Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

by Original Quill Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:14 pm

San Francisco Chronicle wrote:COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — A deputy was fired Wednesday after video showed him flipping a teen backward out of her desk and tossing her across a classroom, with the sheriff saying the officer did not follow proper procedures and training.

Richland County Senior Deputy Ben Fields was told of his firing late Wednesday morning, Sheriff Leon Lott said. Lott said he would not describe the now-former resource officer at Spring Valley High School as remorseful, but that Fields was sorry the incident happened and tried to do his job.

The student was being disruptive and refused to leave the classroom despite being told by a teacher and administrator to do so, Lott said, and that's when Fields was brought in Monday to remove her from the class. She again refused, and Fields told her she was under arrest, Lott said.

She continued to refuse, and video shows the deputy flipping the teen backward and then throwing her across the room. At that point, Lott said, Fields did not use proper procedure.

"I can tell you what he should not have done: He should not have thrown that student," Lott said during a news conference.

The agency's training unit looked at video of the incident and determined Fields did not follow proper training and procedure, the sheriff said.

Lott said he would not release Fields' personnel file, saying only that some complaints have been filed in the past against him, none of which came from the school district.

Court records show at least three complaints, though Fields prevailed in two of those cases.

Trial is set for January in the case of an expelled student who claims Fields targeted blacks and falsely accused him of being a gang member in 2013. In another case, a federal jury sided with Fields after a black couple accused him of excessive force and battery during a noise complaint arrest in 2005. A third lawsuit, dismissed in 2009, involved a woman who accused him of battery and violating her rights during a 2006 arrest.

Calls for Fields to be fired began mounting almost immediately after the video surfaced, and the FBI began a federal civil rights investigation at Lott's request. The confrontation was captured on cellphones by students, one of whom said it all started when the girl pulled out her cellphone and refused her math teacher's attempt to take it away during class.

Lott had said Tuesday that the girl was uninjured in the confrontation but "may have had a rug burn." However, her attorney contradicted that.

"She now has a cast on her arm, she has neck and back injuries. She has a Band-Aid on her forehead where she suffered rug burn on her forehead," Columbia attorney Todd Rutherford told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Wednesday.

The sheriff suspended Fields without pay Monday. Lott, who rushed home from an out of town conference when the news broke, said that a teacher and vice principal in the classroom at the time felt the officer acted appropriately.

Email, phone and text messages for Fields have not been returned.

More than a dozen parents and community members spoke out at a Tuesday night meeting of the Richland 2 School District. Some, black and white alike, said that the issue wasn't based on race and that the incident shows that teachers and administrators need to work harder on finding ways to handle defiant students.

Craig Conwell was angry, imploring board members to take action and saying Fields should have been fired immediately.

"If that was my daughter ... that officer being fired would be the least of his worries," Conwell said. "We are sick and tired of black women being abused. You can say it's not racist all you want to."

The deputy also arrested a second girl who verbally objected to his actions. Both girls were charged with disturbing schools and released to their parents. Their names were not officially released.

The second student, Niya Kenny, told WLTX-TV that she felt she had to say something. Doris Kenny said she's proud her daughter was "brave enough to speak out against what was going on."

Lott said the charges against the two students would not be dropped and would be dealt with at a later date. However, he commended the students who recorded the incident, saying he encouraged citizens to record authorities and bring it to his attention if they think something is wrong.

"I can't fix problems if I don't know about it," Lott said.

Sheriff's officials have stressed that the incident was not an issue of race. But a local NAACP official, who praised the Justice Department for investigating, said this was not something white students had to deal with.

"To be thrown out of her seat as she was thrown, and dumped on the floor ... I don't ever recall a female student who is not of color (being treated this way)," South Carolina's NAACP president, Lonnie Randolph Jr., said Tuesday.

It's quite clear that exposure forced the Sheriff's Department to take this move. They are not in a moral place, by any standard. Incredibly, the charges against the two children remain...for--for what?? Those are police CYA (cover-your-ass) charges. There is no remorse on the part of anyone in the department...all indications are that their position is, we got caught, nothing more.

