Lib calls police on 9 year old for commenting about brownies

[OldLady]

Can you at least agree that a school shouldn't be calling the police over a 3rd grader, or any student for that matter, using suspected racist terms, even if they actually ARE racist terms?

For example, let's suppose a white kid walked by a group of black kids and yelled "hey n*gger" are you really suggesting that the police should be involved? Good grief I hope not.

It's about seizing control of children. That's all this is about.

You should see the HUGE hiring swell for child welfare in Oregon. They are hiring HUNDREDS of new workers and putting them in every podunk town. They are also facilitating child welfare involvement in foodstamp cases...

Which is why I tell everybody...get the **** out of any entitlement program you currently are dependent on, because the feds are using those programs to infiltrate your bank accounts, and to gain access to your children.

Koshergirl can't see me, but everyone else: She is wrong. No state wants more kids in foster care. It's a huge problem and no one thinks it's the best outcome. I am not saying this as a liberal. I am saying this as a former CPS worker. It is not at all the way some people portray it.

Ugh, that figures.

That's right, because people like you portray a different reality..also known as a lie.

The truth is they are hiring hiring hiring cps workers, and they are engaging snap workers and schools to help them invade and control families via their children.

The feds or someone must have slapped Oregon for their CPS numbers. Or there was an incident like we had in Maine about 15 years ago where a foster mother killed a kid in her care. Huge response and revamping of the system to save DHHS' ass, funding, and concurrently, foster kids. We had the feds crawling up our ass for years after that. But now Maine will go to most any lengths in order to avoid a foster placement with strangers. Family is better, if family can be found that won't allow the kids to be harmed. Keeping kids home with close supervision of the parents is even better, if it can be safe.
I've seen abuse you would not want to see visited on any child. That is what CPS is for. No state wishes for foster kids. It is an unending nightmare and vastly services intensive and costly enterprise. No state looks for MORE. Oregon MIGHT be trying to lower the incidence of abuse, however. No one wants your friends' kids, KG, unless they're being neglected or abused, in which case they want it to stop.

But you DO have to acknowledge that there are a lot of over zealous people out there individually who will abuse the system to take kids from families for unwarranted reasons. It happens, we both know it happens. But yeah, there is no government plan in place to make it happen. It's just individually bad government workers.

I can only speak to what I know, but unless you want to include the judges who actually ALLOW a child to come into custody in your conspiracy theory, it isn't happening the way KG thinks. No child anywhere is brought into custody without a judge reviewing the reasons, not even for a temporary custody order, in which the parents are assured a full trial with an attorney, and the child with a court appointed Guardian Ad Litem, within 10 days

 

[Fair&Balanced]

It's about seizing control of children. That's all this is about.

You should see the HUGE hiring swell for child welfare in Oregon. They are hiring HUNDREDS of new workers and putting them in every podunk town. They are also facilitating child welfare involvement in foodstamp cases...

Which is why I tell everybody...get the **** out of any entitlement program you currently are dependent on, because the feds are using those programs to infiltrate your bank accounts, and to gain access to your children.

Koshergirl can't see me, but everyone else: She is wrong. No state wants more kids in foster care. It's a huge problem and no one thinks it's the best outcome. I am not saying this as a liberal. I am saying this as a former CPS worker. It is not at all the way some people portray it.

Ugh, that figures.

That's right, because people like you portray a different reality..also known as a lie.

The truth is they are hiring hiring hiring cps workers, and they are engaging snap workers and schools to help them invade and control families via their children.

The feds or someone must have slapped Oregon for their CPS numbers. Or there was an incident like we had in Maine about 15 years ago where a foster mother killed a kid in her care. Huge response and revamping of the system to save DHHS' ass, funding, and concurrently, foster kids. We had the feds crawling up our ass for years after that. But now Maine will go to most any lengths in order to avoid a foster placement with strangers. Family is better, if family can be found that won't allow the kids to be harmed. Keeping kids home with close supervision of the parents is even better, if it can be safe.
I've seen abuse you would not want to see visited on any child. That is what CPS is for. No state wishes for foster kids. It is an unending nightmare and vastly services intensive and costly enterprise. No state looks for MORE. Oregon MIGHT be trying to lower the incidence of abuse, however. No one wants your friends' kids, KG, unless they're being neglected or abused, in which case they want it to stop.

