Q: Are schools safe? TV station: Let's get one locked down and find out

Intentionally doing this, which is what he did, is on par with calling a bomb threat without actually having a bomb.

 

Except, of course, that a bomb threat is an expressed threat of violence, and there was no threat made here at all.

Arizona has a statute banning disruption of an education institute, and after reading the statute that wouldn't even really apply, because it requires intent in the disruption. And near as I can tell, Missouri doesn't have a similar law on the books.

 

Not to quibble - OK, a little.
But yes, trespassing absolutely applies here.
Schools are public buildings, kind of ... They are open to students and faculty. No just anyone. Not anymore.

Most schools you are now required to buzz in and prevent ID before being buzzed in. And then you have top let the office know you are on school grounds.
We've had kids and adults charged with trespassing at a fairly common clip for being unwelcome or disruptive on school grounds. Officials are not required to ask someone to leave. It's not their job to engage an unwanted visitor. It's to protect the students and themselves and notify law enforcement.
If you are on school grounds without permission, you are trespassing. It's not a public park.

 

In this case they did engage the guy, even asking him to identify himself --which he did, accurately identifying his job and employer. They did not ask him to leave. He is in a building that is open to the public for a limited purpose.

You could charge him with trespassing. I do not think you would win.

 

On Tuesday, give your ID to the front desk at your local school and tell them you are going to the bathroom, but instead hang out in the lunchroom all day.

See if the school resource officer thinks you are trespassing or not. Have a debate with them while you are at it. Put your theory to the test.

 

If you'd like to address the actual law at any point, feel free.

Instead of a hypothetical, how about we look at the case in St. Louis. Is he charged with trespassing? From what I can tell, he is not. Do you think there might be a reason for that? Like I said, you could charge him with trespassing. I don't think it's a winnable case. He's guilty of being a dumbass, but you'll have trouble hitting him with anything that's actually on the books.

 

Why didn't the report ever reveal the identity of the reporter? I've seen ABC do similar stories with bad businesses and such, but usually they reveal the reporter at some point.

I get the idea behind the report and how they went about it. I can see the justification. The station should have identified him as a reporter when they were called. That would've ended the whole thing, and they would've had the footage they wanted. Watching the report, they said the reporter left and the lockdown came an hour after the guy was gone. If that was the case, there was no need not to identify him as a reporter. If they knew he was no longer on campus, then they could have easily shared that information without compromising their report in any way. There's no defense of forcing a lockdown.

One thing noticeably missing from the station's report: No mention of whether any schools in the district, esp. the high school they made look bad, have ever had any security incidents in the past. Kind of an important thing to mention, but it would weaken their story to say, "Yeah, we found some bad stuff, but the school is pretty safe for a place that's spread out over several buildings."

Also didn't mention something that was revealed in the comments on the story: The school has the majority of the doors locked to prevent entrance, but they leave some unlocked to make it easier for kids to get where they need to go between classes. And the reporter didn't enter the front entrance. They called it a "main entrance," but it wasn't where visitors are meant to enter.

Of course, that would require real reporting and not just grandstanding, something this station doesn't seem capable of.

 

And, according to Missouri law, a person who "knowingly causes a false belief or fear that an incident has occurred or that a condition exists involving danger to life" has committed a felony. By not identifying himself and the station not identifying him, the station and reporter violated that law. No explicit threat has to be made if they allow a false belief that conditions exist that could lead to danger. They did that. They could be charged with a felony under the Missouri Safe Schools Act.

http://dese.mo.gov/schoollaw/LegFolder/safeschoolsact.htm
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c500-599/5740000115.htm

 

Reading the last link a little more, even if they decide the reporter and station were acting in good faith, they could still charge them with a misdemeanor.

 

I'd love to know the circumstances of that and who they actually spoke to at the station. Given the circumstances it makes no sense not to ID the reporter, but that assumes they talked to someone who understood the situation.

The reality is, if they spoke to someone in the newsroom that person would know who the reporter is, but there's a very good chance they would have no idea what the reporter was doing that day. It's particularly true if it's an investigative reporter. I have no idea what our guys are doing day to day.

If they spoke to someone outside the newsroom, all bets are off. It's plausible they wouldn't even know who the reporter is. My anchor once went to a community event where one of our sales execs walked up, introduced himself, and asked where she works. She had to tell him "I anchor the news for three hours on your station every day."

 

Everybody is mad at us, so we're sorry:

http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/education/ksdk-apologizes-again-for-role-in-kirkwood-high-school-lockdown/article_471de79c-76dd-5e47-b840-0b5412078beb.html?mobile_touch=true

 

"And in our next segment, not only will we put the water back in the bottle, we'll return the horse to the barn. Now let's take our first look at the weather ..."