Tasers, Abortions and Parenting:
Behind the Curtain of Policing
America
Special Publisher’s Advanced Edition
By Dr. Richard Weinblatt and Jon Hansen
1|Page

Initial Review of Tasers, Abortion and Parenting: Behind the Curtain of Policing
America by bestselling author Larry Winget:
“What a fascinating read. It’s going to rile folks up as well as having many people
yell “Amen!” It will also, probably for the first time, give people an understanding
about the direction our society is heading and give them some idea how we got to
where we are now. Plus, your chapter on parenting is dead on and will hopefully
cause folks to become more active in the lives of their children!”
Larry Winget, Television personality and five times New York Times/Wall Street
Journal bestselling author of “Your Kids Are Your Own Fault” and “The Idiot
Factor”
2|Page

Preface to Tasers, Abortion and Parenting: Behind the Curtain
of Policing America
Like the proverbial tip of the iceberg, crime and policing in America usually flash across
our collective consciousness in a burst of sensational headlines and polarizing events.
From incendiary stories such as the accidental shooting of a young girl by a police officer
during a raid in Detroit or the arrest of a respected black Harvard Professor for "acting
like a rich white man," to the purported use of unnecessary force in the Taser death of a
foreigner in a Vancouver airport we are at once captivated and ultimately opinionated in
terms of our initial, gut level reaction. However, rarely if ever, do we actually look
beyond the immediate headlines for the greater understanding of the how and why. In
fact truth be known, we often are exalted to pay little if any attention to the man, woman
or issues, behind the curtain that tug at law enforcers, and ultimately, our world.
One of my favorite programs on television is Mayday, in which National Transportation
Safety Board "NTSB" investigators attempt to unravel the mystery behind an airline
disaster through a re-creation of the chain of events that led to a crash. What is
compelling is that there is never one single catastrophic event or occurrence that causes a
plane to go down but, and as repeatedly pointed out by investigators, are instead the
result of a series of smaller incidences that culminate in the tragedy we see on the six
o'clock news. Through what is at times a painstakingly long exercise, investigators
persevere to discover the truth, and in process learn how to prevent a similar accident
from happening again in the future. This of course makes air travel that much safer.
From the minor infractions of speeding to serious violent felonies like armed robbery and
murder, there are also a series of life events and individual choices over the long term
that work or perhaps even conspire together that converge into a temporally brief
confrontation between individuals and law enforcement . . . and sometimes with deadly
consequences.
In much the same way that an NTSB investigator works to understand the sequence of
events that lead to a tragedy, the purpose of this book is to examine the chain of
circumstances that ultimately find their way into a detached and for many, mind numbing
array of statistical references such as the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. In essence it is
our objective to create a contextual reference that you can equate with your everyday life
experiences, and hopefully in the process give meaning and even closure for some to the
unthinkable and inexplicable actions of our fellow human beings. It is therefore our hope
that this unique lens through which we will review the issues behind the headlines that
buffet and create challenges for those men and women who are policing in a democratic
society, will in some small way inform you and, ultimately help you to find a safer place
both in your mind and in the world around you.
3|Page

Chapter 9 – Lord of the Flies: A Metaphor for Schoolyard
Justice?
“Lord of the Flies is a novel by Nobel Prize-winning author William Golding about a
group of British schoolboys stuck on a deserted island who try to govern themselves, with
disastrous results. Its stances on the already controversial subjects of human nature and
individual welfare versus the common good earned it position 68 on the American
Library Association’s list of the 100 most frequently challenged books of 1990–1999.”
from Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia
During a 2010 interview, Larry Winget, television personality and five time New York
Times/Wall Street Journal bestselling author of “Your Kids Are Your Own Fault” and
“The Idiot Factor” made the comment that children establishing a pecking order in the
schoolyards of America is as natural as Mom’s Apple Pie. Well maybe he didn’t use the
exact term Mom’s Apple Pie, but his point was pretty clear . . . kids, for lack of better
reference will be kids.
Studies and polls such as a “U.S. 2004 poll of children, would tend to support Larry’s
position. With 86% of more than 1,200 9- to 13-year-old boys and girls polled saying
that they’ve seen someone else being bullied, with 48% indicating that they’ve been
bullied, and 42% admitted to bullying other kids at least once in a while,” one might even
argue that it is a childhood rite of passage.
What is interesting is that bullying has just recently been recognized and recorded as a
distinct criminal offence, which is a departure from the light-hearted view of college hi-
jinx hazing portrayed in movies such as Animal House or a “boys will be boys” mentality
that associates aggressive behavior with being a normal part of the adolescent experience
represented by the character Flick in the Holiday favorite “A Christmas Story.”
The data in terms of criminalizing bullying would seem to support the elevation of
consequences from a teachers reprimand to possible prosecution under the law.
To start, research shows that those who do the bullying are the ones who ultimately pay
the greatest price in that “one out of four elementary school bullies have a criminal record
by the time they’re 30.” As these children grow into adulthood, their prospects for
success in later life are significantly diminished with many failing in school and
ultimately never enjoying the career or relationship success that other people enjoy.
In terms of a broader societal impact a 2008 paper that was prepared by Deborah Doherty
and Dorothy Berglund titled “Psychological Abuse – A Discussion Paper,” made the
following observations:
4|Page