But you DO have to acknowledge that there are a lot of over zealous people out there individually who will abuse the system to take kids from families for unwarranted reasons. It happens, we both know it happens. But yeah, there is no government plan in place to make it happen. It's just individually bad government workers.

I can only speak to what I know, but unless you want to include the judges who actually ALLOW a child to come into custody in your conspiracy theory, it isn't happening the way KG thinks. No child anywhere is brought into custody without a judge reviewing the reasons, not even for a temporary custody order, in which the parents are assured a full trial with an attorney, and the child with a court appointed Guardian Ad Litem, within 10 days

Of course, but I would be interested to see statistics on how often a judge disagrees with a worker's suggestion.

 

[OldLady]

Koshergirl can't see me, but everyone else: She is wrong. No state wants more kids in foster care. It's a huge problem and no one thinks it's the best outcome. I am not saying this as a liberal. I am saying this as a former CPS worker. It is not at all the way some people portray it.

Ugh, that figures.

That's right, because people like you portray a different reality..also known as a lie.

The truth is they are hiring hiring hiring cps workers, and they are engaging snap workers and schools to help them invade and control families via their children.

The feds or someone must have slapped Oregon for their CPS numbers. Or there was an incident like we had in Maine about 15 years ago where a foster mother killed a kid in her care. Huge response and revamping of the system to save DHHS' ass, funding, and concurrently, foster kids. We had the feds crawling up our ass for years after that. But now Maine will go to most any lengths in order to avoid a foster placement with strangers. Family is better, if family can be found that won't allow the kids to be harmed. Keeping kids home with close supervision of the parents is even better, if it can be safe.
I've seen abuse you would not want to see visited on any child. That is what CPS is for. No state wishes for foster kids. It is an unending nightmare and vastly services intensive and costly enterprise. No state looks for MORE. Oregon MIGHT be trying to lower the incidence of abuse, however. No one wants your friends' kids, KG, unless they're being neglected or abused, in which case they want it to stop.

But you DO have to acknowledge that there are a lot of over zealous people out there individually who will abuse the system to take kids from families for unwarranted reasons. It happens, we both know it happens. But yeah, there is no government plan in place to make it happen. It's just individually bad government workers.

I can only speak to what I know, but unless you want to include the judges who actually ALLOW a child to come into custody in your conspiracy theory, it isn't happening the way KG thinks. No child anywhere is brought into custody without a judge reviewing the reasons, not even for a temporary custody order, in which the parents are assured a full trial with an attorney, and the child with a court appointed Guardian Ad Litem, within 10 days

Of course, but I would be interested to see statistics on how often a judge disagrees with a worker's suggestion.

That would be interesting. I know it happened in our office, though not to me personally. Workers in other parts of the state with judges who were hostile to DHHS? It happened a lot.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Ugh, that figures.

That's right, because people like you portray a different reality..also known as a lie.

The truth is they are hiring hiring hiring cps workers, and they are engaging snap workers and schools to help them invade and control families via their children.

The feds or someone must have slapped Oregon for their CPS numbers. Or there was an incident like we had in Maine about 15 years ago where a foster mother killed a kid in her care. Huge response and revamping of the system to save DHHS' ass, funding, and concurrently, foster kids. We had the feds crawling up our ass for years after that. But now Maine will go to most any lengths in order to avoid a foster placement with strangers. Family is better, if family can be found that won't allow the kids to be harmed. Keeping kids home with close supervision of the parents is even better, if it can be safe.
I've seen abuse you would not want to see visited on any child. That is what CPS is for. No state wishes for foster kids. It is an unending nightmare and vastly services intensive and costly enterprise. No state looks for MORE. Oregon MIGHT be trying to lower the incidence of abuse, however. No one wants your friends' kids, KG, unless they're being neglected or abused, in which case they want it to stop.

But you DO have to acknowledge that there are a lot of over zealous people out there individually who will abuse the system to take kids from families for unwarranted reasons. It happens, we both know it happens. But yeah, there is no government plan in place to make it happen. It's just individually bad government workers.

I can only speak to what I know, but unless you want to include the judges who actually ALLOW a child to come into custody in your conspiracy theory, it isn't happening the way KG thinks. No child anywhere is brought into custody without a judge reviewing the reasons, not even for a temporary custody order, in which the parents are assured a full trial with an attorney, and the child with a court appointed Guardian Ad Litem, within 10 days

Of course, but I would be interested to see statistics on how often a judge disagrees with a worker's suggestion.

