Louisiana mom arrested after posting viral video of school fight for ‘notoriety’: cops

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Jackie Salo - The New York Post




A Louisiana mom faces charges in connection to a school fistfight — though it’s unclear if she was present for the brawl, according to officials.

Maegan Adkins-Barras, 32, was arrested Wednesday for sharing a viral video showing a fight between two students at Acadiana High School in Lafayette, the Scott Police Department said.

The mom admitted to authorities the footage was from her son’s cellphone. After receiving the video, she posted the clip on social media where it was “shared repeatedly,” according to police.

The footage showed a student throwing a punch that caused another boy to fall and strike his head on a concrete bench before collapsing to the ground. The altercation landed the juvenile in the hospital, officials said.

Police say Adkins-Barras may not have thrown any punches, but she had a responsibility to report the crime.

“Parents who receive information concerning criminal activity on school campuses are urged to contact their local police department or school administration,” police said Wednesday. “Posting videos and photos of illegal activity on social media is against the law in the State of Louisiana.”

Charges were filed against the mom for unlawful posting of criminal activity for notoriety and publicity.

She was arrested and booked at Lafayette Parish Correctional Centers, where no bond has been set.

If convicted, Adkins-Barras could face six months behind bars.

[RBP]

Oh bullshit. C'mon, man.

[Hal-9000]

"...but she had a responsibility to report the crime."

She uploaded video footage of the event. Crime reported

[KevinD]

I'm still trying to figure out when a school fight became a crime.

[RBP]

I'm still trying to figure out when a school fight became a crime.

Amen.

[DemonGeminiX]

I would say she may have had a responsibility to report the incident out of concern for the welfare of the child that fell and hit his head... a good Samaritan act, not unlike having a duty to jump in a lake to save a drowning person?

[RBP]

I would say she may have had a responsibility to report the incident out of concern for the welfare of the child that fell and hit his head... a good Samaritan act, not unlike having a duty to jump in a lake to save a drowning person?

I am not aware of any law requiring good samaritan acts, only that if you choose to assist you better know what you're doing or face liability, or if you have a close familial relationship, usually parent. The issue here is duty to help, which in some states requires reporting or assistance when certain crimes appears to have been committed. But that's live. Video third hand feels really questionable.

[DemonGeminiX]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_S...#United_States

Generally speaking, if you are in the general vicinity of someone that obviously needs assistance and refuse to help, if it can be proven that you were there and you did refuse to help, then you are indeed guilty of a crime... a worse crime if you could have saved a life, but didn't. Unless, of course, the attempt would actually put your life in danger.

Even if it's third hand, one could call and ask if any calls had been recorded regarding an incident where someone may or may not have been hurt, and a police cruiser can go check in this general area just in case, because general concerns...

[DemonGeminiX]

I just looked up your Illinois law. It's complete and utter horseshit. It all has to do with liability instead of actually helping someone in distress. In some instances, it even absolves people from not helping someone in distress at all. They're calling it a Good Samaritan law, but really, it's a "Sorry, You're Fucked and I'm not Getting My Hands Dirty" law. Who the hell came up with this?

[DemonGeminiX]

Only 2 states have a duty to rescue clause? Are you fucking kidding me?

[Teh One Who Knocks]

BY MEGAN WYATT | The Advocate


A Broussard mom’s civil rights may have been violated Wednesday when police arrested her for posting a video to social media that shows a fight between two high school students.

Maegan Adkins-Barras, 32, spent the night in jail for unlawful posting of criminal activity for notoriety and publicity after she posted a fight her son captured on video at Acadiana High School in Lafayette.

But the law she allegedly broke appears to apply only to "a person who is either a principal or accessory to a crime."

Franz Borghardt, a criminal defense attorney who has taught criminal litigation at the LSU Law School, said he had never even heard of the law until Adkins-Barras was arrested.

"The police are going to have some hurdles," said Borghardt, who is not representing Adkins-Barras. "They're going to have to either establish that she was a principal or accessory to the fight, and that means they're going to have to establish that she was there and somehow started or encouraged the fight.

"But more so, they'll have to establish that she posted it to social media to establish notoriety or publicity," he said. "Just because you post something on social media doesn't mean you're looking for that. You can share ideas and thoughts. I think they'll have a serious constitutional problem with this crime. I think it just smells of desperation in the sense that they're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole."

The fight between two students at Acadiana High resulted in one student being taken to a hospital for treatment of minor injuries; the student has since been released. The students have not been identified because of their ages, but both have been recommended for expulsion and are facing criminal charges, according to police and Lafayette Parish School Superintendent Donald Aguillard.

Adkins-Barras' child shot video of the fight but was not otherwise involved in the fight, according to Scott Police Chief Chad Leger. The child sent the video to his mother, who posted it to social media.

An Acadiana High school resource officer contacted Adkins-Barras when he learned of the video’s existence and arrested the mom even after she removed the video from Facebook, according to the arrest affidavit.

“The affidavit fails to state how she is a principal or an accessory to the fight,” Borghardt said. “The affidavit fails to state how she is accessory or principal to a crime. I am unsure how the facts written in this report meet the elements of the crime and how the officer has probable cause for the arrest.”