You have to wonder...all these racial incidents happening in South Carolina??! Did that State get left in the 19th-century?

by Ben Reilly Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:06 pm

by Guest Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:12 pm

I'm sorry but that amount of force just isn't necessary. Whatever happened to being sent to the Headmaster's office??? Disgraceful, what does this teach childen?

Violence Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class Smiley23

Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class Smiley23

by Cass Wed Oct 28, 2015 9:38 pm

Interestingly enough both the teacher and school administrator thought he hadn't used excessive force but seems he broke departmental better/Protocol and that is why he was fired.

I think he did go OTT but as to FTL'S comment about what it teaches children - well what does her behaviour leadingbup to the incident teach her peers and other children? That it is ok to not comply with both the teacher and administrators multiple requests to comply with school rules?

Again the school resource officer went overboard but there comes a time when people have to start taking personal responsibility for their actions. She was old enough to know better.

by Original Quill Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:32 pm

Cass wrote:Interestingly enough both the teacher and school administrator thought he hadn't used excessive force but seems he broke departmental better/Protocol and that is why he was fired.

I think he did go OTT but as to FTL'S comment about what it teaches children - well what does her behaviour leadingbup to the incident teach her peers and other children? That it is ok to not comply with both the teacher and administrators multiple requests to comply with school rules?

Again the school resource officer went overboard but there comes a time when people have to start taking personal responsibility for their actions. She was old enough to know better.

Well, I think it was the lack of proportion that horrifies people. Let's take stock: the girl was on her phone, texting; the teacher told her to give him the phone, when he could have simply told her to put it away; when she refused to give him the phone, he asked her to leave; when she refused, he called the SRO and what you see ensued.

So it was an authoritarian response on the part of the school, all out of proportion with the peaceful, if obstinate acts of the girl. This kind of authoritarian and overly-aggressive response is all to typical of Southern states. It should come as no surprise that these are states where racism is rampant, and gun ownership is OTT. South Carolina is a bad place to be and to live.

Also, why the fook did they not clear the room if they planned on beating up kids? At a minimum, let the girl sit and stew alone, while class goes forward elsewhere. Wouldn't that accomplish the same thing?

If we removed the other kids, we wouldn't have it on film, but isn't that what you do with there is going to be violence...get kids out of harm's way? It shows a callous disregard for safety. So, the SRO doesn't give a shite about the kids; but he just wants to beat the fook out of a female child. (I'd look into his domestic situation; what does his wife put up with?) There's a lot of things wrong with this picture.

by veya_victaous Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:54 pm

unless an offender is violent an officer is not meant to use violence. she was not violent he is a Criminal in my opinion he should be charged with Assault. employment doesn't let you hit people cause they didn't do what you says.

Teacher should be fired too and any administrator that thinks that what is on that video is EVER acceptable. the student was a non threat that is clearly excessive force he didn't even try and just move her he bloody well slams her desk and all. Personal responsibility sits with school administrators BEFORE students, so they should all face the consequences which at a minimum should be permanent ban from working with children or teens.

by Cass Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:59 pm

Quill that was a low blow. You have no right to imply domestic violence to his wife.

He had worked there for 7 years without incident and had good relations with both staff and students.

by Cass Wed Oct 28, 2015 11:02 pm

veya_victaous wrote:unless an offender is violent an officer is not meant to use violence. she was not violent he is a Criminal in my opinion he should be charged with Assault. employment doesn't let you hit people cause they didn't do what you says.

Teacher should be fired too and any administrator that thinks that what is on that video is EVER acceptable. the student was a non threat that is clearly excessive force he didn't even try and just move her he bloody well slams her desk and all. Personal responsibility sits with school administrators BEFORE students, so they should all face the consequences which at a minimum should be permanent ban from working with children or teens.

He actually has the right to place his hands on her but he then violated training with the throwing her.

by Original Quill Wed Oct 28, 2015 11:09 pm

Cass wrote:Quill that was a low blow. You have no right to imply domestic violence to his wife.

He had worked there for 7 years without incident and had good relations with both staff and students.

Cass, it's nothing a law enforcement officer wouldn't do as a part of an investigation of someone who is a 'thumper'. 'Thumper' is a term used to describe a person often in fights; this SRO's nickname was "Slam". What does that tell you?

