Student charged for stealing free milk.

[Machine_Elf]

@Banquet_Bear

…if “control the encounter” is the first tenet of a cops training: how come when I google for “control the encounter” it comes up with no cites at all for the police? (in the first five or six pages I checked anyway.)

That just means the results you want are diluted by an ocean of irrelevant results. Try searching for:

“control the encounter” police

The addition of police to the search term string nicely filters out the irrelevant stuff.

@Banquet_Bear

Is the only way to “control an encounter” with a high school kid to grab them and accuse them of theft? There aren’t alternative ways of doing it? Don’t you think grabbing the kid and provoking the kid is a poor way to “control an encounter?”

the accusation of theft is a separate issue from controlling the encounter. FWIW, the only claim I’ve seen about how the cop grabbed the kid appears to come from the mother, who is herself reporting it second-hand from her kid, so expect some bias there. From the OP’s article:

@NYDailyNews

An officer grabbed Ryan when the boy was standing on the lunch line getting milk, his mother said.

I’ve looked at a few other articles, but didn’t see any more detail about the nature of the initial physical contact between the two.

I wasn’t there, so I can’t say for certain; I would speculate that maybe the cop put a hand on the kid’s shoulder because he was concerned the kid might flee the scene if he was just verbally confronted. Or maybe he put a hand to direct the kid somewhere else for a chat (as adults in positions of authority sometimes do to kids), and that’s when the kid got agitated.

[Chihuahua]

@Machine_Elf

As a matter of fact, That’s pretty much the same basic advice given here by a former border patrol agent:

“Control the encounter” is the first tenet of a cop’s training because his life often depends on it. A contact who is fidgety, keeps putting his hands in his pockets, or vehemently insists on having some distance between him and the officer is something to be concerned about. It’s not that the cop is a hothead, it’s that he’s concerned about his own safety; if he’s not in control of the encounter, then his safety is at risk.

And this mentality has led us to riots in the streets over the problem of police brutality, corruption, and criminality.

Concern over the cop’s safety has produced a world where they have a blank check to beat, murder, and arrest anyone who disagrees with them. And the only way people can protect themselves is to record it and put it on the internet… Assuming the cop doesn’t beat them and steal their phone.

[Shodan]

Thanks to those who explained the free milk process.

@yellowjacketcoder

If the kid decided to just bypass the line and walk out with a half-pint of milk, that would look exactly the same as stealing. If he’s entitled to the milk for free, he would still have to go through the line and get his card swiped.

AFAICT this appears to be how this Crime of the Century went down.

Cop sees a kid take milk and try to hide it and not pay for it. Cop stops kid. Kid mouths off and jerks away. Cop arrests kid. Kid learns to be polite to cops. Only problem I see is the kid wasn’t taught to be polite to everyone he runs into in daily life in the first place.

The only problem I see is that the kid’s dumbass mother is going to teach him what she has taught him all along.

@From the OP's Cite

They are charging him with larceny, which I don’t have no understanding as to why he is being charged with larceny when he was entitled to that milk from the beginning.

So if you are on food stamps, no need to bother with the “10 Items or Less” line - you are entitled to just tuck whatever you want under your coat and walk out.

Regards,
Shodan

[Banquet_Bear]

@Machine_Elf

That just means the results you want are diluted by an ocean of irrelevant results. Try searching for:

“control the encounter” police

The addition of police to the search term string nicely filters out the irrelevant stuff.

…I’m well aware of how to filter google results. But if “controlling the encounter” is the first tenet of a cops training: one would expect it to turn up on a google search searching simply for the phrase. Even adding the word police to the search doesn’t lead me to any cite that backs up your claim: the closest is of course a link to this very thread.

the accusation of theft is a separate issue from controlling the encounter. FWIW, the only claim I’ve seen about how the cop grabbed the kid appears to come from the mother, who is herself reporting it second-hand from her kid, so expect some bias there. From the OP’s article:

I’ve looked at a few other articles, but didn’t see any more detail about the nature of the initial physical contact between the two.