Adkins-Barras was released Thursday morning from the Lafayette Parish Correctional Center. She did not respond to a request for comment sent via Facebook.

Although Leger issued a statement on the department's Facebook page, he's declined to answer additional questions about the circumstances surrounding the arrest — primarily if Adkins-Barras could in any way be considered a principal or accessory to the fight on Acadiana High's campus.

"This is all stuff that's going to be sent to the DA's office for review," Leger said. "I'm not trying to be complicated, but I have five other reporters calling me. I don't understand why. I've talked to our city's legal attorney, and that's our comments on the matter right now."

Aguillard said there is a growing concern over criminal activity involving juveniles showing up on social media, especially when that activity occurs on a school campus.

"This is a new law that was called to our attention by law enforcement," Aguillard said. "We're going to put a notice of this in our student handbook next year."

The “new” law passed unanimously in 2008 and was signed by then-Gov. Bobby Jindal. It appears to be little applied, if ever.

Scott Sternberg, who represents The Acadiana Advocate and other newspapers for the Louisiana Press Association, is not a criminal attorney but does question the arrest.

"I'm 100 percent sure that the idea behind this law was not to present a First Amendment problem," Sternberg said. "It was to deter criminal activity. I don't see how arresting someone who wasn't a principal or accessory to a crime deters. It's extremely suspect."

Aguillard and members of the school board learned of the video Wednesday morning. Adkins-Barras did not reach out to the school system about the fight or the video, although she might have reached out directly to Acadiana High, Aguillard said.

He said he learned of the arrest of Adkins-Barras through media reports.

"Once the student is disciplined by the school, the police will make an arrest if they determine it's a criminal act," Aguillard said. "They don't advise us or consult with us about it. They do what they think is appropriate if it was a criminal act."

Lafayette criminal lawyer Kirk Piccione said Adkins-Barras could file a civil rights lawsuit against the Scott Police Department.

"The Scott Police Department could have liability for making a false arrest," Piccione said. "The courts give a lot of leeway to police making arrests, but at some point, you get to the stage where there is simply no support, no probable cause, no reasonable person could agree that probable cause existed — unless there is evidence that she is a principal or an accessory."

The police chief said he isn't worried about a lawsuit.

"Anybody can sue anybody for anything these days," Leger said. "Is it something that concerns me? No. Is it something that can happen? Yes."

[RBP]

I just looked up your Illinois law. It's complete and utter horseshit. It all has to do with liability instead of actually helping someone in distress. In some instances, it even absolves people from not helping someone in distress at all. They're calling it a Good Samaritan law, but really, it's a "Sorry, You're Fucked and I'm not Getting My Hands Dirty" law. Who the hell came up with this?

Just going from memory, but there was some controversy, way back, where unqualified people attempted to help. The promoted concept at the time was that intervening when you are not a professional could deter someone actually qualified from providing assistance and cause net harm. Not sure that was an Illinois thing, just in general.

[Pony]

Just going from memory, but there was some controversy, way back, where unqualified people attempted to help. The promoted concept at the time was that intervening when you are not a professional could deter someone actually qualified from providing assistance and cause net harm. Not sure that was an Illinois thing, just in general.

Sounds familiar. Wasn't it something like an inexperienced person attempted CPR and ended up breaking ribs or killing the person? The family sued?

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Just going from memory, but there was some controversy, way back, where unqualified people attempted to help. The promoted concept at the time was that intervening when you are not a professional could deter someone actually qualified from providing assistance and cause net harm. Not sure that was an Illinois thing, just in general.

Sounds familiar. Wasn't it something like an inexperienced person attempted CPR and ended up breaking ribs or killing the person? The family sued?

In Colorado we have a Good Samaritan law, as long as you act in good faith when trying to help, you cannot be sued by the victim if something happens during the course of trying to render aid. But that law does not compel you to have to render aid.

[Hal-9000]

I just looked up your Illinois law. It's complete and utter horseshit. It all has to do with liability instead of actually helping someone in distress. In some instances, it even absolves people from not helping someone in distress at all. They're calling it a Good Samaritan law, but really, it's a "Sorry, You're Fucked and I'm not Getting My Hands Dirty" law. Who the hell came up with this?

Just going from memory, but there was some controversy, way back, where unqualified people attempted to help. The promoted concept at the time was that intervening when you are not a professional could deter someone actually qualified from providing assistance and cause net harm. Not sure that was an Illinois thing, just in general.

Sounds familiar. Wasn't it something like an inexperienced person attempted CPR and ended up breaking ribs or killing the person? The family sued?

We have the same law up here. The Good Samaritan law was made to protect people who both help and choose not to help in situations where someone else is in jeopardy. It becomes confusing as the law goes against itself at times.

It's as Pony (and now Lance) mentioned. There are two parts to the law. If your efforts to help someone contribute to their injuries or death, the law can protect you. eg Pulling someone out of a burning car crash and you paralyze them because you moved their back or neck. You prevented their death from fire though. Second part protects people who elect not to help. eg You're not a good swimmer and someone is drowning in a river in front of you. Your efforts may jeopardize both of your lives.

I have to respectfully disagree DGX. There was a time when I thought the same and would have to help people in distress if I was there. Now it's too complex because Samaritans can be charged with everything from theft to manslaughter.