Disability rights advocates said kids like Ty should not be getting arrested under Tennessee’s school threats law. And they tried to push for a broader exception for kids with other kinds of disabilities. It didn’t work.
This is absolutely inexcusable, but I’m not sure where the blame lies here. I think it’s with the state and in part with the cops, but not with the school, because it sounds like when the kid said “because the whole school will blow up” (I’m guessing this is a bit of hyperbole he picked up from his mom to say when there’s going to be a big uproar) they were required by law to report it.
The article could be getting that part wrong, but Pro Publica is usually pretty thorough at these sorts of things.
Obviously, I have a huge amount of sympathy and empathy for Ty, but if I’m right, I also have sympathy for the teacher and school officials. It’s like doctors in the South who have to choose between letting a woman die from a miscarriage or give her an abortion and go to prison.
To be fair, and I say this as someone whose life is impacted by autism in multiple ways, I can think of at least one very smart autistic teenager whose communication challenges are such that they would struggle with “what do you mean by” as the opening to a question, but I get your point and agree with it.
Lots of things could have been said or done before assuming a 13 year old autistic kid with no other red flags has not only brought a bomb to school, but brought such a sophisticated bomb that the teacher couldn’t at least peek inside the bag to see what was in there.
I’m willing to put a pretty big dollop of blame on the cops. An autistic kid says something without awareness of some of the context which is shown to have NO nefarious intent behind it, and nothing to show for it but a stuffed animal - and yet they slap the cuffs on anyhow.
But we’ll find out they were at the next school shooters house 5 times and concluded that he wasn’t a threat without any more investigation than talking to him.
Oh for sure. The cops could “arrest” the kid by doing something like saying, “I’m really sorry I have to do this, Ty, but you’re under arrest.” And then say, “I have investigated and found there was no cause for arrest” immediately afterward. Maybe they couldn’t make it that quick and easy, maybe they have to get some sort of permission or do paperwork or something, but I can’t believe they have to handcuff the poor kid and take him to juvie by law.
Fair point, and certainly why I received down votes.
The catch is, and the way these initiatives take hold, is that telling your “manager” at the school, or placing a potential offender in a car for a brief period, doesn’t “seem that bad” under the context of school violence.
There are soooo many blatant disregard for the rules of humanity that are much easier to point at and say “This is wrong.”
Not condoning the behavior, I just think those making the policies like this one should have been listening to their people, and probably weren’t (surprise, surprise) because they thought this was a “minor” point they could let slide. The news has told them otherwise.
The teacher had also known Ty for a single day. I really can’t put too much blame on them, given the law and potential risks that are sadly too real in modern times.
The administration, however, were likely to know of his autism and probably could have handled things in a way that would have deescalated the situation with the cops (that they were required to call).
Not to say they are necessarily to blame (they don’t want to lose their jobs or see jail time), and I wasn’t there, but it seems like the whole thing could have been handled better from top to bottom.
Doesn’t matter. The teacher had to get the administration to handle it, and continue taking care of the rest of the class.
The administration not only should have read a file about a new special needs student, but had time to review it while talking with him, time to discuss it and figure things out.
If they are required to report it to the law regardless, which is what the article sure implies, I’m not sure what difference understanding their conditions makes.
Like I said, it sounds like it’s similar to the choice doctors are having to make. In this case it’s do you report this kid or do you risk putting food on your own kids’ table?
This is absolutely inexcusable, but I’m not sure where the blame lies here. I think it’s with the state and in part with the cops, but not with the school, because it sounds like when the kid said “because the whole school will blow up” (I’m guessing this is a bit of hyperbole he picked up from his mom to say when there’s going to be a big uproar) they were required by law to report it.
The article could be getting that part wrong, but Pro Publica is usually pretty thorough at these sorts of things.
Obviously, I have a huge amount of sympathy and empathy for Ty, but if I’m right, I also have sympathy for the teacher and school officials. It’s like doctors in the South who have to choose between letting a woman die from a miscarriage or give her an abortion and go to prison.
A simple “what do you mean by blow up?” Would have avoided all of this. Especially when you know it’s coming from someone who is autistic.
To be fair, and I say this as someone whose life is impacted by autism in multiple ways, I can think of at least one very smart autistic teenager whose communication challenges are such that they would struggle with “what do you mean by” as the opening to a question, but I get your point and agree with it.
Lots of things could have been said or done before assuming a 13 year old autistic kid with no other red flags has not only brought a bomb to school, but brought such a sophisticated bomb that the teacher couldn’t at least peek inside the bag to see what was in there.
I’m willing to put a pretty big dollop of blame on the cops. An autistic kid says something without awareness of some of the context which is shown to have NO nefarious intent behind it, and nothing to show for it but a stuffed animal - and yet they slap the cuffs on anyhow.
But we’ll find out they were at the next school shooters house 5 times and concluded that he wasn’t a threat without any more investigation than talking to him.
Oh for sure. The cops could “arrest” the kid by doing something like saying, “I’m really sorry I have to do this, Ty, but you’re under arrest.” And then say, “I have investigated and found there was no cause for arrest” immediately afterward. Maybe they couldn’t make it that quick and easy, maybe they have to get some sort of permission or do paperwork or something, but I can’t believe they have to handcuff the poor kid and take him to juvie by law.
It’s hard to say here. Just like it’s standard procedure to report the “potential threat”, it’s also probably SOP to secure the individual.
Fault here lies in policy and lawmakers, IMO. This whole situation shouldn’t have to exist.
Anyone who complies with an unjust law is collaborating with the evil swine who passed it.
And there’s a phrase that flows right from this, and is commonly applied to cops. 🤔
Fair point, and certainly why I received down votes.
The catch is, and the way these initiatives take hold, is that telling your “manager” at the school, or placing a potential offender in a car for a brief period, doesn’t “seem that bad” under the context of school violence.
There are soooo many blatant disregard for the rules of humanity that are much easier to point at and say “This is wrong.”
Not condoning the behavior, I just think those making the policies like this one should have been listening to their people, and probably weren’t (surprise, surprise) because they thought this was a “minor” point they could let slide. The news has told them otherwise.
The teacher had also known Ty for a single day. I really can’t put too much blame on them, given the law and potential risks that are sadly too real in modern times.
The administration, however, were likely to know of his autism and probably could have handled things in a way that would have deescalated the situation with the cops (that they were required to call).
Not to say they are necessarily to blame (they don’t want to lose their jobs or see jail time), and I wasn’t there, but it seems like the whole thing could have been handled better from top to bottom.
So the teacher had opportunity to read Ty’s file and either didn’t read it, or didn’t understand.
Doesn’t matter. The teacher had to get the administration to handle it, and continue taking care of the rest of the class.
The administration not only should have read a file about a new special needs student, but had time to review it while talking with him, time to discuss it and figure things out.
It’s their job to understand the conditions that kids have who are under their care. If they’re too stupid to do that, they should be fired.
If they are required to report it to the law regardless, which is what the article sure implies, I’m not sure what difference understanding their conditions makes.
Like I said, it sounds like it’s similar to the choice doctors are having to make. In this case it’s do you report this kid or do you risk putting food on your own kids’ table?
Looks like teacher did the right thing by getting someone from the office to handle it. Everyone after that is to blame