A rather troubling article...what do you guys think?

[ljbab728]

Curfew laws have always struck me as a horribly bad idea in a free society.

A free society doesn't always mean you're free to do anything you want. Unfortunately curfews are necessary to do what parents either don't or won't do.

[BoulderSooner]

There's more to this story.
Here's the deal: you have a situation that arises every couple of years in Bricktown where the "thug" element -a lot wannabe gang-bangers, etc., decide to make Bricktown their hangout. If it gets out of control, gunshots are fired, people get hurt, and the district itself is jeopardized (and that's why the curfew was started). The police have done a good job at getting level-headed, rational folks in charge out there who understand the concept of "nuance." Things have reportedly been getting out of hand again this summer. But with a new person in charge of the Bricktown substation, it appears that "nuance" was skipped over for "blindly throw the book at everyone" approach that leads to this latest development.
I agree with Brian, Bricktown is not a bad place for teens to hang out and have fun. But there is a time of night when that's no longer the case.
Parents, here's a tip for ya; Bricktown, with a healthy share of bars and clubs, is NOT an appropriate venue for youngsters to be out alone after 10 p.m. on a weekend night. Just saying....

and how many of those bars/clubs are anywhere near harkins? answer none of them ..

the cops abused their power as some of them often do

[bombermwc]

If you're under 18, you have no legal free rights folks. Minors don't get the right to free speech and whatnot. Remember, when you are in school you can even have your wallot searched if the school chooses to do so. There is no right to privacy for a minor.

In this case, the officers were flat out wrong and the crisis center aggrevated the situation. Granted the center is going to rely on what the officer says. If the officers felt that the teens should have already been picked up, why not hang out and see if the parents show up...or ask the kids to get them on the phone and see where they are. There are a lot of options available besides a stupid no-tolerance method. But I'm also not going to let one relatively small situation tarnish the entire department's reputation either. There are plenty officers out there that get off on the power trip and they do it all day long. There are also plenty of them that are there to protect and serve as they should. I feel more are there for the right reasons, but you never hear about them. What we hear about are the a-holes that want to bully people like we live in a police state.

Just remember this. If an officer is wrong in a situation, you're still going to pay for it one way or another. Either he/she is going to make things VERY difficult for you or even try to arrest you and delay everything you're doing. In that case, you can usually pursue legal action later, but what does that get you? You pay even more for legal fees and time and then the officer will only get a slap on the wrist. My advice, when an officer starts behing a sh*t, walk away and check the attitude. In the long run, it's going to be better for everyone involved.

[Of Sound Mind]

My advice, when an officer starts behing a sh*t, walk away and check the attitude. In the long run, it's going to be better for everyone involved.

You don't always have the option to just walk away...

[Steve]

and how many of those bars/clubs are anywhere near harkins? answer none of them ..

the cops abused their power as some of them often do

I've spent late nights in Bricktown ... those bars and clubs are closer than you think, especially when it comes to crowds gathering along Mickey Mantle Drive.

[BBatesokc]

If you're under 18, you have no legal free rights folks. Minors don't get the right to free speech and whatnot. Remember, when you are in school you can even have your wallot searched if the school chooses to do so. There is no right to privacy for a minor.

In this case, the officers were flat out wrong and the crisis center aggrevated the situation. Granted the center is going to rely on what the officer says. If the officers felt that the teens should have already been picked up, why not hang out and see if the parents show up...or ask the kids to get them on the phone and see where they are. There are a lot of options available besides a stupid no-tolerance method. But I'm also not going to let one relatively small situation tarnish the entire department's reputation either. There are plenty officers out there that get off on the power trip and they do it all day long. There are also plenty of them that are there to protect and serve as they should. I feel more are there for the right reasons, but you never hear about them. What we hear about are the a-holes that want to bully people like we live in a police state.

Just remember this. If an officer is wrong in a situation, you're still going to pay for it one way or another. Either he/she is going to make things VERY difficult for you or even try to arrest you and delay everything you're doing. In that case, you can usually pursue legal action later, but what does that get you? You pay even more for legal fees and time and then the officer will only get a slap on the wrist. My advice, when an officer starts behing a sh*t, walk away and check the attitude. In the long run, it's going to be better for everyone involved.

