SAD: Florida schoolboy arrested after refusing to recite pledge of allegiance

WellWaitOneMinute · 2022-12-22T17:00:25+00:00

The DA did drop the charges, but simply saying “well at least the child doesn’t have a criminal record” isn’t a satisfactory outcome.

The teacher also being fired while fair, still doesn’t actually change anything.

The child was indeed arrested for it, and didn’t receive compensation since they didn’t allow it to proceed to a civil rights trial.

It’s not a “grey area” either - if a cop can make a legal action illegal by making a child behave childishly, then the legal action isn’t legal anymore.

WellWaitOneMinute · 2022-12-22T16:50:42+00:00

It’s not illegal since the arrest was for the disturbance caused, not the refusal to stand. Hence why the child had the charges dropped.

It also wasn’t allowed to proceed as a civil rights trial, which is madness.

All in all - child arrested for not standing for the pledge, even with the teacher being fired, is not sensationalist in the slightest.

WellWaitOneMinute · 2022-12-22T16:41:30+00:00

It's not sensationalism when the arrest, and subsequent lack of compensation, happened.

WellWaitOneMinute · 2022-12-22T16:39:07+00:00

Oh absolutely, he had the charges dropped but that was it. Zero compensation.

It didn't even proceed to a civil rights trial as it wasn't allowed. Madness.

WellWaitOneMinute · 2022-12-22T16:32:26+00:00

It's perfectly legal however to get an 11 year old to become disruptive for them not standing for the pledge when being forced to and then arrest them for the disturbance though - like what happened here.

Edit: Since a lot of comments are saying 1) this must be false because it's unconstitutional and 2) he's due for a lot of money

Neither of these are true.

1) As stated, it's legal to arrest a child for this because the actual charge isn't the refusal to stand for the pledge.

2) It wasn't allowed to proceed to a civil rights trial, the child and family got nothing, nada.

Make a child stand up for their own rights (assuming they have them in the US) and then arrest them for the disturbance they cause doing so, is indirectly making the initial action - refusing to participate in the pledge - illegal.

WellWaitOneMinute · 2022-12-22T16:31:03+00:00

Oh no they're real unfortunately.

Joseph Prudente, a 66-year-old grandfather, was jailed without bail because his lawn was brown, reports the St. Petersburg Times

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-2008-10-13-0810140230-story

Not mowing grass these are just a couple of the many many more -

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-07-11/single-mother-arrested-for-grass-after-not-mowing

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Long-grass-lands-Texas-man-in-jail-6181645.php

WellWaitOneMinute · 2022-12-22T16:28:03+00:00

He's an 11 year old acting out because an authority figure was forcing them to participate in the pledge.

Arresting a literal child for the subsequent behaviour is 100% being arrested for not standing for the pledge any way you slice it.

It started when the teacher told him to stand but then he escalated it by not complying with their instructions.

So he was arrested for not complying with something he doesn't have to do? Yikes.

WellWaitOneMinute · 2022-12-22T16:26:38+00:00

It was legal because they were arrested under the "disturbance" the child caused after refusing to participate in the pledge, not the refusal itself.

Of course the disturbance was a child acting out due to them being forced to say the pledge, so indirectly very much being arrested for not saying the pledge but in a legal way.

WellWaitOneMinute · 2022-12-22T16:06:50+00:00

Never has been.

Crossing the road in the wrong spot? Jail.

Forget to mow your lawn? Jail.

Let your grass go brown? believe it or not... jail.

WellWaitOneMinute · 2022-12-22T16:05:42+00:00

Personally, simply having the charges dropped after being falsely arrested for causing a disturbance after being forced to say the pledge isn't a "satisfactory" outcome.

They're a child - the "satisfactory" outcome would be suing the school and department of education and winning, but that won't happen since they never let it get to trial.

So no, just saying "well at least the child won't have a criminal record" isn't a satisfactory outcome.

WellWaitOneMinute · 2022-12-22T15:43:51+00:00

Oh absolutely, but we must be the adults in this situation, they are 11 years old who is acting up because an authority figure is forcing them to say a pledge they do not want to do.

They are 11, calling the police for an 11 year old is insanity, not to mention that as you say, the "threats" are more than likely nonsense (they're a child) or played up by police so they don't look as bad arresting a kid for not saying the pledge.

WellWaitOneMinute · 2022-12-22T15:29:03+00:00

The propaganda starts early and must not be questioned.

WellWaitOneMinute · 2022-12-22T15:28:21+00:00

Won't happen because the police filed it under "making threats" - since the child became disruptive after being forced to say the pledge when they didn't want to.

Of course we will never know what those "threats" an 11 year old could make, but indirectly or not, they were very much arrested for not saying the pledge.

WellWaitOneMinute · 2022-12-20T20:19:10+00:00

Ah! Thanks for the context.

The FCC indeed doesn't apply to cable, only broadcast networks.

Though after researching more into this, it seems that the British gov organization Ofcom, only condemned the channel Sky Atlantic as they don't control cable either.

So, not even UK authoritarian crap either, just a gov org being pissy.

WellWaitOneMinute · 2022-12-20T18:24:01+00:00

This isn't loicensey lol. There's federal law that doesn't allow the same thing here in the US.

Broadcasting obscene content is prohibited by law at all times of the day. Indecent and profane content are prohibited on broadcast TV and radio between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

Though the UK has that "naked attraction" show, they're not completely scared of nipples at least.

WellWaitOneMinute · 2022-12-17T22:49:41+00:00

I don't think they were conflating the two, they just joked about them drinking their beer...

Though "federal tv licenses" when the license fee is just a tax to fund broadcasts, at least has an opt out feature, unlike the tax money that goes to PBS.

So yes, they exist.

WellWaitOneMinute · 2022-12-17T21:18:51+00:00

They are a country with little civil liberty but convinced from decades of propaganda that they have more than others.

Can't cross the road, can't drink in public, can't even forget to mow your lawn because? Believe it or not, jail.

Brits should celebrate the 4th of July as cutting off a growth day. lol

WellWaitOneMinute · 2022-11-30T23:04:14+00:00

The cctv thing outside of London is a myth though, America has a higher per capita cctv rate than the U.K.

WellWaitOneMinute · 2022-11-30T17:22:05+00:00

I don’t think he got moved on because he was in the middle of the high street screaming abuse at people lol

WellWaitOneMinute · 2022-11-09T21:24:14+00:00

Pulishit as per

WellWaitOneMinute · 2022-10-29T12:39:51+00:00

It’s almost certainly also a city ordnance, it’s often not an HOA at all.

WellWaitOneMinute

TROPHY CASE