South Carolina Woman Arrested For Cheering Too Loudly at Daughter's Graduation

[DwightD123]

It seems as though you may be confusing what actually happened here - someone violated the rules that were given to the attendees for a particular event and they were punished in the manner that was prescribed to them beforehand. These rules did not extend into society in general. Numerous examples have already been given in this thread of unacceptable behavior - you don't yell "FIRE" in a theater, you don't yell "BOMB" on an airplane, etc.

Again, if you take the time to read these articles, the "No cheering" rule was clearly delineated beforehand, and the perpetrators were aware of it and knowingly violated the rule. Once more, just because someone thinks a rule is stupid doesn't mean that it can be ignored without consequences.

No one ever told her that she couldn't cheer for her child at all - they just told her to hold her applause and celebration until the appointed time.

Here's a question for those who disagree with how this situation was handled: How would you feel if it was your child's/grandchild's/etc. name that was drowned out due to the rowdy celebration that followed the announcement of the name of the previous graduate?

Please go back and read my original post. As I said at that time if she was lewd or didn't stop then maybe I would change my mind regarding the arrest. I have no doubt that if I were there I would have been very aggravated with her and agreed with the arrest. That is not the point on which I am basing my point of view.
The point I am trying to make that seems to be slipping by you is this: Even though a rule and consequence is stated that does not grant said rule and consequence inherent correctness in principle.
Comparing this to yelling FIRE in a crowded theater is not a legitimate comparison. The reason one doesn't do this is because people could be injured or killed. Now with that example I say that the punishment of being arrested fits the crime. In other words the rule and consequence are more befitting of the crime. Is a rule about yelling at graduation befitting of the consequence of being arrested? My answer is no. Your argument is split into two facets. First Did the overall actions of this lady necessitate removal and arrest? Yes...we could probably agree on that. Second in your words "No cheering" rule was clearly delineated beforehand, and the perpetrators were aware of it and knowingly violated the rule.". This is the part I am suggesting in which you need to spend a little less time playing school principal.
We have become such a entitlement-based litigious society that we feel every wrong must be made up to us or prevented from happening. There are some things that have to be let go.

Now I am going to remind you once again that I am not on the side of this lady. It sounds like she was rude and would not stop yelling (?). I don't have alot of use for those types of people. They are the same kind of people that call others obscene names on forums when they have no intelligent input into the conversation. What she did was wrong and inconsiderate and anti-social. I need you to hear my position on that very clearly.
I try to be respectful of others and ask the same from them in social settings like graduations, restaraunts, ball games, etc... The difference in my stance is that I don't support arresting people for this breach of respect. Just because they declared that a rule and consequence doesn't mean it is acceptable or legitimate. That goes a little to deep into control issues for my liking. As I mentioned before the staunch demeanor that you purport has a connotation of one who may benefit from taking a bigger picture outlook and relaxing just a tad.

 

[Mace Canute]

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

 

[rtimgray]

Dwight said "Even though a rule and consequence is stated that does not grant said rule and consequence inherent correctness in principle."

I would say that for the optional attendance of an event, it kinda does. Once again, it goes back to the fact that just because you think a rule is stupid doesn't mean you can violate with impunity. No one made her, or anyone else, attend the ceremony. It was their choice. Given that they they choose to attend the event, they should behave in the manner prescribed beforehand or face the consequences. In my opinion, that's it-that's all.

As far as the punishment fitting the crime, as near as I can tell through internet-based research, she was not actually arrested for the cheering, but rather actions that took place on the concourse of the facility. I was not there, so I cannot say with any degree of certainty if the police reacted in a heavy-handed fashion or not. Once more, three others at the event were arrested as well - I have no idea why they did not garner national media attention.

I can say this with certainty - the other (approximately) 9,000 people that attended the event and behaved did not get arrested.

I would ask you this Dwight - who gets to pick which rules are legitimate or not? Example - right now, we have a burn ban in place (due to drought and wind). If I decide it's stupid, and open burn something, should I be fined (which is the prescribed punishment in my county)?

I agree with your overall stance of we probably all need to lighten up, but in some cases it may not be feasible because others would take advantage of it (this graduation case in general). So while just a little clap and cheer might be okay, in a large gathering like this was, where do you draw the line. Do you say - "Keep applause and cheering to minimum." or "Limit applause to 4 seconds". What if I think 4 seconds is not legitimate - I want to cheer for 10. Where is the line drawn? The easiest and best (in my opinion) is the rather standard "Hold applause until the conclusion of the event." Numerous reasons have been given throughout this thread as to why this rule is needed.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as uptight on this one, but I feel that if you attend an optional event, of any kind, you tacitly agree to the rules of that prescribed event, whether you think they are legitimate or not. Break the rules, suffer the consquences.

Good luck and take care.

