Texas Teens Can't Graduate High School Until They've Been Told How To Behave Around Cops
from the HOW-NOT-TO-GET-SHOT dept
To graduate from high school in Texas, you must first be able to show you won't provoke police officers into shooting/tasing/beating you during a traffic stop. That's according to a new state law that ran through the legislature under the guise of solving police/community relationship problems. (via Popehat)
In the aftermath of several fatal police shootings of unarmed citizens, Texas lawmakers sought to pacify tensions between law enforcement and civilians. The state legislature brought civil rights groups and law enforcement organizations together to develop a solution: the Community Safety Education Act, which was signed into law last year.
The bill requires any student entering ninth grade in the 2018-2019 academic year and thereafter to participate in a class and watch a video instruction on how to interact properly with officers during traffic stops. Without a notation of attendance on their transcripts, seniors cannot receive diplomas.
To "pacify tensions" brought about by cops killing unarmed people, we're instructing teens to become docile subhumans who should only respond to the presence of law enforcement in the manner law enforcement prefers. That's the gist of the Community Safety Education Act Instructor's Guide [PDF], which not only tells people to remain suitably cowed during traffic stops, but also gets the law wrong.
The problems with the instruction manual (and the law... and required course itself...) begin at the beginning, in the "Tips for Educators." The guide says instructors should remind students of their rights, as well as warn them that exercising them could get them killed.
Students may ask about citizens videotaping traffic stops. It is a citizen's right to videotape. Drivers and passengers should be aware that unknown items in a citizen's hand may cause safety concerns for officers.
In short, it's best not to record a stop for your own personal safety because there's no telling what a professional highly-trained in law enforcement and force deployment might do if they see something in someone's hand -- even if that something is 1,000,000x more likely to be something everyone carries with them (a cellphone) than a weapon. Most people aren't going to escalate a traffic stop into a murder one charge. But that's hardly reassuring to highly-trained law enforcement officers, who are led to believe every interaction with the public carries the potential of death and destruction and respond to every movement like bunnies scattering at the sound of a stepped-on twig.
Since highly-trained law enforcement officers are completely unpredictable, it's up to Texas' education system to crank out harmless teen drivers. Hence the stupid law and the stupid course, which comes with graduation strings attached.
The "notes for drivers" says it's "recommended" officers treat drivers courteously, but there's certainly no law requiring courteous behavior, much less one that withholds a police academy diploma until would-be officers of the law complete their "Don't Be An Asshole" course.
The advice given is basically this: do everything a cop tells you unless they tell you to stop doing it or to do something else. The course says students have the right to refuse vehicle searches, but kind of portrays assertions of rights as a way to get arrested.
And the guide gets the law wrong: specifically, Texas' "failure to identify" statute. Here's what the guide says:
Although it is lawful for you to remain silent during a traffic stop, you are required by law to truthfully identify yourself when asked to do so by an officer. A driver or passenger can be arrested for giving false identifying information to an officer.
The second part is true. The first part isn't. That's OK. Texas law enforcement officers can't manage to wrap their minds around this law, so it's unsurprising a teacher's guide put together by politicians is inaccurate. The law actually says [emphasis added]:
A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
A traffic stop is a detention, not an arrest. It likely makes little difference in the context of a traffic stop, where documents asked for by officers will likely identify the driver with or without their verbal input. But placing this misinformation inside a required course will likely cause students to think this applies everywhere, not just during traffic stops. It doesn't. An officer needs to arrest a person before they can legally demand identification. And officers can't use a refusal to provide identification as the basis for an arrest.
Passengers aren't required to ID themselves. They're only forbidden from providing false information -- the same as the driver. But the teacher's guide makes the same mistake again in its "Notes for passengers."
Although it is lawful for you to remain silent during a traffic stop, you are required by law to truthfully identify yourself when asked to do so by an officer.
The law does not require this. It does not require it of drivers, even though proving you can legally operate a vehicle tends to undermine any "remaining silent" about your identity. Passengers, however, have nothing to prove, so this course is telling high school students something that simply isn't true and will only contribute to Texas law enforcement's continued abuse of the statute.