It's standard operating procedure to find out the domestic situation of anyone suspected of 'thumping'...not only to gain evidence, but to see if others are possibly in danger. As a former Arizona AAG, I was simply stating my instinctive reaction.

Now, it is untrue that he has worked 7 years without incident. He has had several complaints, two of which have gone to civil court. In fact, he's scheduled to go to trial for one such altercation in just a few days. As a former AAG, I would already be looking into him if he were in Arizona. That was my job.

by Cass Thu Oct 29, 2015 2:04 am

Those other cases (2) were dismissed or he was found not guilty by a federal jury. They had nothing to do with domestic violence. The other current one is brought by an expelled student who claims he was falsely accused of being in a gang. I'm sure the school expelled this other student after a careful investigation otherwise why isn't he suing the school as well? Can you cite reliable sources for other complaints that you say there are a lot of?

Can you cite where you saw his nickname? And so what - that could be related to anything like for instance in martial arts or basketball. So there is no real indicaoof others being in danger apart from a lot of speculation on the interwebz.

He hasn't been charged yet anyway -but interesting that the sheriff who fired him says that the charges against the girl will stand.

by veya_victaous Thu Oct 29, 2015 2:49 am

The deputy also arrested a second girl who verbally objected to his actions. Both girls were charged with disturbing schools and released to their parents. Their names were not officially released.

He is SO IN THE WRONG he is arrested someone for protesting his excessive force.
The mere fact they can be charged even though they are minors who's offense was less than the officers shows How incredibly broken the system is. (clearly since she didn't put some one in a cast)

I can't see how the USA can possibly fix it's justice systems without a full wipe clean and start again.
Anyone involved in the current system could never be trusted to produce anything fair. I am amazed the isn't more rioting from the black community.

It has seriously reached the point where given a choice I'd choose the most of the Asian Justice systems cause at least they are openly corrupt and less racist and Not a complete Contradiction of the idea of justice. At least in China the penalties are stiff but if authority abuses power too much, they get punished even more severely.

it is like the USA saw Authority Abusing power illegally, so rather than bring authority to account choose to legalize abuse of power Suspect

by Original Quill Thu Oct 29, 2015 3:13 am

Cass wrote:Those other cases (2) were dismissed or he was found not guilty by a federal jury. They had nothing to do with domestic violence. The other current one is brought by an expelled student who claims he was falsely accused of being in a gang. I'm sure the school expelled this other student after a careful investigation otherwise why isn't he suing the school as well? Can you cite reliable sources for other complaints that you say there are a lot of?

You are already in the loss column when you have to explain away the complaints that have gone on to civil suit. As far as the present cases are concerned, nothing is gained by litigating them here. That’s what the jury will do. So why try to argue the facts when we can wait and see. As I've said so often, only the verdict counts.

What is appropriate is to note that there are other SROs who don’t seem to kick up as much dust…or cost as much in attorney fees. That's what this department should have been concerned with.

Also, you are mixing apples and oranges when you try to make the work of a school resource officer into a domestic matter. Domestic violence is not an issue here; but under Rule 404(b), F.R.Evid., evidence of a similar nature is admissible to substantiate other factors.

The fact is that this SRO (whose nickname is “Slam”) has a problem with physical violence. We saw that on the video tape. When you encounter a perp with a penchant for physical violence, you want to look around to see either (1) if he has been abusive domestically, or (2) if anyone is in jeopardy of abuse. Anything else would be a dereliction of duty.

Cass wrote:Can you cite where you saw his nickname?

I first heard his nickname, “Slam”, on the Hardball news show on MSNBC, where several students were interviewed and gave this information.

Cass wrote:And so what - that could be related to anything like for instance in martial arts or basketball. So there is no real indicaoof others being in danger apart from a lot of speculation on the interwebz.

Don’t be naive. I’ve been a law enforcement officer, an assistant attorney general, charged with investigating police agencies, as well as having taught at the Silverbell Law Enforcement Academy at the University of Arizona, and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, of the City University of New York. I know what police nicknames like “Thumper” or “Slam” or “Hard Knocks” refer to. It's quite common to call someone by a nickname that glorifies his penchant for violence.