That would be interesting. I know it happened in our office, though not to me personally. Workers in other parts of the state with judges who were hostile to DHHS? It happened a lot.

Good. Any judge that protects children from the kidnapping mafia is tops in my book.

 

[OldLady]

The feds or someone must have slapped Oregon for their CPS numbers. Or there was an incident like we had in Maine about 15 years ago where a foster mother killed a kid in her care. Huge response and revamping of the system to save DHHS' ass, funding, and concurrently, foster kids. We had the feds crawling up our ass for years after that. But now Maine will go to most any lengths in order to avoid a foster placement with strangers. Family is better, if family can be found that won't allow the kids to be harmed. Keeping kids home with close supervision of the parents is even better, if it can be safe.
I've seen abuse you would not want to see visited on any child. That is what CPS is for. No state wishes for foster kids. It is an unending nightmare and vastly services intensive and costly enterprise. No state looks for MORE. Oregon MIGHT be trying to lower the incidence of abuse, however. No one wants your friends' kids, KG, unless they're being neglected or abused, in which case they want it to stop.

But you DO have to acknowledge that there are a lot of over zealous people out there individually who will abuse the system to take kids from families for unwarranted reasons. It happens, we both know it happens. But yeah, there is no government plan in place to make it happen. It's just individually bad government workers.

I can only speak to what I know, but unless you want to include the judges who actually ALLOW a child to come into custody in your conspiracy theory, it isn't happening the way KG thinks. No child anywhere is brought into custody without a judge reviewing the reasons, not even for a temporary custody order, in which the parents are assured a full trial with an attorney, and the child with a court appointed Guardian Ad Litem, within 10 days

Of course, but I would be interested to see statistics on how often a judge disagrees with a worker's suggestion.

That would be interesting. I know it happened in our office, though not to me personally. Workers in other parts of the state with judges who were hostile to DHHS? It happened a lot.

Good. Any judge that protects children from the kidnapping mafia is tops in my book.

We -- at least I -- always welcomed the judge and GAL's decisions; sharing the responsibility for such a big decision is a huge relief. Of course, I had a supervisor and the case was always thoroughly reviewed and such prior to asking for custody, but supervisors have to go by your perceptions and observations in the field. It is a heavy weight to carry, sometimes wondering if this is going to make things better or worse, and my heart always breaking for the kids and the parents. Contrary to what you think of CPS workers, it's about the kids, not you.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

But you DO have to acknowledge that there are a lot of over zealous people out there individually who will abuse the system to take kids from families for unwarranted reasons. It happens, we both know it happens. But yeah, there is no government plan in place to make it happen. It's just individually bad government workers.

I can only speak to what I know, but unless you want to include the judges who actually ALLOW a child to come into custody in your conspiracy theory, it isn't happening the way KG thinks. No child anywhere is brought into custody without a judge reviewing the reasons, not even for a temporary custody order, in which the parents are assured a full trial with an attorney, and the child with a court appointed Guardian Ad Litem, within 10 days

Of course, but I would be interested to see statistics on how often a judge disagrees with a worker's suggestion.

That would be interesting. I know it happened in our office, though not to me personally. Workers in other parts of the state with judges who were hostile to DHHS? It happened a lot.

Good. Any judge that protects children from the kidnapping mafia is tops in my book.

We -- at least I -- always welcomed the judge and GAL's decisions; sharing the responsibility for such a big decision is a huge relief. Of course, I had a supervisor and the case was always thoroughly reviewed and such prior to asking for custody, but supervisors have to go by your perceptions and observations in the field. It is a heavy weight to carry, sometimes wondering if this is going to make things better or worse, and my heart always breaking for the kids and the parents. Contrary to what you think of CPS workers, it's about the kids, not you.

Yes, it is about the kids. Which is why kidnapping them should be illegal and CPS should be subject to the same lethal force justified against all kidnappers. Why would I care that a supervisor signed off on your kidnapping?

Leave the kids alone!

 

[depotoo]

Why police were called to a South Jersey third-grade class party
Put it this way, I read the police department are called up to 5 times a day to this school district for events such as this.

The increased police involvement follows a May 25 meeting among the Collingswood Police Department, school officials, and representatives from the Camden County Prosecutor's Office, where school officials and police both said they were told to report to police any incidents that could be considered criminal, including what Police Chief Kevin Carey called anything "as minor as a simple name-calling incident that the school would typically handle internally."