It would be bad enough if the mandatory course was limited to "pacifying tensions" by implying unpredictable civilians are what really needs to be fixed. But the course goes even further by getting the law wrong. So, high school students will be forced to attend a pointless course containing misinformation to be considered educated enough to secure a diploma.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: behavior, high school, police, students, texas
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And the rest will be shot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Also...
So no more "ask your doctor" ads on TV then ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Also...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Also...
Too bad we don't have a mandatory course in laws and writing laws for politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Also...
'Funny' thing, after reading the above article I would absolutely believe the first two, and even the third is at least feasible given there have been arguments that copyright infringement has/does support terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Also...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bass-ackwards
The thing is, if true, that means that the state legislature, certain civil rights groups, and law enforcement organizations, think that their .4% trumps our 99.6%, in the concept of who has the power. Or should have. Is it because they have guns, the power of arrest, the inculcated perspective that they will be believed over us criminals? Some other delusion?
Curiously, those civil rights groups that participated in this quagmire might serious rethink their commitment to civil rights, unless those some other groups that were involved are just characterized as civil rights groups (maybe some law enforcement unions who are looking after the civil rights of their membership?).
Where is the law that says law enforcement agents have to know the law in order to enforce the law? Where is the law that says law enforcement agents know what civilian rights are, and that they have to respect not just those rights but the people who have them? Where is the law that says law enforcement agents should learn how earning respect is done by giving respect upon penalty of termination due to lack of public respect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bass-ackwards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bass-ackwards
Use it , don't let them take more of your rights away .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bass-ackwards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bass-ackwards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bass-ackwards
I'd hope for that to be the very last option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bass-ackwards
Given the pay to play requirement of wide reaching political speech, outright banning discussion of certain politics by safespaces, rigging of the vote, purging of voter registries, stuffing of the courts, frequent and blatant disregard of individual rights, wide-spread never before seen surveillance, police being allowed to kill people in the streets without penalty, and now indoctrination of the innocent, just how many options do you think you have left? Assuming "bend over and take it" isn't on your list of acceptable options....
Face it, the US that treats everyone as equals, where voting can actually make a difference, and who's government is accountable to it's citizens, only exists on paper. In reality it's no different than any other fascist state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bass-ackwards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe the police need a good PR firm. One of the problems with that ideas is...would they listen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What command presence? It is more like intimidation tactics, which is very different, and much more dangerous for citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You missed this part:
I guess?
Command presence is what they call it. What it is in action is different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Have a 'Sad But True'/Insightful vote.
As for the question: On it's own, nothing beyond maybe a few wrists slapped slightly harder. Removing that as a viable defense would be a good start, but for it to matter you'd also have to have the system(legal and on the police end) change such that there was an interest in handing out actual punishment and getting rid of(rather than merely shuffling around) the supposedly 'few bad apples'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The law may not require this. Time and again, we've seen that law officers do. If you refuse, you will be arrested.
I understand that the law is supposed to dominate. But no one will make the officers follow this law, so the practice is the rules of the road.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Addendum video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now there are a lot of reasons to arrest someone, legitimate or not. Then there is the meme that 'you can beat the charge but you can't beat the ride'. Until there is sufficient feedback (officers fired and/or arrested and sent to jail for violating the law) this will continue. The problem is how to energize the feedback, without more innocent citizens being killed.
The good cop/bad cop issue still stands. There are good cops out there, but are they good if they allow bad cops to continue their abuse? Yes there is feedback within the force, if good cops speak out they are punished. That will continue until there is some mechanism to protect good cops. That means that the higher ups need to be on the side of good cops. There is a likelihood that some bad cops have risen in rank, and will protect those below them that do not deserve protection.