Cass wrote:He hasn't been charged yet anyway -but interesting that the sheriff who fired him says that the charges against the girl will stand.

In pre-video days, we had what they call the 'Blue Wall', which is what was thrown up whenever a policeman was involved in any questionable activity. And there is what they call the ‘Blue Fiction’ report; police would get together, invent a self-serving narrative to write in Investigative Reports, and then band together and stick by the story.

Now, with videos so readily available, the only thing the police have is an argument that goes something like: you didn’t see what you just saw; it doesn’t play well on national news, as 'Slam' just found out. However, the agencies still do whatever else they can do to support the case, because of course they are going to face a lawsuit in a few weeks.

The Sheriff in this case is fulfilling a part of the Blue Wall obligation. He is keeping up the fabricated parts of the story by continuing the charges against the children. Later, when all is forgotten, and the lawsuits are settled out of court, the children will be absolved and charges dropped. It is too expensive to keep up the charade, and why bother?

by captain Thu Oct 29, 2015 4:19 am

No man should push kids around. What a Face

What this officer did to this girl is totally out of order. As an officer he should really be dealt with much more severely that your average joe. He is paid to keep order and peace, not behave in such a thuggish and aggressive manor.

by Major Thu Oct 29, 2015 12:08 pm

Immediately you are arrested you must comply with police instructions or be manhandled.

by Major Thu Oct 29, 2015 12:11 pm

Odds on she had a chip other shoulder.

by Major Thu Oct 29, 2015 12:14 pm

If your child was in that class with a disruptive student would you not want them removed so your childs education could proceed?

This may be a good lesson for others who cause classroom mayhem.

Look out a cops about.

by Major Thu Oct 29, 2015 12:16 pm

Suppose the cop could have said,
'excuse me miss, you have been very norty will you please go and sit on the norty step'.

by Original Quill Thu Oct 29, 2015 1:20 pm

Stormee wrote:Immediately you are arrested you must comply with police instructions or be manhandled.

False. In the United States we have a Constitutional, which governs treatment of someone placed in custody in a variety of ways. The Fourth Amendment prevents unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment prohibits double jeopardy, compelling self-incrimination, depriving life, liberty or property, and it provides equal protection of law...and most importantly, due process of law. The Sixth Amendment provides the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you. The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments.

According to The Encyclopedia of Police Science, "David Carter (1985, 322) offers perhaps the most comprehensive definition of police abuse of authority, arguing that it is best described as 'any action by a police officer without regard to motive, intent, or malice that tends to injure, insult, tread on human dignity, manifest feelings of inferiority, and/or violate an inherent legal right of a member of the . . .' public." Violence that is excessive, unnecessary or unreasonable is prohibited.

by Original Quill Thu Oct 29, 2015 1:29 pm

Stormee wrote:Odds on she had a chip other shoulder.

The motives or frame of mind of the accused at time he or she is taken into custody is irrelevant.

by Original Quill Thu Oct 29, 2015 1:36 pm

Stormee wrote:If your child was in that class with a disruptive student would you not want them removed so your childs education could proceed?

This may be a good lesson for others who cause classroom mayhem.

Look out a cops about.

The student was not disruptive. She simply refused to tender her cell phone to the teacher. The disruptive behavior was completely one-sided, created by the SRO.

Nothing in the chain of events was as disruptive as the actions of the SRO. If the SRO was the least bit interested in the welfare of other students, he would not have created such a violent confrontation. It was not only detrimental to education, but to safety.

It is only a good lesson in authoritarianism, which is frowned upon in a free and open society.

by Original Quill Thu Oct 29, 2015 1:45 pm

Stormee wrote:Suppose the cop could have said,
'excuse me miss, you have been very norty will you please go and sit on the norty step'.

There are a number of different ways the SRO could have better handled the situation. His resort to such violence shows that he was acting, not in furtherance of his job, but on behalf of his own ego. He viewed this situation as a personal affront.

As taxpayers, we should not have to pay for the ego trips of employees; that is not in his job description. But more importantly, all of the violence came from the SRO...and any damage to the student(s), as well as interruption to the educational process, are laid on the doorstep of this egomaniacal SRO, who was properly terminated for abuse of his position.

by Cass Thu Oct 29, 2015 11:12 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Stormee wrote:If your child was in that class with a disruptive student would you not want them removed so your childs education could proceed?