I wasn’t there, so I can’t say for certain; I would speculate that maybe the cop put a hand on the kid’s shoulder because he was concerned the kid might flee the scene if he was just verbally confronted. Or maybe he put a hand to direct the kid somewhere else for a chat (as adults in positions of authority sometimes do to kids), and that’s when the kid got agitated.

It really was a “yes or no” question: and as a hypothetical whether or not it happened the way the mum claimed is irrelevant. Do you think “grabbing the kid” was a good or a poor way to “control the encounter?” Can you concede that there are good ways and poor ways for police to “control the encounter” and that maybe on this occasion the police handled it poorly?

[Machine_Elf]

@Banquet_Bear

But if “controlling the encounter” is the first tenet of a cops training: one would expect it to turn up on a google search searching simply for the phrase. Even adding the word police to the search doesn’t lead me to any cite that backs up your claim: the closest is of course a link to this very thread.

What is your search string? Mine was exactly this line:

“control the encounter” police

Here’s the first hit in the results I got, a book written by a professor of criminology and criminal justice.

Here’s another document, from the Burlington (VT) police department (search the document for instances of “control”).

@Banquet_Bear

It really was a “yes or no” question: and as a hypothetical whether or not it happened the way the mum claimed is irrelevant. Do you think “grabbing the kid” was a good or a poor way to “control the encounter?”

I don’t know, and I suspect you don’t either. I’m not a cop with access to a massive database indicating what has and hasn’t worked over years of policing. If a hand on the shoulder tends to intimidate potential runners into standing pat, then maybe it works best more often than not, even if it tends to agitate a few.

Can you concede that there are good ways and poor ways for police to “control the encounter” and that maybe on this occasion the police handled it poorly?

The problem is that if I concede that maybe he handled it poorly, you will then assert that he did handle it poorly. And again, since neither of us was there, we’re both speculating as to the details of what happened; the only information we have about physical contact comes second hand from a biased source. Was the initial contact a hand on the shoulder? Was it a talon-like grab of the kid’s trapezius? Or did the grab happen after the kid rebuked the officer and pulled away? Absent any compelling evidence to the contrary, I’m inclined to give the officer the benefit of the doubt and believe that he probably made reasonable efforts to get an agitated kid under control.

[TriPolar]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

I utterly disagree and I am no LEO fan girl or apologist. Just because some things that were implemented with positive reason failed, doesn’t mean other things aren’t worth doing.

As always, it is how these plans are implemented and the nature of people involved that matter. And once again, I have no idea, in this specific case, what the intent or purpose was to having LEO in the schools.

Disagree all you like, this is a failed concept and positive reasoning is a lame excuse for failure. To simply mention positive reasoning and not positive results highlights the failure. Not that positive reasoning matters here because there’s nothing positive about this. When you bring in the police things have already gone negative.

[Bricker]

@Chihuahua

Cops know this, and they actively try to provoke hostility in their victims so that they have an excuse to make an arrest completely independent of whether the original stop was actually justified.

OK, this is an opinion, and it’s probably true of some cops, somewhere.

Some states even have laws on the books like “Resisting an Officer Without Violence” which are defined so broadly that any disagreement or displeasure becomes an arrestable offense.

This is a claim about a factual matter, and it’s incorrect.

Wrong. In error. It’s not a true factual statement.

Would you care to cite even one such state law?

[yellowjacketcoder]

@Saint_Cad

Nope. Calling their name is.

Which is great if you know their name ahead of time. But I think taking someone by the arm is reasonable even if you’re on a first name basis with them.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Machine_Elf

What is your search string? Mine was exactly this line:

Here’s the first hit in the results I got, a book written by a professor of criminology and criminal justice.

Here’s another document, from the Burlington (VT) police department (search the document for instances of “control”).

…they don’t really back up your point though.

I don’t know, and I suspect you don’t either. I’m not a cop with access to a massive database indicating what has and hasn’t worked over years of policing. If a hand on the shoulder tends to intimidate potential runners into standing pat, then maybe it works best more often than not, even if it tends to agitate a few.