So what do we do? Fire all higher ranking cops? Fire all cops? Insert people who will tell the rest of us about the bad guys? There is a certain truth about institutional memory. Remembering how to investigate, old style, is important. Remembering how to protect those that don't conform with 'our way' is not. There needs to be a method that returns integrity to the situation. This is complicated by the number of departments across the nation. That integrity needs to be in each and every one of them. Not just one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Agreed, but only after how much time and money is wasted by both the citizen and the government? The failings of the modern justice system, namely the perverse incentives for a quick guilty plea to get on with one's life, even in the face of innocence, make this point somewhat moot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not entirely true, and you undermine your case by engaging in hyperbole like that.
There are good cops out there(offhand I can remember an article not too long ago where a a sheriff I believe actually apologized for a SWAT raid on the wrong house, one where two officers were shot even), the problem is that by the standard of 'any cop who covers for a bad cop isn't a good cop', which I also agree with, the number of 'good cops' appears to be in the minority.
They do exist, there's just far fewer of them than there should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing like indoctrinating the next generation to be obedie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obedience
Teaching obedience (and not teaching critical thinking skills) to children are part of the Texas Republican Party platform.
Of course, the problem with an obedient soldier is that it can be anybody's obedient soldier. Those kids will make excellent nazis or excellent cultists someday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obedience
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's more like how to properly deal with feral or rabid animals or kidnappers with nothing to lose.
You need that kind of instruction in the wilderness or you might fall prey to ravaging beasts or desperate criminals.
Or police officers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This law would not exist if police unions were illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police unions
Considering how Trump is treating federal employees as a general group (e.g. treating them like shit), I can see the function of unions of public employees.
However, there are limits to what unions should be able to do. I suspect we can fairly regulate unions without having to discard them altogether.
Our teachers are desperate for stronger unions, and our police have unions that are way too strong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Police unions
Remember the days when being a Public servant meant not all that good pay. Nothing like the private sector. But you were doing your part. Since the Unions came in, now it's far better being a GOvernment employee. Benefits up the butt. Governments going bankrupts because they just can't afford all this crap they handed out, and the taxpayers are now on the hook and screwed. That is the real problem and has nothing to do with Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Police unions
ftfy
"That is the real problem and has nothing to do with Trump."
It has everything to do with the GOP economic insanity that does not work. Everyone realizes it does makes things worse but some are too scared to open their mouths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Police unions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Police unions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Police unions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Police unions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Police unions
Are you kidding me? The California Teachers Association is the most powerful union in the state (followed closely by the California Nurses Association). Every politician running for office come to them to kneel and genuflect and receive their blessing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The California Teachers Association
And still they get paid a pittance comparable to the custodians that maintain the school. Teachers should be paid in the same grade as doctors, lawyers and engineers.
We're also running out of teachers, with classroom sizes of sixty kids or more.
In the meantime teachers are unable to live on their teaching income in other states hence the massive strikes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The California Teachers Association
> lawyers and engineers.
In other words, they should have to compete and excel in their field in order to receive a high salary, rather than have government and union protectionism do it for them.
Works for me.
BTW, California teachers, due to the power of their union, are paid the highest salaries in the nation and you know what we the taxpayer get as a return on that investment? A rating of 47th out of 50 states in quality of education provided.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Highest salaries in the nation"
Went from about mid-range to the highest. $75K as an upper end (starting is around $44K) is still pathetic considering the amount of education required for a public-school teacher. In other states, like Mississippi or Nebraska, teachers are totally screwed. Even Colorado and Arizona is in crisis.
Couldn't find your 47-out-of-50 ranking for California. Found a questionable #36 by search which still isn't great. When I was schooled here in California, it was in the top five, and Nevadan's were doing what they could to get their students taught over here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The California Teachers Association
Being paid the highest salary in the nation means diddly-squat if you also are living in the highest cost of living location.
Why do you seem to just assume that teachers do not compete and excel in their field and are given protection ... ummm from what?
Cali is 47th? I doubt that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The California Teachers Association
Well, as illegals continue to pour into the country by the hundreds of thousands, it's no surprise that classroom sizes have ballooned, at least here in Southern California.