No rights? I'd have to disagree. Minors have lots of rights. In reality they have few legal obligations. As for your school example - that (in many ways) is just school policy and not that different from an employer's policy to make you pee in a cup, being able to read your emails, listen in to your phone calls, etc.

Minors do have privacy rights, it just depends on the situation.

"Walking away" is rarely an option and often only escalates the situation. Sure, you can stroke their ego and totally relinquish all your rights but I'm not cut from that cloth. However, being an ass to a cop and having unneeded attitude is not going to end well. I've had at least four formal complaints against officers found in my favor. Two I know had very serious consequences for the officers and kept one from getting a promotion. However, the standard of proof to win against an officer is very high, as they will lie and get other officers to lie on their behalf also. The only time I lost a complaint was when I didn't have it on tape. I don't even bother to file one unless I have a video and/or audio recording. I highly suggest people make sure they have a good audio recording app on their cell phone, and other iDevices (if they carry those). Whenever I am making contact with an officer (in person or via the phone) I also make sure I am recording it.

This Bricktown incident is a perfect case that would have been excellent to capture on audio tape.

I wish police here had to do what many in Europe do and wear a tiny camcorder over their ear. It records all their interactions with the public and quickly puts an end to "he said, cop said."

Just found a US example that I hope catches on here.... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20078184.shtml

[OKCMallen]

and how many of those bars/clubs are anywhere near harkins? answer none of them ..

the cops abused their power as some of them often do

This is stupid. The kids go places other than Harkins and the drinking adults go places other than the bars.

Not to mention Red Pin, In the Raw, Bolero and Texadelphia are all at least somewhat-drinky type places.

[PennyQuilts]

Kids do have rights but there are special rules for schools. Schools are the exception. They aren't walking around with fewer rights, overall, simply by virtue of being kids.
And yes, you are free to walk away unless you are under arrest or being temporarily detained. Problem is, they may decide to arrest you if you start to walk away.
I have always hated criminal law because it is like pinning down jello.

[OKCTalker]

My primary concern was - and is - the Police Department going rogue. It appears that they aren't, and this incident will help remind officers and supervisors to keep things reined in. Other police departments around the country, notably Detroit & New Orleans, have systemic problems within the departments, and have deservedly been under federal oversight. Not so OKC.

It was a regrettable incident for which Bill Citty has apparently apologized, and I'm confident that things will be taken care of. But if it happens again in the near future, then perhaps a more serious problem exists.

And to Steve L -It's good to see a post from you!

[bornhere]

It's not a case of police officers going rogue, in my opinion. The root problem is an ordinance that was frankly written at the behest of business interests to keep young black people out of Bricktown at night, but can't actually come right out and say so. It's basically a Jim Crow law. It's got a lot of wiggle room, and a lot of wink-wink-nudge-nudge issues. And this kind of occasional dust-up is bound to happen when an ordinance is set up that way.

[PennyQuilts]

It's not a case of police officers going rogue, in my opinion. The root problem is an ordinance that was frankly written at the behest of business interests to keep young black people out of Bricktown at night, but can't actually come right out and say so. It's basically a Jim Crow law. It's got a lot of wiggle room, and a lot of wink-wink-nudge-nudge issues. And this kind of occasional dust-up is bound to happen when an ordinance is set up that way.

Bornhere, I really have to disagree with that. Teens can be a real pain no matter the race. I am really surprised that you'd make that accusation and think that says more about your worldview than anything anyone else is thinking. I think by trying to paint businesses as having a Jim Crow mindset, you are giving lax parents a pass and undermining one of the most successful business areas in OKC.

Parents who don't control their kids after hours are a lot like parents who let their kids run wild at school. Blaming businesses for not wanting kids running wild is a lot like blaming schools for disciplining kids who can't behave due to lack of parental guidance. I don't think many of us think it is just black kids that cause trouble. Really, I can't believe you wrote that. If running around in groups late at night falls more heavily on black kids (and I'm not saying it does) - shame on the parents. But it has nothing to do with race - it has to do with kids running around getting into trouble, period. To assume that businesses don't care if white kids are running around after hours but they don't want black kids running around after hours makes no sense unless you are trying to say that black kids cause trouble and white kids don't. Any time teens are out like that in groups you're going to have trouble.