 

[toppop52]

As far as going to graduations..yes, my child just graduated this year. I know the issues of cheering. Do I support the actions of this lady? No. You can go back to my previous posts to see that I prefaced my position on the fact that if she there was more to the story then I might change my mind about the arrest. I do stand by the fact that people have gotten too uptight about things. The older we get the more cranky we get about stuff that really, in the whole scheme of things, is not that big of a deal. We have a country that was built on free speech and rowdy crews. Relax a little and take a look at the bigger picture stuff...it ain't worth getting your panties in a bunch.
Mace Canute you are showing a sizeable lack of decency and some serious immaturity by calling me an obscene name...but guess what...I won't say you should get arrested for it. I have found that people that stoop to those levels are pretty bad off and don't need me to make them any worse. Hope your life gets better and you can improve yourself.

Well, I have to disagree, either your tolerance level for annoying BS is extreme or the incidents you experienced weren't at the level I've seen on 5 different occasions. By the way Iwas quite old at the time, between 41 and 50. But I guess I'm a guy who prefers Jimmy Buffett to $.50.
As for the name calling, that's between you two.

 

[DwightD123]

Well, I have to disagree, either your tolerance level for annoying BS is extreme or the incidents you experienced weren't at the level I've seen on 5 different occasions. By the way Iwas quite old at the time, between 41 and 50. But I guess I'm a guy who prefers Jimmy Buffett to $.50.
As for the name calling, that's between you two.

toppop
I probably do grant a bit more leniency and probably have not experienced what you have experienced. Each and every situation is different. My hope here is to keep us on guard against getting into a mindset of "authority must be obeyed or suffer the consequence". I keep stating I don't disagree with the situational response of this lady apparently getting way out of line and therefore arrested. If she went goofy then she needed to be arrested. What I want to impress is that we should not inherently agree to a rule and consequence just because it is said. If we were this kind of nation we would still be ruled by England. Question authority if it is valid and just obey it. If not stand up against it or be enslaved. I expect that somewhere in your southern roots your family has taken this stance many times.

 

[DwightD123]

rtimgray,
I think I am probably very much on your side as to the way this lady acted and the response being appropriate. I do have a problem with this being an optional attendance and the consequence of being arrested. This is a graduation so I very much want to go to see my kid/ grandkid graduate. Do I risk being arrested because I get excited and hoop or holler? This is the area I think needs a bit of work.

My hope here is to warn us against the slippery slope of this authoritarian mindset and absolute acceptance of a school's power over us. It starts with a rule of no yelling and a consequence of getting arrested. The first year someone is way over the top, they are arrested and maybe rightfully so. The next year someone is less obnoxious but hey...you have to keep up this rule, make an example. Before long people are sitting as quiet as church in a celebration of youth and accomplishment.

Power is a very dangerous thing. Our forefathers knew it and we would be wise to keep it in check.
In looking back I came out of the gate too strong on this one. I undoubtedly have a chip on my shoulder about this sort of thing. In trying to help us keep our spirit of freedom and a little rebellious attitude in our country it seems people felt I was taking the side of this lady. I am not...I am hoping to keep our perspective clear on power of schools, governments and authorities.

 

[DwightD123]

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Your name calling smacks of the 14 year olds on Facebook. Perhaps you would be better served to see if you have some input they might appreciate. Otherwise I think we would all welcome real conversation instead of name calling.

I am willing to offer forgiveness and a clean slate on our conversation if you could keep it to legitimate conversation. I don't mind some light-hearted goofy stuff but calling me obscene female genetalia names is unwarranted and not so good for our young tractor owners on the site.
Would you like to start over?

 

[toppop52]

I'm about as anti authoritarian as they come. Every rule should be applied situationally and not comprehensively in a one size fits all manner. What happens at these events is that 2900 people behave respectfully, by clapping and waving and taking pictures as prescribed. Then the other 100 people scream, hoop out nicknames jump up and down run into the aisles and all that crap, totally disrupting the ceremony. There is where the rule needs application.

 

[DwightD123]

I guess I live in a different area of the country. I have never seen people jump up and run into the aisles or the likes. Maybe I would be aggravated enough to support their arrest. I think it bears consideration to be careful about giving schools authority to order arrest on civilians.

In the big picture it agrravated us and they didn't behave socially acceptable manner. Is that the new criteria to get arrested? Again, I am probably not as aggravated as you because I have not had to deal with this anti-social behavior near as bad as you have described. I just want us to keep a big picture lens and make sure we don't go too far down the path. You don't gain that ground back without an ugly fight. Once an institution gains authority they do not give it back.
As it stands in this argument we are in favor of giving the school board the authority to order arrest on civilians based on not behaving appropriately- not endangering people, not threatening life or limb. Is it worth this release of authority so that we aren't aggravated? Perhaps it is..in your experiences you may say yes. My experiences are not near close enough to warrant the release of that kind of authority. Too slippery of a slope for my liking.

 

[aczlan]

As it stands in this argument we are in favor of giving the school board the authority to order arrest on civilians based on not behaving appropriately- not endangering people, not threatening life or limb. Is it worth this release of authority so that we aren't aggravated? Perhaps it is..in your experiences you may say yes. My experiences are not near close enough to warrant the release of that kind of authority. Too slippery of a slope for my liking.

As I understand it, she was as asked to behave per the meeting norms and refused, so she was asked to leave the meeting by the event organizers. She refused and so she was arrested.
No different from a merchant calling the police for someone who is disrupting things in their store and the police arresting that person when they refuse to leave.

Aaron Z