The police and schools were also advised that they should report "just about every incident" to the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency, Carey said.

Previously, the school district, following the state's Memorandum of Agreement Between Education and Law Enforcement Officials, had only reported incidents it deemed serious, like those involving weapons, drugs, or sexual misconduct. Both Carey and School Board President David Routzahn described the protocol set forth after that May meeting as a significant change in procedure.

"It was a pretty clear directive that we questioned vehemently," Oswald said.

But a month after the meeting, and after police investigations that parents consider fruitless had begun to gain attention, Maley wrote in a public letter that the May 25 meeting was intended to "reinforce the applicability" of the MOA, "not to expand its terms." Prosecutor Mary Eva Colalillo, in an accompanying statement, said she hoped Maley's message "clarifies" the responsibilities of school officials.

Maley said in an interview Tuesday that there had been a "misunderstanding" during the May 25 meeting. But Oswald said the Prosecutor's Office was shying away from its own instructions.

"At some point, it seems, they've realized that the intent of the MOA that they're leaning heavily upon is not what they directed us to do," Oswald said. "It went way above what that MOA says."

There is absolutely NO information in this stupid article. I have no idea what the kid said or why CPS and the Dad got involved. While it sounds like an interesting story, your article has NOTHING in it. Why do you swallow stuff like this?

 

[OldLady]

I can only speak to what I know, but unless you want to include the judges who actually ALLOW a child to come into custody in your conspiracy theory, it isn't happening the way KG thinks. No child anywhere is brought into custody without a judge reviewing the reasons, not even for a temporary custody order, in which the parents are assured a full trial with an attorney, and the child with a court appointed Guardian Ad Litem, within 10 days

Of course, but I would be interested to see statistics on how often a judge disagrees with a worker's suggestion.

That would be interesting. I know it happened in our office, though not to me personally. Workers in other parts of the state with judges who were hostile to DHHS? It happened a lot.

Good. Any judge that protects children from the kidnapping mafia is tops in my book.

We -- at least I -- always welcomed the judge and GAL's decisions; sharing the responsibility for such a big decision is a huge relief. Of course, I had a supervisor and the case was always thoroughly reviewed and such prior to asking for custody, but supervisors have to go by your perceptions and observations in the field. It is a heavy weight to carry, sometimes wondering if this is going to make things better or worse, and my heart always breaking for the kids and the parents. Contrary to what you think of CPS workers, it's about the kids, not you.

Yes, it is about the kids. Which is why kidnapping them should be illegal and CPS should be subject to the same lethal force justified against all kidnappers. Why would I care that a supervisor signed off on your kidnapping?

Leave the kids alone!

And a judge agreed and signed the order and scheduled a hearing for the parents. Do not forget that part.

 

[Divine Wind]

My problem is, I don't know what happened. Cops came and talked to a kid. Dad and CPS got called in. Sure I'll buy that; no problem. But the why? It's not there. This was NOT about brownies, folks. Seriously. Of all the bash education threads I've seen here, this is truly the least evidence of an argument presented. Congrats.

The kid was sent home and lost out on school. The fact you see nothing wrong with these events says more about you than the overreaction of the school.

Additionally, I don't blame the school as much as I do the ******* lawyers. Ours is an extremely litigious society. Schools are so afraid of being sued, they react far outside of common sense in order to cover themselves since lawsuits cost books, school improvements, etc.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I can only speak to what I know, but unless you want to include the judges who actually ALLOW a child to come into custody in your conspiracy theory, it isn't happening the way KG thinks. No child anywhere is brought into custody without a judge reviewing the reasons, not even for a temporary custody order, in which the parents are assured a full trial with an attorney, and the child with a court appointed Guardian Ad Litem, within 10 days

Of course, but I would be interested to see statistics on how often a judge disagrees with a worker's suggestion.

That would be interesting. I know it happened in our office, though not to me personally. Workers in other parts of the state with judges who were hostile to DHHS? It happened a lot.

Good. Any judge that protects children from the kidnapping mafia is tops in my book.

