some of us old folks take medication that makes it aufully hard to control our bladders. If one of us accidently wets ourself, should we call the cops and turn ourselves in. B-)

[cool user name]

134. I think suspension of Habeas Corpus would be warranted.

Hey, could be a national security matter. :shrug:

[Tsiyu]

65. Malicious Abuse of Process

This nation has gone insane.

[Horse with no Name]

72. Well I suppose I better have that surgery that my Doc recommends

She says if I don't...I could piss my pants.
Would hate to go to jail because of a weak bladder...

[rebel with a cause]

74. we must have posted at the same time.

#72 and #73, similar and so funny.

[Kerrytravelers]

85. I'm wondering if the girl actually peed on someone.

I've had Emotionally Disturbed children in my class. It can be frustrating and difficult. If the school had been dealing with her urinating on other children and had made it clear to the family that the police would be called if she continued to pee on other students, I would be more inclined to understand the situation. The article was informative, but it just said she wet her pants. If it really was as simple as wetting her pants, I can't imagine actually calling the police. I've had some very violent children and some very violent outbreaks. There have been times when we have had to call the police, but the parents were always told in advance that certain situations would force us to make this move. It was never on a whim. And the student was very well aware that the choices he or she made could cause a phone call to the police. And, our district has a police that when a student runs off campus in a deliberate attempt to defy the rules, the police will be called- but this is only used in cases where the student has a history of running. I will say that actually being in a Special Ed classroom does give you a different perspective, not a superior on, but one that other's may not have simply based on experiences in the classroom and Ed Code laws that affect all the children- the ones in question and the ones affected by the actions of others. It's a hard job and one that I'm glad not to be in right now. It wore me down and I needed a break from Special Ed in order to be the best teacher I can.

[rebel with a cause]

94. We call it burn out

and I have suffered from that also.

[Kerrytravelers]

98. Oh, total burn out. And when I feel it coming on, I make lateral switches to something else

in the schools so I will be at my best.

Some people can teach the same thing for decades and be spot-on. I admire these people. They are awesome. Me, I need changes to keep at the top of my game. And I admit it completely.

I have done Inclusion, General Ed, Resource and now I'm working for a Chartered Home school. Changes work for me and has given me a wide variety of experiences from which to draw.

[rebel with a cause]

103. Changes are good.

I am now totally disabled both due to physical and emotional problems. It seems I suffer from post traumatic stress syndrome from working at the children's home. Not from the attempt on my life by a twelve year old, but from the exhaustion of working eighteen hour days, trying to deal with a mess that I am not suppose to talk about. (ugh and ha) And from the treatment I received from the administration after I was forced to report somethings that was going on in the home. I was legally bound to do so, but would have anyway because it was the right thing to do. Being black listed as a whistle blower takes a toll on you.

It is good that you are able to transfer from one type of teaching to another. I hope you good luck and take it easy. Don't let your job overtake you. Advise from an old woman. ;-)

[Kerrytravelers]

105. I've always been good at accepting any short comings and making changes affectively.

[Kerrytravelers]

88. Another articled said the parents were part of calling the police, and the mother later regretted it

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/16390984.htm

This puts a different perspective into the story.

After she refused, teachers summoned principal Kevin Duckworth, who confronted the girl. She then wet her pants.

Her mother said the girl is terrified by Duckworth and has wet herself during previous confrontations with him. She said her daughter has had disciplinary problems at the school but has never become violent.

School officials dispute those claims, saying the girl has assaulted staff and uses urination as a "weapon."

Duckworth said the decision to call police was made in consultation with the girl's parents, in hopes it would improve her behavior. He said it appears the mother later regretted the decision.



Does using urination as a weapon mean peeing on someone? That's how we would write it up in my district, but this differs from district to district. I still don't know if I totally agree with the decision, but I'd have to know the girl's IEP to have a full opinion.




EDITED FOR SPELLING.

[rebel with a cause]

100. This does give us more information

but I still disagree with their call, even if the mother was involved. "Using urination as a weapon" is a little harder for a girl to do, since she would have to sit/stand on the item/person she wanted to urinate on. Don't know any girl who can point and urinate on a target as a boy could. Never knew a girl that talented, and I have worked with some pretty mean girls.

What I woud suspect is that she would wet herself so as to keep others from touching her, hence when she was afraid she would urinate so the principle would not touch her. Some children with behavior problems do this. Children who have been sexually abused are also inclined to do so.

As far as assaulting staff, different groups see this differently also. From working with children with behavior disorders, we would have referred to an assault as an attempt to physically injure a staff when not involved in a restraint, etc. Others may feel if a children resists a restraint that is an assault, so here again it is in what the definition of the action is. That is my take on this, and hopefully this will be my last post on this thread.

[Kerrytravelers]

104. I kind of wondered if she'd been abused as well.

Many of my students continually wet themselves. None of those particular students were ever violent or were really combative, so I never was peed on.