Cost of inter-generational transmission of abuse. Dealing with the aftermath of
individuals who learn and model disrespectful and domineering behavior to gain control
over others creates significant costs for society. For one, schools must cope with the
behavior problems of children emotionally traumatized by intimate partner violence as
well as respond to the bullying tactics that these children may use on the playground. In
the long term, these controlling tactics impact negatively in our workplaces, homes and
communities. Governments must address the range of factors that contribute to the inter-
generational transmission of abusive behaviors by allocating significant resources in
school settings for early intervention, anti-bullying and healthy relationship programs.
In fact so disconcerting is the growing problem of bullying in America, a U.S. Secret
Service report went so far as to suggest that bullying had played a part in many school
shootings, and then went on to emphasize that efforts should be made to “eliminate
bullying behavior.”
The real question these reports raise is where do you draw the line between what we had
earlier referred to as a childhood rite of passage and the destructive actions in which the
impact overflows or extends into the fabric of American society as a whole?
Perhaps the best place to start is to first understand or define that which can actually be
called bullying. After all, the more common scenarios by which we define the term
bully, such as at the school level, is not a new phenomenon in that it has been part of the
human condition from the beginning of time.
Norwegian researcher Dan Olweus defined bullying as being when a person is “exposed,
repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more persons.”
According to Olweus “negative actions” include a pattern of behavior in which a person
“intentionally inflicts injury or discomfort upon another person, through physical contact,
through words or in other ways.”
In other words, bullying can take on many forms including physical, emotional and
verbal elements where there is a real or perceived “imbalance of power with the more
powerful individual or group,” abusing those who are “less powerful.”
Interestingly enough, this can occur at multiple levels of societal interaction including the
home, work or within entire neighbourhoods. It even occurs on an international or global
level. For example, when one country exercises undue power or influence over another it
is referred to as Jingoism.
So now that we know what bullying is, at least as defined by the experts, how do we
establish a range of tolerance or acceptability?
5|Page

Where do we establish the line, in which an individual’s or group’s actions go beyond the
realms of a boys-will-be boys or girls-will-be girls shrug, to one that can be perceived as
a bonafide threat either in the imminent future or somewhere down the road?
When do we in our reactions to a bullying situation depart from a sticks and stones
attitude of a measured and practical response, to being one of the paper machè wimps to
which Winget often refers - the kind that would put a cast on a hangnail?
An even more challenging question is how you establish a standard that makes sense
across the board in which individual circumstances that would present mitigating factors
risk being ignored. At this point, the Casey Heynes story immediately comes to mind.
For those who may have like the Geico commercial suggests, been living under a rock or,
were away from the planet for a short time in March and April 2011, the video of a
rotund boy finally standing up to one of his tormentors went viral on YouTube.
Casey Heynes of course was the somewhat overweight lad in Australia who while being
filmed took a few shots to the face by the much smaller but more aggressive bully.
Having been on the receiving end of both physical and mental abuse over several years,
Casey finally stood up for himself and literally picked-up the bully and body slammed
him to the ground.
Viewing this incident in isolation one might be inclined to suggest that both boys warrant
disciplinary action from the school including a possible suspension. But here’s the thing,
the torment to which Casey was exposed on a daily basis, and which actually hit the
critical point of tolerance when he told his sister that he was contemplating suicide, was
being filmed.
If Casey had not made the choice to stand up for himself, while still being able to
demonstrate tremendous restraint by walking away after the bully miscreant was
disengaged by way of the pavement, the group of troublemakers would have posted a
different kind of video to YouTube. Would the humiliation from a prime time clip on the
chubby kid clip have been enough to have pushed Casey over the edge re his
contemplating suicide?
While we will likely never know the answer to this question, one thing is certain, the
universal support for Casey reflected in the millions of people who viewed both the
original video, as well as subsequent interviews speaks to the global interest and reach of
the bullying question.
The Heynes case also highlighted the fact that generally speaking parents seem to have
for the most part been asleep at the wheel in terms of instructing their children on proper
conduct towards others, and in the process have abdicated their responsibilities for
disciplining their children when they do cross the line from normal childhood discourse
into destructive behaviour.
6|Page