[BDP]

I wonder if the owners of that Major Movie Theater--that was the scene of the "crime"--might have anything to say about all this . . .

I bet they do, but they won't say anything publicly. The reality is that 15 year olds are THE bread and butter for the movie industry and this really damages their position in the market. These kids can go to other movie theaters all over the city and, if I was a parent of a 15 year old, I would not be taking them to Harkins anymore. Not because of the curfew and not because of any of the other kids there. Because I no longer know what the rules are. If there was even the potential that cops can come and round up my kids and hold them for 7 or 8 hours without any warning, because some cops don't know the rules, then I would not put my kids in that situation.

I don't know if the reaction will be that universal or what other parents are thinking, but this kind of thing is just the thing that could actually put them out of business. If I were Harkins, I certainly wouldn't put more money into it until I know this wasn't going to happen again and that the community can forget it.

[Grant]

If you're under 18, you have no legal free rights folks. Minors don't get the right to free speech and whatnot. Remember, when you are in school you can even have your wallot searched if the school chooses to do so. There is no right to privacy for a minor.

Huh. I must be reading a different Constitution....my version doesn't mention age.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Citizens under the age of 18 aren't mentioned in the First Amendment....What about Fourth?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Still nothing. One more try. The Fifth:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

That's weird. I keep seeing phrases like "The right of the people" and "No person". Are you seeing anything that says "The right of the people who are at least 18"? Are 16 year olds not considered people?

[PennyQuilts]

Huh. I must be reading a different Constitution....my version doesn't mention age.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Citizens under the age of 18 aren't mentioned in the First Amendment....What about Fourth?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Still nothing. One more try. The Fifth:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

That's weird. I keep seeing phrases like "The right of the people" and "No person". Are you seeing anything that says "The right of the people who are at least 18"? Are 16 year olds not considered people?

Case law is clear that in minors in schools have less protected rights. Constitutional rights for adults or minors are always subject to a balancing test and there is a heavy burden to show they may be infringed upon. Schools, with the need for security and for their educational mission - plus the fact that minors tend to be a little nutty - is an area where the balance has come down on the side of less rights. That being said, I think MWCBomber overreached by saying minors have no rights. They have all the rights of adults except as modified by case law. And any such long standing modification has been scrutinized by the courts.

[Spartan]

Curfew laws have always struck me as a horribly bad idea in a free society.

It seems to me like these kinds of laws, speaking of curfew laws and school truancy laws and so on, just exist for purpose of scaring kids into legal obedience in preparation for the real world. And of course, they only throw the book at good kids who aren't really doing anything wrong. If some 16 year old punk wreaks of weed and booze, authorities would just rather pretend that kid doesn't exist. Of course cops would rather screw over harmless kids rather than dealing with an actual problem, because that's not fun.

The only lesson for these kids is just that being a teenage sucks, but they will live and get through it. Maybe they can be inspired to become a lawyer or something and stick it to cops (or whatever the motivation for lawyers is these days), that would be a happy ending.

[PennyQuilts]

My experience is that it is just a tool to let police have legal grounds to stop kids and ask what they're doing. With a curfew law, they don't have to come up with some excuse to bust up a gang of kids who are out perhaps doing something stupid. Not all kids are arrested and even fewer are charged. Plenty just end up being detained until mom or dad can come pick them up. It is mainly there as a tool to keep order. Moreover, I've known a ton of weak willed parents who love curfews because absent a law to back them up, they are parents in name only.

Spartan, I am not sure where you get the notion that they only throw the book at "good kids." What's your basis for that and how would you know? That certainly hasn't been my experience as a lawyer for juveniles. In fact, I'd say it is the opposite. The kids they stop for curfew violations tend to get sent home. The ones stoned and/or who are breaking laws are often not busted until they are stopped for curfew violations. But they do get busted and it isn't based on whether they are a good kid or a bad one. Letting the "bad" ones go makes no sense whatsover and I've never heard of that. A kid who is a repeater is often on probation and they generally go straight to detention for breaking the terms of probation. There is nothing "fun" about busting a kid - it generally involves paperwork, court appearances and untold aggravation. For petty stuff, it is a self correcting problem.