But hey, I'm told I'm an insensitive racist if I don't enthusiastically embrace the opportunity to pay for the education of the entire Western Hemisphere!
So full steam ahead, classroom size be damned!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The California Teachers Association
Can't imagine why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The California Teachers Association
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The California Teachers Association
>> I'm told I'm an insensitive racist
> Can't imagine why.
LOL! So it's now racist to even acknowledge that illegals are entering the country.
You nutjobs are essentially cartoons at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The California Teachers Association
To say that something is illegal is to say that the law requires that that thing not exist.
The only way for a person not to exist is for that person to die.
Unless you're actually advocating for the death penalty for cases of illegal immigration (in which case you're an extreme outlier, or at least I hope so), what you probably actually want to have not exist is - not the person who immigrated illegally - but the person's presence in this country.
The presence is illegal. (And can be destroyed by expelling the person from the country.)
The person is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The California Teachers Association
Can you please explain "legally drunk?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The California Teachers Association
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Illegals...pour"
I think these are the terms that make it very easy to infer you are influenced by racist feelings btr1701.
Illegality of people is a dangerous notion and one that tends to expand outward. As we speak Trump is pushing policy regarding documented aliens and naturalized citizens, pushing the notion that they should be regarded differently than natural citizens. There's also interest in challenging the citizenship of those who were born in the US, but by those other than natural citizens. Once me make them illegal, we try to deport or repatriate them elsewhere and when that fails, well, they had this conversation already at Wansee.
But fixating on the illegality of persons in the US also fails to acknowledge problems with the process of legal immigration, which often involves getting into the nation first (illegally) before requesting permanent residence. With the exception of Einstein visas (for smart, talented or super-rich folk) the process in the US takes years, sometimes decades. And most people (by far) are rejected out of hand.
Curiously, ICE and CBP aren't harassing at all the many Russian and Ukranian illegals here in California, even when they don't speak a word of English and are part of the local criminal element. So there's some indication that ICE and CBP are both run with policies that emphasize targeting non-whites. But that has little to do with your racism, btr1701.
The other matter is the term pour which suggests a deluge even though the inflow of migrants into the United States is more like a trickle thanks to our extreme vetting. (Note the decades, above. A lot of that is because the US is super distrustful.)
Now we're imprisoning people while they wait out their decades (for seeing asylum, mind you. Opportunities to not die or become sex slaves.)
Now we're arresting people who's only offense is being in the US illegally (rather than focusing on felons).
And then our agencies and camps are dens of human atrocity.
In order to qualify for the pouring, I'd think we'd be making a dent in, say, the massive refugee crisis from Syria (so far our Syrians refugees are generally good people and thankful for the shit jobs they can get in the US.) Not to mention would be managing the refugees from the Americas, that US foreign policy had a direct hand in creating.
If immigrants were pouring in to our nation, and were getting citizenship and benefits, then we'd actually have something great to say about the United States, given that throughout human history, greatness was often shown through humanitarian, artistic or scientific works. Instead, as a nation three times richer than the rest of the planet combined, the US is very well known for refusing to clean up messes that were ours to begin with.
But instead, you know, prisons, crimes against humanity, cruel and unusual punishment. All that stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Illegals pouring"
Huh, it looks like the illegals are pouring out of California according to recent stats (which is to say the percentage of the population of California that is made up of undocumented persons is in decline).
What's curious to me is that the US holds 75% of the world's wealth. You'd think with that, we could totally afford to provide education and food for all of the Americas, and not sweat it, and yet look at you btr1701 begrudging a tiny fraction of them some basic education.
If that's the case, that we have more money than everyone else combined and can't afford to spare a few huddled masses yearning to breathe free some basic human provisions that we've long determined every human deserves, then that is an indictment of the culture, mores and integral character of the people of the United States. We suck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This law would not exist if police unions were illegal
I would think the right of employees of the government to organize in order to bargain with that government is protected by the first amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This law would not exist if police unions were illegal
> organize in order to bargain with that government is
> protected by the first amendment.