The schools of course are not equipped to deal with the growing problem, at least not on
a case-by-case basis, but instead deferring to a zero tolerance policy that holds everyone
– even the child being bullied accountable.
Once again we turn to the Casey Heynes case as a means of illustrating just how
ineffective the school system can be in terms of dispensing discipline.
Casey, who has previously stated, had been the target of abuse over an extended period of
time to the point that he like so many other children who face tormentors on a daily basis
contemplated taking his own life, showed amazing restraint when he finally decided that
enough was enough.
The bully, who was playing for the camera of his friend, taunted and then punched Casey
in the face at least 3 times, before the gentle giant as some have called him picked him up
and threw him to the ground. At that moment one might have reasonably expected the
pent up anger and hurt that had been building in Casey as a result of enduring the verbal
and physical abuse over a period of years would have seen him then pummel the bully.
Instead, Casey turned and walked away.
The school’s responses . . . suspend both Casey and the bully. What kind of message
does this send?
What caused even greater consternation was an interview that was given by the bully’s
mother who while admitting that her son was wrong in what he did, went on to say that
he is really a good boy and that she hoped that he would apologize to Casey. Hoped?! In
this word and corresponding sentiment we find the perfect example of an absence of
parental intervention.
Back in the day, if a child had pulled a stunt like that there would not be a question as to
whether or not the aggressor would have to apologize, as most parents would have
assisted their wayward offspring to the front door of the kid that had been tormented and
ensured that an apology would have been forthcoming.
This of course leads to an even more controversial question which is when, if at all,
should a parent be held responsible for the actions of their child?
Earlier in this book we had talked about the “Susan and Anthony Provenzino case, in
which the couple was ordered to pay a fine of $1,000 plus court costs for their purported
failure to in effect properly parent their son, which violated a city ordinance that “parents
must exercise reasonable control over children under 18.” The son, who abused
marijuana, had a long history of committing burglaries in an effort to support his habit.
7|Page

Holding parents accountable is based on a growing and strong belief which questions
why society as a whole is made to pay for the poor parenting skills of those adults
(emphasis on adults), who fail to provide the needed direction, care and love to their
children. After all, it is in most instances the parents who are ultimately to blame for
their children’s’ behavior, and therefore should bear the greater if not full burden for the
consequences of this absence of interest and involvement. This is particularly true when
it comes to the issue of bullying, as many experts believe that the origins of the problem
can be linked to a troubled home life.
Perhaps, and similar to the Provenzino case, if parents are forced to pay restitution either
financially or through their child’s removal from a school bus or the school itself, or even
restricting Internet access in the home, maybe just maybe the needed changes will take
place.
In the case of Massachusetts 15 year old Pheobe Prince, who’s suicide has directly led to
felony charges being laid against 2 boys and 4 girls aged between 16 to 18 years, the
relentless taunting she suffered during the preceding 3 month period in which there was
no intervention from the school, should serve as a warning to us all both now and in the
future.
As discussed earlier in this chapter, with 25 percent of elementary school bullies having a
criminal record by the time they’re 30” if the problem of bullying is not addressed in the
school yard, it will expand to our society as whole where the damage is calculably greater
in areas such as a clogged judicial system and lost work hours.
In a May 23rd, 2011 New York Times article, it was reported that conditions in
California’s “overcrowded prisons are so bad that they violate the Eight Amendment’s
ban on cruel and unusual punishment.”
As a result, and in a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court ordered the state to reduce its
prison population by more than 30,000 inmates.
Operating at 137.5 percent of the prison system’s capacity, the article indicates that the
current total inmate population is more than 140,000. The 30,000 figure represents just
fewer than 22 percent, so it is easy to imagine what the impact of effective preventative
measures might be in terms of addressing school yard bullies while they are still at a
young and presumably influential age. Or as one grandmother used to say, little kids –
little problems, big kids – big problems.
In terms of the workplace, and according to a July 2009 study, the impact of bullies in
our day-to-day business life contributes to an estimated $180 million in lost time and
productivity each year.
8|Page