I agree: I don’t know either.

The problem is that if I concede that maybe he handled it poorly, you will then assert that he did handle it poorly.

Perhaps you could put more effort into answering the question rather than second-guessing what my response is going to be?

And again, since neither of us was there, we’re both speculating as to the details of what happened; the only information we have about physical contact comes second hand from a biased source. Was the initial contact a hand on the shoulder? Was it a talon-like grab of the kid’s trapezius? Or did the grab happen after the kid rebuked the officer and pulled away? Absent any compelling evidence to the contrary, I’m inclined to give the officer the benefit of the doubt and believe that he probably made reasonable efforts to get an agitated kid under control.

And you’ve really made my point. Telling us what the “first tenet of policing is” is irrelevant if you can’t demonstrate that the police in this instance effectively tried to control the encounter. And I’m not sure why you choose to give the officer the benefit of the doubt based on what little information we actually have.

[Bricker]

The mother is quoted as saying she did not understand how her son could be charged with larceny, since he is on the free lunch program and thus entitled to free milk.

In Virginia, petit larceny is defined a couple of different ways. Its basic form mirrors the common law crime: the taking and asportation from another of property with the intent to deprive the owner of that property.

However, there is also a statutory definition: the willful concealment of goods or merchandise is considered prima facie evidence intent to defraud the owner out of the value of the merchandise.

So from a legal perspective, we start out with a bunch of milk cartons in a cafeteria line. The student who takes a milk does not immediately acquire ownership of: there’s a checkout line. He goes through the cashier, who takes money, a school account debit card, or another process that counts the milk as “sold” for the purposes of inventory and may (or, in this student’s case, does not) take money from the student. At that point, the student becomes the owner of the milk.

If a student takes a milk carton from the milk display and conceals it, he creates a prima facie presumption that he intends to fraudulently take it.

This creates probable cause to arrest him for the misdemeanor of petit larceny.

Now, even if he is entitled to free milk, he is still required to go through the cashier process to obtain the milk – he cannot simply convert a carton of milk to his own use.

Obviously, from a common sense perspective, a student that’s entitled to free milk has a very good chance of rebutting the presumption that his intent was to defraud the owner, since in his case the owner woudn’t gain any money when he lawfully took the milk.

But “probable cause” is all that’s required to make an arrest. And the facts here support probable cause, assuming the officer’s story about concealment is true.

[Omega_Glory]

@bump

Seems pretty easy to me. Just like Post 28 says, I doubt the cop knows just what kids are on the free lunch program, so to him, it probably looked like this kid went and snatched a carton of milk without paying, even though he forgot his milk.

Now in reality, the best way for this to have gone down would have either been for the kid to have said “Hey- I forgot my milk. Can I get one?” and let the lunch lady or the cop say “Sure” or “We need to punch your card” or whatever. Even if you’re entitled to free milk, you still have to go through the normal procedures to get that milk, otherwise people will think you’re stealing it.

But Turk didn’t, and the cop thought he was stealing it. Turk didn’t help matters by being mouthy and uncooperative either.

How do you know it didn’t go down the way that you’re saying it was best to have gone down? People are talking about swiping and punching cards as if that’s the way the program is handled in every school, but it’s not. Even if it was, the kid could have gone through the line the first time, told the lunch lady that she forgot his milk, she could have taken care of things on her end and told him to go back and get it. Then, he could have put his tray down, gone back for the milk and bypassed the line because everything was already squared away.

It’s not quite the same, but it’s like if you’re in the parking lot and realize you left some of your groceries hanging on the lazy Susan. You probably just take if from where you left it and make eye contact with the cashier, instead of going through the line a second time so that everyone in the building can tell you’re not stealing it.

[aceplace57]

It’s quite interesting how many people accept that the law be applied in this case.

I saw this as a routing discipline problem. Easily handled by the school staff. A warning and demerits maybe. Detention. Whatever they prefer using.

