Yes, law enforcement personnel are allowed to question minors without their parents. They are also allowed to question minors without a lawyer present. Don't ask how I know this. This isn't TV.

Asking questions is not necessarily the same thing as taking someone into custody. It's not black and white. Obviously when you get cuffs on you and you hear "you have the right to remain silent"...

A judge of course can throw out any self incriminating statements before Miranda was read.

"Arrests are subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, but the courts have followed the common law in upholding the right of police officers to take a person into custody without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony or a misdemeanor in their presence."

http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-04/13-stop-and-frisk.html

So in this case, the only probable cause for a misdemeanor charge I could see would be non-compliance or non-cooperation with police ("obstruction of official business" seems to be the charge below). Of course, it would be up to a judge to interpret this after the fact and not on the spot.

https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Resources/LawFactsPamphlets/Pages/LawFactsPamphlet-21.aspx

So that seems to 'work' under what police felt was passive aggressive non compliance if some of the articles are to be believed.

(click to show/hide)

Right. Have you tried actual joined up thinking?

I don't think I am bringing any blatant bias into this. Your opinion, of course, varies.

edit/reply/edit/reply/edit/reply...

I did not think that, and I didn't write it.
 

I did not think that, and I didn't write it.

And you did not write that.  Lets remind ourselves of where you  planted the goalposts that began this exchange...

Which, I think... nails it. And finishes the conversation. For me, at least.

Jesus, almost half an hour of editing your posts to get the last word in and misrepresent the facts after the topic has moved on.

You implied certain Islamic parents manipulating their children for political gain (my claim) was a racial slur and not supported by evidence (your claim) which is why you asked for evidence. I gave it to you.

http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,2845.msg82411.html#msg82411

Asked and answered. Now move the fuck along and deal with it.

OK I'm braking a promise not to post again.  AV, based on your description , in my experience most high school freshmen have PLI. Those of us who have worked with freshman have other names for it.

For decades I have gone over the safety rules about not putting metal objects into electrical sockets. I even did a demo showing how a pickle would be electrocuted with ordinary 110V plugs. I used a real pickle, explaining that the pickle was like a person, had salt etc.  One year a boy ran up, grabbed the electrocuted pickle before I could stop him and ate it! Every year for at least 15 years, some freshman boy at some point during the year, would stick a paper clip onto a socket and knock himself to the floor.  14 is an amazing year for humans. It is a wonder we survive it.  I could write a book. All I can say is if any of you have a 14 year old, and they do something really incomprehensible and you ask them what they where thinking? If they reply "I don't know", that is the truthful answer. Accept it.

I am not surprised at all that this young man plugged his clock in during class. Maybe we should start a thread for pirate parents to help explain what they may see from about 13 to 15 with their children.

Oh no doubt! And all kids do these things to different degrees.

The big difference between the two [PLI and being an average dumb 13-14 year old] is that the kids you described had practical or applied knowledge deficiencies. (In the traditional sense of Data > Information > Knowledge > Wisdom classical hierarchy). The dumb asses heard you say that electricity is bad - but they don't really know it until they get a good sense of the negative outcomes until they see bad thing happen...and not to a pickle. I remember back in shop class, despite my teacher coming in every day and telling them to be serious, all the kids would fuck around with the welding setup unsupervised. Until one day a spark lit up a kid's brown corduroy pants. The shop teacher took those pants, framed the remains, and hung them over the door to the shop room.

And then the next year, he got to add a second pair of pants over the door. If they hadn't closed down PCHS, he might have had a dozen or more by now!

We gain applied/practical knowledge through personal experience or vicarious learning. PLI/social pragmatic problems generally happen at the level of culture and subtext, where no one says something explicitly or completely. (Or, states but leaves ambiguous in terms of its affects or emotional valences.)

Embarrassing Personal Example: my freshman year in undergrad, I asked this girl from my chemistry class out on a date. Her reply was, "That's nice, I've already got a friend." My brain didn't make the jump from friend to "friend" in the Biz Markian sense. (Despite being a huge Biz fan.) So, I struck up a conversation with her for the next 25 minutes about her friend because - since she changed the topic of conversation - that was what she clearly wanted to talk about.

Of course, after that I obtained applied/practical knowledge and a new set of contextual meanings for the phrase "I already got a friend." It all worked out. But basically PLI covers those stupid moments where someone is just expected to "get it" or where words and phrases have specific, delimited contextual meanings that don't always remain compartmentalized. There were lots of moments where, if this kid had just &q uot;gotten it" all of this would have been avoided.

All of this is just armchair educator gossiping for fun. I don't know the kid beyond what I've read/seen and I can't see his records. Still, interesting case.

I've been in that situation and never once thought I was "detained". And I was younger than that kid.

Did you read the link I posted? Looks like the Supreme Court determined that such a situation was a detainment and threw out his confession. Congrats on being a tough guy though

That restriction exists for a good reason in my book. Like Anax mentioned, authorities can (legally) lie and cheat and use all sorts of tactics to get what they want. And kids are especially vulnerable because they're easily intimidated and don't know there rights.