We -- at least I -- always welcomed the judge and GAL's decisions; sharing the responsibility for such a big decision is a huge relief. Of course, I had a supervisor and the case was always thoroughly reviewed and such prior to asking for custody, but supervisors have to go by your perceptions and observations in the field. It is a heavy weight to carry, sometimes wondering if this is going to make things better or worse, and my heart always breaking for the kids and the parents. Contrary to what you think of CPS workers, it's about the kids, not you.

Yes, it is about the kids. Which is why kidnapping them should be illegal and CPS should be subject to the same lethal force justified against all kidnappers. Why would I care that a supervisor signed off on your kidnapping?

Leave the kids alone!

By your "logic" police who make arrests should be treated as kidnappers too. So I guess you agree with Black Lives Matter. Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon and all that..

I swear some people have no thinking skills whatsoever.

 

[koshergrl]

Why police were called to a South Jersey third-grade class party
Put it this way, I read the police department are called up to 5 times a day to this school district for events such as this.

The increased police involvement follows a May 25 meeting among the Collingswood Police Department, school officials, and representatives from the Camden County Prosecutor's Office, where school officials and police both said they were told to report to police any incidents that could be considered criminal, including what Police Chief Kevin Carey called anything "as minor as a simple name-calling incident that the school would typically handle internally."

The police and schools were also advised that they should report "just about every incident" to the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency, Carey said.

Previously, the school district, following the state's Memorandum of Agreement Between Education and Law Enforcement Officials, had only reported incidents it deemed serious, like those involving weapons, drugs, or sexual misconduct. Both Carey and School Board President David Routzahn described the protocol set forth after that May meeting as a significant change in procedure.

"It was a pretty clear directive that we questioned vehemently," Oswald said.

But a month after the meeting, and after police investigations that parents consider fruitless had begun to gain attention, Maley wrote in a public letter that the May 25 meeting was intended to "reinforce the applicability" of the MOA, "not to expand its terms." Prosecutor Mary Eva Colalillo, in an accompanying statement, said she hoped Maley's message "clarifies" the responsibilities of school officials.

Maley said in an interview Tuesday that there had been a "misunderstanding" during the May 25 meeting. But Oswald said the Prosecutor's Office was shying away from its own instructions.

"At some point, it seems, they've realized that the intent of the MOA that they're leaning heavily upon is not what they directed us to do," Oswald said. "It went way above what that MOA says."

There is absolutely NO information in this stupid article. I have no idea what the kid said or why CPS and the Dad got involved. While it sounds like an interesting story, your article has NOTHING in it. Why do you swallow stuff like this?

People need to be calling that prosecutor. ******.

 

[koshergrl]

But you DO have to acknowledge that there are a lot of over zealous people out there individually who will abuse the system to take kids from families for unwarranted reasons. It happens, we both know it happens. But yeah, there is no government plan in place to make it happen. It's just individually bad government workers.

I can only speak to what I know, but unless you want to include the judges who actually ALLOW a child to come into custody in your conspiracy theory, it isn't happening the way KG thinks. No child anywhere is brought into custody without a judge reviewing the reasons, not even for a temporary custody order, in which the parents are assured a full trial with an attorney, and the child with a court appointed Guardian Ad Litem, within 10 days

Of course, but I would be interested to see statistics on how often a judge disagrees with a worker's suggestion.

That would be interesting. I know it happened in our office, though not to me personally. Workers in other parts of the state with judges who were hostile to DHHS? It happened a lot.

Good. Any judge that protects children from the kidnapping mafia is tops in my book.

We -- at least I -- always welcomed the judge and GAL's decisions; sharing the responsibility for such a big decision is a huge relief. Of course, I had a supervisor and the case was always thoroughly reviewed and such prior to asking for custody, but supervisors have to go by your perceptions and observations in the field. It is a heavy weight to carry, sometimes wondering if this is going to make things better or worse, and my heart always breaking for the kids and the parents. Contrary to what you think of CPS workers, it's about the kids, not you.

That's because you're a statist pig and a dumbass.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Of course, but I would be interested to see statistics on how often a judge disagrees with a worker's suggestion.

That would be interesting. I know it happened in our office, though not to me personally. Workers in other parts of the state with judges who were hostile to DHHS? It happened a lot.

Good. Any judge that protects children from the kidnapping mafia is tops in my book.

We -- at least I -- always welcomed the judge and GAL's decisions; sharing the responsibility for such a big decision is a huge relief. Of course, I had a supervisor and the case was always thoroughly reviewed and such prior to asking for custody, but supervisors have to go by your perceptions and observations in the field. It is a heavy weight to carry, sometimes wondering if this is going to make things better or worse, and my heart always breaking for the kids and the parents. Contrary to what you think of CPS workers, it's about the kids, not you.