[BoulderSooner]

I've spent late nights in Bricktown ... those bars and clubs are closer than you think, especially when it comes to crowds gathering along Mickey Mantle Drive.

the idea that a 16 or 17 year old shouldn't be able to be at a movie past 10 on a weekend is crazy ...


and i am well aware of what bricktown is like on the weekends

[Steve]

It's the idea that they shouldn't be in an urban entertainment district with bars and clubs after 10 p.m. on a weekend that's the issue, Boulder. It's not about being in Bricktown on the weekend - it's about being in Bricktown on a hot summer Saturday night after 10 p.m. Unless you've lingered along Mickey Mantle Drive, the canal and in front of the theater late on a weekend night, it's difficult to understand how dramatically the vibe of the area changes.

[Spartan]

My experience is that it is just a tool to let police have legal grounds to stop kids and ask what they're doing. With a curfew law, they don't have to come up with some excuse to bust up a gang of kids who are out perhaps doing something stupid. Not all kids are arrested and even fewer are charged. Plenty just end up being detained until mom or dad can come pick them up. It is mainly there as a tool to keep order. Moreover, I've known a ton of weak willed parents who love curfews because absent a law to back them up, they are parents in name only.

Spartan, I am not sure where you get the notion that they only throw the book at "good kids." What's your basis for that and how would you know? That certainly hasn't been my experience as a lawyer for juveniles. In fact, I'd say it is the opposite. The kids they stop for curfew violations tend to get sent home. The ones stoned and/or who are breaking laws are often not busted until they are stopped for curfew violations. But they do get busted and it isn't based on whether they are a good kid or a bad one. Letting the "bad" ones go makes no sense whatsover and I've never heard of that. A kid who is a repeater is often on probation and they generally go straight to detention for breaking the terms of probation. There is nothing "fun" about busting a kid - it generally involves paperwork, court appearances and untold aggravation. For petty stuff, it is a self correcting problem.

If that's what you think, so be it. That just doesn't match up with what I saw and heard about while I was in high school. And I went to Westmoore, by all means, not exactly John Marshall or anything like that, but not Bishop McGuinness either.

[PennyQuilts]

If that's what you think, so be it. That just doesn't match up with what I saw and heard about while I was in high school. And I went to Westmoore, by all means, not exactly John Marshall or anything like that, but not Bishop McGuinness either.

I don't doubt this is how you perceived things but, candidly, that doesn't make it so because your information and, chances are, your perception as a fellow teen wouldn't be complete or accurate. There is a tendency, as a young person, to accept what you hear as gospel and if something happens to one of your friends, honestly believe that is the norm all over.

I am speaking as someone who dealt with the aftermath of such laws for a living and unless what was happening in your neck of the woods was for some reason diametrically different than where I've worked (and I've worked in several areas), I am highly skeptical. More importantly, the scenario you described simply doesn't make a lick of sense.

The notion that police are busting "good" kids for kicks and letting the thugs run free sounds like something a kid would think based on a friend getting hassled. Moreover, kids tend to inflate a cop stopping a kid and telling him to get his butt home to the equivalent of booking him and holding him without bread, water or a chamber pot - perhaps even putting him in a cell with Bubba. Makes a good story but... Additionally, how would you even know how many thuggish kids (assuming you were a good kid) or how many good kids (assuming you were a thug) were stopped by the police and harassed?

As an adult, it makes absolutely no sense that cops bothering good kids and letting the thugs run free would be commonplace. Busting kids isn't fun - certainly not for petty stuff. It just makes work for cops. And importantly, cops don't like to look stupid. The risk of looking like a fool in court increases when you bust "rich" kids because their parents will go to the mat for them and are far more likely to be able to hire a private attorney. Poor thuggish kids have the public defenders who are more likely to simply strike a standard plea bargain and go on down the road. Moreover, a prosecutor, faced with prosecuting a "good" kid vs. prosecuting a surer thing (a bad kid who likely has a record) isn't going to be any too thrilled with police getting their jollies and spending public funds for their own amusement on a regular basis.