Without all the facts, I don't know exactly what I would do, but from the two articles, I would say that I most likely would not have called any outside agencies into the situation.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

107. Maybe this was an "avoidance" strategy to lessen expectations.

She sounds like she is cognitively aware of consequences, and that she was using urinating as a control technique. And it sounds like the school officials called her on it, and took the next step. When you're talking about this girl's future, not only at school, but in the real world, it sounds like a little bit of "tough love" is a good thing. I think the school did a brave and responsible thing. My two cents.

[rebel with a cause]

113. I'm sitting on my hands and walking away.

:banghead:

[AnotherMother4Peace]

122. There is a great deal of litigation taking place in the area of Special Education

Some of it legit, some of it not. Some of this litigation is the result of claims by outside providers that schools are not providing a free and appropriate public education to students with qualifying handicapping conditions. These are for profit organizations making claims to distraught parents. These claims are sometimes legit, sometimes not.

As a result of this litigation, and threat of litigation, school districts (whose hands are often tied when dealing with behaviors)are more apt to explore all options in dealing with a child's disability. Behaviors may or may not be a result of a disability, it may be the result of being an indulged child.

And I reiterate, a child with a disability will eventually be an adult with a disability. His/her educational program needs to prepare them for this future, and living up to their maximum potential. For example, instead of a future that involves some sort of institution, perhaps supervised independent living might be an option.

I don't know if what these school officials did was right or not, but I do know that bottom line is the child's future. When educating children, the future needs to be considered, whether it be college, job training, a group home, or independent living. If this action improves this child's future, it may have been a good thing.

[cool user name]

135. Her disability is irrelevant.

Peeing in your pants is not a crime, whether you are Hellen Keller or Joe Montana.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

139. If Joe Montana is in my care & under the age of 18 & purposely (the operative word)

pees on himself/chair/carpet/floor & other children may be exposed to his urine, I have an obligation to this child, myself, the other children to rectify the situation. Behavior modification techniques (both reward & consequential) need to be implemented (with data taken to determine effectiveness). Like I said, I don't know if the actions taken by these administrators were correct, but I do know that this situation may not be a simple matter of a child peeing her pants.

RE: Peeing one's pants not being a crime - some people don't think spitting on the sidewalk or throwing down cigarette butts should be a crime. I'm fine with them being a against the law. If it saves me from stepping into a big pile of flem, or my grandchild from picking up a cigarette butt and putting it in his mouth, that's a good thing.

RE: Disability is very relevant. Whether it be physical, emotional, mental, cognitive, it is very relevant in dealing with the situation in a sensitive and effective manner.

[cool user name]

140. You misunderstand my point.

Her disability has no bearing on whether she should have been arrested or not. Regardless, peeing is not a crime; the developmental disability is immaterial.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

141. I don't do well with sound bites or talking points: "peeing is not a crime".

Reference can be made to my prior posts for my position.

[cool user name]

142. I don't do well with red herrings ...

... so what now? Part ways and agree that you're assertion is incorrect?

:shrug:

I'm content with that.

[tigereye]

120. there may be more to the story

but I don't see why they wouldn't use school behavioral alternatives. I mean, most schools have school psychologists, etc. to help teachers with unruly kids or kids who don't know how to suceed.


Hmm, no behavior plan or behavior plan not working? Why, call the police. :eyes:

[nedbal]

121. Just called the Police Chief's # they had no comment, refereed me to the DA

Police Department



Police Chief

Eric Gill

[phone]

[phone] FAX




Police Clerk

Cathy McKenna







The Danville Police Department consists of seven sworn officers, the police chief, two corporals, four patrolmen and a secretary. The Department is a full-time police department with a patrolman on duty at all times, 24 hour per day. The Department handles all law enforcement duties within Danville Borough and is headed by its civilian leader, Mayor Ed Coleman



Police Commission

Richard Johns

513 Bloom Street

Danville, Pa 18721



Betty Ann Moyer, Chairperson

438 Mill Street

Danville, Pa 17821

Dean VonBlohn

300 Honeymoon Street

Danville, Pa 17821

[earth mom]

124. Too bad the girl didn't pee on the principle!

What a TOTAL A$$HOLE! Another example of a school administrator out of control with power! And people wonder why parents want to homeschool their kids! :grr:

[gollygee]

133. I suppose it depends on the circumstances, but I think it would be

pretty hard to prove that someone, particularly in special education, peed on purpose and not just because she was scared.

[hfojvt]

136. "this country is seriesly sick"

It is. And this one incident shows that the whole barrel is rotten. Siriusly rotten. It is the worst of times. It is an age of foolishness. It is the end of the world. Why does the sun go on shining? Why do the stars glow above? Why does my heart go on beating? Why do these eyes of mine :cry: ? Don't they know it's the end of the world?

[rebel with a cause]

138. It ended when you said goodbye.

Skeeter Davis. (Only for the older folks) :7

[bread_and_roses]

145. Thank you Warren Stupidity and others showing some sanity

here. The US cultural hatred for children on full display here, as happens every time on of these incidents comes up. What was it a year or so ago - a very small girl, I think, handcuffed for acting out in a classroom - and people defended that too.

We live in a Country that accepts leaving children to be hungry, homeless, and sick because they're parents are poor, puts children in prison, complains more about money spent on schools and teachers than about money spent on killing children in a war waged solely for profit and power...words fail me on this subject.