Yes, it is about the kids. Which is why kidnapping them should be illegal and CPS should be subject to the same lethal force justified against all kidnappers. Why would I care that a supervisor signed off on your kidnapping?

Leave the kids alone!

By your "logic" police who make arrests should be treated as kidnappers too. So I guess you agree with Black Lives Matter. Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon and all that..

I swear some people have no thinking skills whatsoever.

By my logic? There's no comparison whatsoever and you just proved what want of thinking skills looks like.

 

[koshergrl]

My problem is, I don't know what happened. Cops came and talked to a kid. Dad and CPS got called in. Sure I'll buy that; no problem. But the why? It's not there. This was NOT about brownies, folks. Seriously. Of all the bash education threads I've seen here, this is truly the least evidence of an argument presented. Congrats.

The kid was sent home and lost out on school. The fact you see nothing wrong with these events says more about you than the overreaction of the school.

Additionally, I don't blame the school as much as I do the ******* lawyers. Ours is an extremely litigious society. Schools are so afraid of being sued, they react far outside of common sense in order to cover themselves since lawsuits cost books, school improvements, etc.

It's the ******* prosecutor.

 

[Tresha91203]

There is absolutely NO information in this stupid article. I have no idea what the kid said or why CPS and the Dad got involved. While it sounds like an interesting story, your article has NOTHING in it. Why do you swallow stuff like this?

ESL?

"A New Jersey elementary school called the police after a third-grade student made a comment about the brownies being served in class and another student called the remark “racist.”

A police officer from the Collingswood Police Department showed up at William P. Tatem Elementary School to question the boy, who is 9.

The boy’s mother, Stacy dos Santos, said the school’s response was a complete overreaction.

“He said they were talking about brownies. … Who exactly did he offend?” she toldphilly.com."

From the article that you either couldn't or didn't read

Yes, Frank, I read that. It fails to say what the child said, doesn't it? I'm still holding out for that. Would like to know what the reaction was about and how Dad and CPS got called in--sounds like quite a story, as I said before. But without knowing what the kid said, or why it would be construed as racist, or why COPS got called, I can't make any kind of reasonable conclusion let alone form an opinion. There is a whole lot more to this than is being reported. It is so clear to me. Don't know why you are having such a hard time with it.

The article stated the cops were called because of a new policy to call the cops for anything that could remotely be considered criminal, even mundane matters usually handled internally. The article also stated this new policy led some schools to call the cops five times per day. In our current culture, "hate speech" (like the words "niggardly" and "brownie") could remotely be considered criminal.

While the article did not quote exactly what the child said, it was pretty clear the child was talking about cake-like fudge food items, not people of color.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

My problem is, I don't know what happened. Cops came and talked to a kid. Dad and CPS got called in. Sure I'll buy that; no problem. But the why? It's not there. This was NOT about brownies, folks. Seriously. Of all the bash education threads I've seen here, this is truly the least evidence of an argument presented. Congrats.

The kid was sent home and lost out on school. The fact you see nothing wrong with these events says more about you than the overreaction of the school.

Additionally, I don't blame the school as much as I do the ******* lawyers. Ours is an extremely litigious society. Schools are so afraid of being sued, they react far outside of common sense in order to cover themselves since lawsuits cost books, school improvements, etc.

It's the ******* prosecutor.

Prosecutors can lay out recommendations, but they cannot force schools to call the police. The problem is schools are now terrified of children. A lot has changed since I went to school in the 80's and my parents signed permission for the principal to paddle me if necessary. In those days parents and teachers were allies in instilling discipline and respect for authority in children. If I ever got in trouble in school, I got it even worse at home. Now when kids are bad, parents don't scream at them, they show up at school to scream at the principal and threaten a lawsuit. It goes back to the Biblical proverb that those who spare the rod hate their children, and there are a lot of parents who hate their children these days.

 

[WillowTree]

There is absolutely NO information in this stupid article. I have no idea what the kid said or why CPS and the Dad got involved. While it sounds like an interesting story, your article has NOTHING in it. Why do you swallow stuff like this?