This may be a good lesson for others who cause classroom mayhem.

Look out a cops about.

The student was not disruptive. She simply refused to tender her cell phone to the teacher. The disruptive behavior was completely one-sided, created by the SRO.

Nothing in the chain of events was as disruptive as the actions of the SRO. If the SRO was the least bit interested in the welfare of other students, he would not have created such a violent confrontation. It was not only detrimental to education, but to safety.

It is only a good lesson in authoritarianism, which is frowned upon in a free and open society.

Actually she was disruptive according to the school's rules. She defied not only the class teacher, but also the school administrator. If you don't want to go to school to learn then don't be there. If you can't follow the rules whether or not you think they are fair, then go elsewhere. It really is that simple.

There are also videos now surfacing of her hitting the officer first.

Again I do not stand by what he did, but she is to blame for him having to come into the classroom in the first place.

by Cass Thu Oct 29, 2015 11:26 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Cass wrote:Those other cases (2) were dismissed or he was found not guilty by a federal jury. They had nothing to do with domestic violence. The other current one is brought by an expelled student who claims he was falsely accused of being in a gang. I'm sure the school expelled this other student after a careful investigation otherwise why isn't he suing the school as well? Can you cite reliable sources for other complaints that you say there are a lot of?

You are already in the loss column when you have to explain away the complaints that have gone on to civil suit. As far as the present cases are concerned, nothing is gained by litigating them here. That’s what the jury will do. So why try to argue the facts when we can wait and see. As I've said so often, only the verdict counts.

You are the one who brought up other cases not me. I haven't explained anything but the bare facts of those cases. I am not arguing the facts, you are the one who claimed that he obviously had issues since there were other cases.

What is appropriate is to note that there are other SROs who don’t seem to kick up as much dust…or cost as much in attorney fees. That's what this department should have been concerned with.

Also, you are mixing apples and oranges when you try to make the work of a school resource officer into a domestic matter. Domestic violence is not an issue here; but under Rule 404(b), F.R.Evid., evidence of a similar nature is admissible to substantiate other factors.

Again you brought it up first.
You are the one who said how does he treat his wife and that potentially could explain his behavior in this incident.

The fact is that this SRO (whose nickname is “Slam”) has a problem with physical violence. We saw that on the video tape. When you encounter a perp with a penchant for physical violence, you want to look around to see either (1) if he has been abusive domestically, or (2) if anyone is in jeopardy of abuse. Anything else would be a dereliction of duty.

Again you are the one bringing up domestic violence.

Cass wrote:Can you cite where you saw his nickname?

I first heard his nickname, “Slam”, on the Hardball news show on MSNBC, where several students were interviewed and gave this information.

Ok good to know. I will see if I can reference it. I was watching the baseball, Mr. C the debate and the internet was playing up

Cass wrote:And so what - that could be related to anything like for instance in martial arts or basketball. So there is no real indicaoof others being in danger apart from a lot of speculation on the interwebz.

Don’t be naive. I’ve been a law enforcement officer, an assistant attorney general, charged with investigating police agencies, as well as having taught at the Silverbell Law Enforcement Academy at the University of Arizona, and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, of the City University of New York. I know what police nicknames like “Thumper” or “Slam” or “Hard Knocks” refer to. It's quite common to call someone by a nickname that glorifies his penchant for violence.

I am not being naive, just calling it as I see it. Lucky you to be so fancy with all of your great jobs. Mr. C calls me Hen but I am most certainly not a chicken. We have known plenty of people in the Army who have had nicknames that in no way reflected their character or were a reflection on a definition of the name.

Cass wrote:He hasn't been charged yet anyway -but interesting that the sheriff who fired him says that the charges against the girl will stand.

In pre-video days, we had what they call the 'Blue Wall', which is what was thrown up whenever a policeman was involved in any questionable activity. And there is what they call the ‘Blue Fiction’ report; police would get together, invent a self-serving narrative to write in Investigative Reports, and then band together and stick by the story.