Thuggish kids frequently have a record. That means that prosecuting them is a relative snap and for a bigger offense than pestering "good" kids on minor charges for kicks. Indeed, chances are these kids aren't even supposed to be out at night in certain areas and at certain times even before the official curfew. Those are additional charges that "good" kids don't have hanging over their heads. Again, the notion that the cops let thugs walk and harass the good kids makes absolutely no sense and runs completely counter to what I see in the courts.

[RodH]

I don't doubt this is how you perceived things but, candidly, that doesn't make it so because your information and, chances are, your perception as a fellow teen wouldn't be complete or accurate. There is a tendency, as a young person, to accept what you hear as gospel and if something happens to one of your friends, honestly believe that is the norm all over.

I am speaking as someone who dealt with the aftermath of such laws for a living and unless what was happening in your neck of the woods was for some reason diametrically different than where I've worked (and I've worked in several areas), I am highly skeptical. More importantly, the scenario you described simply doesn't make a lick of sense.

The notion that police are busting "good" kids for kicks and letting the thugs run free sounds like something a kid would think based on a friend getting hassled. Moreover, kids tend to inflate a cop stopping a kid and telling him to get his butt home to the equivalent of booking him and holding him without bread, water or a chamber pot - perhaps even putting him in a cell with Bubba. Makes a good story but... Additionally, how would you even know how many thuggish kids (assuming you were a good kid) or how many good kids (assuming you were a thug) were stopped by the police and harassed?

As an adult, it makes absolutely no sense that cops bothering good kids and letting the thugs run free would be commonplace. Busting kids isn't fun - certainly not for petty stuff. It just makes work for cops. And importantly, cops don't like to look stupid. The risk of looking like a fool in court increases when you bust "rich" kids because their parents will go to the mat for them and are far more likely to be able to hire a private attorney. Poor thuggish kids have the public defenders who are more likely to simply strike a standard plea bargain and go on down the road. Moreover, a prosecutor, faced with prosecuting a "good" kid vs. prosecuting a surer thing (a bad kid who likely has a record) isn't going to be any too thrilled with police getting their jollies and spending public funds for their own amusement on a regular basis.

Thuggish kids frequently have a record. That means that prosecuting them is a relative snap and for a bigger offense than pestering "good" kids on minor charges for kicks. Indeed, chances are these kids aren't even supposed to be out at night in certain areas and at certain times even before the official curfew. Those are additional charges that "good" kids don't have hanging over their heads. Again, the notion that the cops let thugs walk and harass the good kids makes absolutely no sense and runs completely counter to what I see in the courts.

"Rich" kids can be thuggish too. Being poor does not necessarily mean that a kid is a thug. You might want to review your statement for what it says about your worldview. What we see in the courts is not necessarily indicative of what is happening in the streets. Your statement tends to support what Spartan said perhaps more than you may realize if you consider that thuggish kids can be rich. Poor kids may be easiier to prosecute but that does not mean that they are more thuggish. Rich kids may be prosecuted less but that does not mean that it is because they are good.

[Spartan]

I don't doubt this is how you perceived things but, candidly, that doesn't make it so because your information and, chances are, your perception as a fellow teen wouldn't be complete or accurate. There is a tendency, as a young person, to accept what you hear as gospel and if something happens to one of your friends, honestly believe that is the norm all over.

I am speaking as someone who dealt with the aftermath of such laws for a living and unless what was happening in your neck of the woods was for some reason diametrically different than where I've worked (and I've worked in several areas), I am highly skeptical. More importantly, the scenario you described simply doesn't make a lick of sense.

The notion that police are busting "good" kids for kicks and letting the thugs run free sounds like something a kid would think based on a friend getting hassled. Moreover, kids tend to inflate a cop stopping a kid and telling him to get his butt home to the equivalent of booking him and holding him without bread, water or a chamber pot - perhaps even putting him in a cell with Bubba. Makes a good story but... Additionally, how would you even know how many thuggish kids (assuming you were a good kid) or how many good kids (assuming you were a thug) were stopped by the police and harassed?