It constitutes child abuse. Calling the police because he said something about a brownie that some numbskull construed as racist. This racist calling bullshit is getting out of hand when you can't talk about brownies or black holes. We need segregation to come back will cut down on the interactions between blacks and whites. Should restore at least a little quiet in the country.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

There is absolutely NO information in this stupid article. I have no idea what the kid said or why CPS and the Dad got involved. While it sounds like an interesting story, your article has NOTHING in it. Why do you swallow stuff like this?

ESL?

"A New Jersey elementary school called the police after a third-grade student made a comment about the brownies being served in class and another student called the remark “racist.”

A police officer from the Collingswood Police Department showed up at William P. Tatem Elementary School to question the boy, who is 9.

The boy’s mother, Stacy dos Santos, said the school’s response was a complete overreaction.

“He said they were talking about brownies. … Who exactly did he offend?” she toldphilly.com."

From the article that you either couldn't or didn't read

Yes, Frank, I read that. It fails to say what the child said, doesn't it? I'm still holding out for that. Would like to know what the reaction was about and how Dad and CPS got called in--sounds like quite a story, as I said before. But without knowing what the kid said, or why it would be construed as racist, or why COPS got called, I can't make any kind of reasonable conclusion let alone form an opinion. There is a whole lot more to this than is being reported. It is so clear to me. Don't know why you are having such a hard time with it.

The article stated the cops were called because of a new policy to call the cops for anything that could remotely be considered criminal, even mundane matters usually handled internally. The article also stated this new policy led some schools to call the cops five times per day. In our current culture, "hate speech" (like the words "niggardly" and "brownie") could remotely be considered criminal.

While the article did not quote exactly what the child said, it was pretty clear the child was talking about cake-like fudge food items, not people of color.

I don't care if the kid said that brownies and black kids look like the last shit he took. Only on the Left is there a perverse effort to criminalize speech and calling the cops certainly is a step in that direction. That's why the schools didn't tell the County Prosecutor to go to hell, because they're full of Leftists who have no problem with the Prosecutor's recommendation.

 

[koshergrl]

There is absolutely NO information in this stupid article. I have no idea what the kid said or why CPS and the Dad got involved. While it sounds like an interesting story, your article has NOTHING in it. Why do you swallow stuff like this?

ESL?

"A New Jersey elementary school called the police after a third-grade student made a comment about the brownies being served in class and another student called the remark “racist.”

A police officer from the Collingswood Police Department showed up at William P. Tatem Elementary School to question the boy, who is 9.

The boy’s mother, Stacy dos Santos, said the school’s response was a complete overreaction.

“He said they were talking about brownies. … Who exactly did he offend?” she toldphilly.com."

From the article that you either couldn't or didn't read

Yes, Frank, I read that. It fails to say what the child said, doesn't it? I'm still holding out for that. Would like to know what the reaction was about and how Dad and CPS got called in--sounds like quite a story, as I said before. But without knowing what the kid said, or why it would be construed as racist, or why COPS got called, I can't make any kind of reasonable conclusion let alone form an opinion. There is a whole lot more to this than is being reported. It is so clear to me. Don't know why you are having such a hard time with it.

The article stated the cops were called because of a new policy to call the cops for anything that could remotely be considered criminal, even mundane matters usually handled internally. The article also stated this new policy led some schools to call the cops five times per day. In our current culture, "hate speech" (like the words "niggardly" and "brownie") could remotely be considered criminal.

While the article did not quote exactly what the child said, it was pretty clear the child was talking about cake-like fudge food items, not people of color.

They can't quote what the child said because really, nobody knows. One kid said something to another kid, the other kid went to the teacher about it, the teacher called the cops.

It's ******* insane. I would not send my kids to that school, and would move out of that community. Screw that.

 

[Divine Wind]

Prosecutors can lay out recommendations, but they cannot force schools to call the police. The problem is schools are now terrified of children. A lot has changed since I went to school in the 80's and my parents signed permission for the principal to paddle me if necessary. In those days parents and teachers were allies in instilling discipline and respect for authority in children. If I ever got in trouble in school, I got it even worse at home. Now when kids are bad, parents don't scream at them, they show up at school to scream at the principal and threaten a lawsuit. It goes back to the Biblical proverb that those who spare the rod hate their children, and there are a lot of parents who hate their children these days.

You bounce around, but in the end, I think you are agreeing with Koshergrrl and myself; it's the lawyers.

It's fear of litigation that drives this.