Now, with videos so readily available, the only thing the police have is an argument that goes something like: you didn’t see what you just saw; it doesn’t play well on national news, as 'Slam' just found out. However, the agencies still do whatever else they can do to support the case, because of course they are going to face a lawsuit in a few weeks.

The Sheriff in this case is fulfilling a part of the Blue Wall obligation. He is keeping up the fabricated parts of the story by continuing the charges against the children. Later, when all is forgotten, and the lawsuits are settled out of court, the children will be absolved and charges dropped. It is too expensive to keep up the charade, and why bother?

Right. So every single cop is already guilty in your book because of some type of Omerta in the police fraternity. Regardless of the videos, if this blue wall actually existed, wouldn't they have just suspended him with pay as we have seen recently in other incidents until charges are filed?

Gosh who are you going to call if ever you are a victim of crime? I mean how could you trust anybody?

And here was silly little ole me presuming everyone innocent until proven guilty - damn n blast my eyes

by Original Quill Fri Oct 30, 2015 4:11 am

Cass wrote:You are the one who brought up other cases not me. I haven't explained anything but the bare facts of those cases. I am not arguing the facts, you are the one who claimed that he obviously had issues since there were other cases.

Cass wrote:Again you brought it up first.
You are the one who said how does he treat his wife and that potentially could explain his behavior in this incident.

Cass wrote:Again you are the one bringing up domestic violence.

Yes, but I raised the possibility of evidence of other kinds of violence under Rule 404(b), F.R.Evid. There are many different reasons why one might bring in evidence. In this case, it would be to show a common propensity toward violence. I would also have a concern directly, for any member of his family. Finally, there is the concern that he is a bad apple in a sensitive type job, which turns out to be the final decision for him. His employer let him go, precisely because he couldn't control himself.

Cass wrote:I am not being naive, just calling it as I see it. Lucky you to be so fancy with all of your great jobs. Mr. C calls me Hen but I am most certainly not a chicken. We have known plenty of people in the Army who have had nicknames that in no way reflected their character or were a reflection on a definition of the name.

I mention my past jobs because it establishes foundation for my opinion. In a court of law that is how you establish a basis for opinion. You first give your qualifications, which I did.

There is huge difference between ‘the Blue’ world and the military world. In both worlds there is generally an ‘us vs. them’ quality, which establishes most of the orientation and values. But in the military you are surrounded by your friends and a unit, and antagonistic toward a population that probably doesn’t even speak your language. There is not the ambivalent feeling that you are an outcast, as there is in the Blue world.

Because they are set-off from the wider world, and in a sense antagonistic toward their own kind—they must police the community—the police tend to look for reinforcement from each other. Thus, they wrap themselves in the security of symbols, such as nicknames and sayings that emphasize that they are right, in a troubled world.

One such value is toughness. If you are against the world, you’ve got to stress your independent determination, and the righteousness of your cause, by being tough. Nicknames express values and cohesion in a ‘set-off’ environment…you are not alone, and you can assert yourself in an antagonistic universe.

As far as 'Slam' is concerned—in this case—even the kids invoked the nickname. He had quite a reputation on both sides of the fence.

by Major Fri Oct 30, 2015 10:18 am

The little shit started it off and will now go for compo, pre planned it was.

by Original Quill Fri Oct 30, 2015 3:33 pm

Stormee wrote:The little shit started it off and will now go for compo, pre planned it was.

Nonsense. The heavy goon got his tiny dick in a snit, all because the young woman was standing up for herself. His already depleted self-esteem couldn't take the blow to his ego.

What is an education for, if not to teach children leadership...as well as right from wrong? Now, when a young woman stands up for her rights, and another student tries to stop the terrorist violence, the bulldozer Sheriff's Department has to undo all of the lessons in order to prove that it's an authoritarian world. after all. Didn't we give Malala Yousafzai a Nobel Peace Prize for doing the same thing, only with different bullies? On another thread in the Middle East section, we are shocked to see knives placed in the hands of children; what is the Richland County Sheriff's Department placing in the hands of children with this lesson?

Small dicks...big problems.

by Sponsored content

Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class

Re: Sheriff: School officer fired after tossing student in class