Ask the 1980s air traffic controllers how far that argument got them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The August 1981 PATCO strike
Reagan, a staunch corporatist, intervened personally. It was an early demonstration that the public gets fucked if the US aristocracy and corporate sector have too much to lose.
The public's been suffering more and more for it ever since.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The August 1981 PATCO strike
One difference between the PATCO strike and your average teacher or police union strike is the impact to the functioning of the country. A teacher strike in one state doesn't bother the feds. All air traffic controllers across the country striking will be noticed and quickly squashed due to its impact on the economy, safety, and national security of the country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The August 1981 PATCO strike
> fine. They carry a lot of weight when it comes to the
> civilian population of a government organization.
Not hardly. Compare federal law enforcement benefits and pensions to those of just about any big city or state law enforcement.
State and local cops have unions with teeth and they have the bennies to show for it. Federal cops have a union that can whine a lot but has no real power.
I'm not arguing for stronger unions, mind you. I think the taxpayer is much better served with the federal model. But your claim that the federal unions carry a lot of weight is comparatively false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The August 1981 PATCO strike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This law would not exist if police unions were illegal
As far as I know, the right to unionize never came up, only the fact that they weren't allowed to strike.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)#Augus t_1981_strike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's the training for the cops to act like... COPS?
I'd say all cops need to be fitted with shock collars.
Every time they start to act like criminals, they get zapped, about 10 times before it settles down again.
We'll set up the po-po-mon centers across the country, with people hired to watch over the po-pos, Po-po-mon watchers as it were.
Tag-line: "Gotta watch them all!!"
If the po-po take the collar off, they are no longer po-po.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MOST cops are not murderous psychopaths.
For those who are, the people were already in trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"MOST cops are not murderous psychopaths."
From where I'm standing, there are, in Law Enforcemen:
● A few murderous psychopaths
● A whole bunch of corrupt power abusers and profiteers
● A whole bunch of enablers of the above two groups
● A few genuinely honest, well-meaning officers who haven't yet been forced out by the above groups.
This is all speculation, of course. We don't really have any viable studies (that I know of) but the bad apples have rotted most of the barrel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because clearly That is where the problem is...
Try to address a broken relationship between the public and police, respond by requiring students to take a course that might as well be boiled down to 'If you see a badge, submit', and include a few lies in the process.
Oh yeah, that's sure to make things much better... for the police. In the short term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The police are afraid
Police brutality won't end until Police accountability begins. I'm not talking 'administrative leave with pay' either. I mean unpaid suspension during the investigation, and if found guilty, prison sentences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If parents won't tell kids to be respectful, someone has to.
And to paraphrase the late great George Carlin.. Respect is learned at home. If your kid's a disrespectful little shit, it's your fault.. not society, not video games, yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://vimeo.com/217750221
Skip to 1:52 for just the relevant dialog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But wouldn't they need to pass 9th grade first?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like wild animals
They aren't a force of nature they are a part of our society. Which is what makes it so fucked up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or another caste
The behavior of law enforcement officers in the United States reminds me of the Freikorps of the Weimar Republic that served as law enforcement after WWI. They were already of an elevated caste in Germany to the local civilians, and culture was still not far removed from feudalism. Germany had a constitution but still was run by aristocracy.
The Freikorps pretty much went around and took what they needed, whether it was food, shelter, bedfellows or even available liquid assets. When there were disagreements regarding parity, they could quickly escalate to violence, and massacre an entire (extended) family if necessary to secure their dominance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Respect
For cops I imagine the hardest part of the cop's job is working with the public. For the breief period I've had to do it I van tell you it sucks.
That isn't to say that this mandatory "obey without question" class isn't BS or the reverence for police and acceptance of brutality and corruption should be shrugged off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Respect
Then maybe the cops should stop doing it.
Many people do not see the shit going down and therefore do not think it a problem .. for them anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Respect
"Everyone deserves courtesy by default, until they demonstrate by their actions that they don't deserve it.
"No one deserves respect by default, until they demonstrate by their actions that they do deserve it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]