There are more serious situations where police intervention is needed.

Anyway, it seems the officer could have handled this a less roughly.

[Mdcastle]

Stealing is a crime, not just a “routine discipline problem”. The officer thought a crime was being committed.

Sounds like the kid wasn’t disciplined enough at home and thus has complete and utter disrespect for authority and feels rules don’t apply to him. Better he learn his lesson now than when he feels he can just walk in and take his neighbors stereo.

[Chimera]

@yellowjacketcoder

I’m glad you agree. That is pretty normal behavior for stopping somebody you want to talk to.

Well, except that it isn’t. The police officer did everything wrong here, escalating the issue at every turn. Yeah, you can claim the kid shouldn’t have resisted, but seriously, if I’m doing something I’m legally entitled to do and a cop starts using force on me, you damn betcha I’m going to be unhappy about it. Contrary to the beliefs of some, being a police officer does not entitle you to assault anyone and everyone at the drop of a hat.

There will be a cash payout on this matter, mark my words.

And pfft “CRIME”. Sure, taking a 65 cent item is a “crime” worthy of assaulting a child. Not in my world…

[Jack_Batty]

@Mdcastle

Stealing is a crime, not just a “routine discipline problem”. The officer thought a crime was being committed.

Sounds like the kid wasn’t disciplined enough at home and thus has complete and utter disrespect for authority and feels rules don’t apply to him. Better he learn his lesson now than when he feels he can just walk in and take his neighbors stereo.

Wow. What a prejudicial load of shit that statement is.

[TriPolar]

@Mdcastle

Stealing is a crime, not just a “routine discipline problem”. The officer thought a crime was being committed.

The officer is an idiot. Would you think it was ok if this officer saw you getting into your car and arrested you because he thought you were stealing it? There was no reasonable basis to think the kid was stealing milk. The cop was wrong, the school was wrong to put a cop there, and yes, the dumb kid’s parents are probably idiots too. The police are not a solution to stupidity.

[Muffin]

@Bricker

This is a claim about a factual matter, and it’s incorrect.

Wrong. In error. It’s not a true factual statement.

Would you care to cite even one such state law?

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0800-0899/0843/Sections/0843.02.html

Despite Florida being in an altered state, it still is a State of the USA.

[yellowjacketcoder]

@TriPolar

The officer is an idiot. Would you think it was ok if this officer saw you getting into your car and arrested you because he thought you were stealing it? There was no reasonable basis to think the kid was stealing milk. The cop was wrong, the school was wrong to put a cop there, and yes, the dumb kid’s parents are probably idiots too. The police are not a solution to stupidity.

Kid grabbed milk, did not go through the line to pay for it. What does that look like? Sure looks like stealing from here.

If you’re getting into your car it’s reasonable to assume you own that car because you unlocked it. If you’re getting to your car by breaking the window and reaching in to unlock the door, it’s reasonable to believe you’re stealing the car even if it is, in fact, your car.

There’s nothing wrong with having a cop on the school grounds.

I do agree that the kid’s parents are probably idiots if this is how they raised their son.

[Chimera]

@yellowjacketcoder

Kid grabbed milk, did not go through the line to pay for it. What does that look like? Sure looks like stealing from here.

So the answer is “Go direct to confrontation and physicality”? If this is your thinking, then you should not be involved in law enforcement or public policy.

[yellowjacketcoder]

@Chihuahua

Some states even have laws on the books like “Resisting an Officer Without Violence” which are defined so broadly that any disagreement or displeasure becomes an arrestable offense…

@Bricker

This is a claim about a factual matter, and it’s incorrect.

Wrong. In error. It’s not a true factual statement.

Would you care to cite even one such state law?

@Muffin

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine.

That law does not prove Bricker wrong. To quote said law:

[QUOTE=The 2015 Florida Statutes]

Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer … or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

[/QUOTE]

Disagreeing or voicing displease is not resisting, obstructing, or opposing an officer.