As an adult, it makes absolutely no sense that cops bothering good kids and letting the thugs run free would be commonplace. Busting kids isn't fun - certainly not for petty stuff. It just makes work for cops. And importantly, cops don't like to look stupid. The risk of looking like a fool in court increases when you bust "rich" kids because their parents will go to the mat for them and are far more likely to be able to hire a private attorney. Poor thuggish kids have the public defenders who are more likely to simply strike a standard plea bargain and go on down the road. Moreover, a prosecutor, faced with prosecuting a "good" kid vs. prosecuting a surer thing (a bad kid who likely has a record) isn't going to be any too thrilled with police getting their jollies and spending public funds for their own amusement on a regular basis.

Thuggish kids frequently have a record. That means that prosecuting them is a relative snap and for a bigger offense than pestering "good" kids on minor charges for kicks. Indeed, chances are these kids aren't even supposed to be out at night in certain areas and at certain times even before the official curfew. Those are additional charges that "good" kids don't have hanging over their heads. Again, the notion that the cops let thugs walk and harass the good kids makes absolutely no sense and runs completely counter to what I see in the courts.

No offense, but I don't think you know what you're talking about. It doesn't matter if you occasionally handle cases, because this is a topic that practically anyone can be qualified to talk about.

The things that you say don't happen actually happen on a daily basis in police suburbs (a bored cop hiding behind practically every bush) like Edmond or Moore. Let's be realistic about our public servants who work so hard to "keep us safe," not to mention the entire legal system.

[BDP]

The notion that police are busting "good" kids for kicks and letting the thugs run free sounds like something a kid would think based on a friend getting hassled. Moreover, kids tend to inflate a cop stopping a kid and telling him to get his butt home to the equivalent of booking him and holding him without bread, water or a chamber pot - perhaps even putting him in a cell with Bubba.

OK. Probably true. But what happened here then? Has this all been, misrepresented? Are the parents covering for their children's illegal activity? Were the cops' watches just set fast? It sounds like these police officers apprehended these kids without any questioning whatsoever and outside of the scope of the law. This should never happen, because, well, now the cops are the suspects. Now they are not trusted and in turn, the security of the whole area is in question. You basically tell good kids to avoid bad areas or situations, because they can get mixed in the bad business whether they are at fault or not. Is that lower brick town is now: a bad place for good kids? This is what this action has created: "it must be so bad there that they have to arrest innocent kids to deter the bad kids from causing problems". Not good.

Unless there was some sort of skirmish or chaotic situation where these cops just couldn't tell fault, then there is no excuse. Their reason for arrest isn't even valid according to reports.

[PennyQuilts]

"Rich" kids can be thuggish too. Being poor does not necessarily mean that a kid is a thug. You might want to review your statement for what it says about your worldview. What we see in the courts is not necessarily indicative of what is happening in the streets. Your statement tends to support what Spartan said perhaps more than you may realize if you consider that thuggish kids can be rich. Poor kids may be easiier to prosecute but that does not mean that they are more thuggish. Rich kids may be prosecuted less but that does not mean that it is because they are good.

I was using that as a proxy, building on Spartan's post in order to respond. I don't think rich kids can't be thugs but Spartan was making the distinction. I think he used the word punk but it amounts to the same thing. When I said one or the other could be prosecuted, I was talking about the fact that some kids have parents willing to kick up a fuss and hire a private attorney. I was also talking about thugish kids typically having a record (and frankly, most of them have less than effective parents). With a record, being on probation and a parent who is outgunned, a conviction is tons easier.

[PennyQuilts]

No offense, but I don't think you know what you're talking about. It doesn't matter if you occasionally handle cases, because this is a topic that practically anyone can be qualified to talk about.

The things that you say don't happen actually happen on a daily basis in police suburbs (a bored cop hiding behind practically every bush) like Edmond or Moore. Let's be realistic about our public servants who work so hard to "keep us safe," not to mention the entire legal system.

Okay, I am sure as a former kid who went to highschool, you are surely better qualified than an attorney who practiced juvenile law, including delinquency matters, for many years to understand what is "really" going on.