The study titled “The Cost of Workplace Bullying: How much is your corporate bully
costing you?” by Catherine Michael Mattice, M.A. also referenced the Workplace
Bullying Institute estimate that between “turnover and lost productivity a bully could cost
a Fortune 500 company an astounding $24,000,000,” plus an added “$1.4 million for
litigation and settlement costs.”
What is simultaneously interesting and disturbing is that the problems associated with
bullying in the workplace have become so prevalent in American business that it has
actually led to the creation of a method for calculating the tangible financial loss directly
related to the disruption caused by a bully.
Regarding top-line considerations, GreatPlaceJobs conducted a study and found that
companies who have been recognized as being a great place to work have on average
generated revenues that were 30 percent higher than companies who were not identified
as providing their employees with a healthy and happy work environment.
Even Wall Street recognizes the importance that workplace morale plays in a company’s
success, as the same study found that stock prices were 10 percent higher for companies
who have received awards as being great places to work, as opposed to those that have
not.
So what is the next step in addressing the problems of bullying?
Perhaps this is another instance in which the Broken Windows theory championed by
James Q. Wilson and George S. Kelling, who advocate fixing problems proactively when
they are small (like children) would also make sense, as petty crimes and low-level anti-
social behavior seems to have been deterred by their approach, coupled with an
expectation that there will be a corresponding reduction in major crime down the road.
The problem of course with the concept of policing the school yards of America is that
logistics of doing so, as well as the likely response from both parents and school
administrators. Allowing the police to intervene and possibly lay charges might very
well be viewed as turning our education systems into a police state.
Similar to those situations where the police are called in to investigate the on-field or on-
ice actions of professional athletes, such as in the case of Zdeno Chara’s recent hit on
Montreal’s Max Pacioretty, or the notorious mugging of the Colorado Avalanche’s Steve
Moore by Todd Bertuzzi, who sucker punched the player from behind and then landed on
him causing a concussion, several broken vertebrae and facial lacerations.
9|Page

Although Bertuzzi was sued by Moore in both Colorado and British Columbia, he was
conditionally discharged by a British Columbia court. The absence of a conviction in
which the incident was compellingly witnessed by millions of television viewers as well
as those in the arena’s stands speaks to the complexity and problems of police
involvement in the more ambiguous realms of schoolyard violence. This is especially
true when minors are involved.
So if law enforcement is not the most effective means by which to address the issue of
bullying, and the school’s ability to properly respond are muted by bureaucratic conflicts
and political expediency, the onus must once again fall on the parents.
This brings us back to the question of holding disinterested parents accountable in a
similar manner to those whose children commit criminal acts through the issuance of a
parental order, which would seem to be the logical first step in reversing the bullying
trend.
While highly controversial and likely to cause considerable uproar with some parents
who lament that they are doing the best they can, Winget’s book (and books like it)
should serve as the guidebook for defining parental responsibility in that it leaves no
doubt as to who is responsible for doing what and when starting with accessibility.
Based on the 2004 poll, in terms of the differences between boys and girls, the results
indicated that boys were “more likely to say they would fight back than girls (53% of
boys vs. 38% of girls), whereas girls were more likely to say they would talk to an adult
than boys (32% of girls vs. 19% of boys).”
This latter point about talking with an adult is a critical first step towards dealing with the
problem, as open and meaningful communication with an adult should lead to a more
level headed response either through direct parental advice or parental engagement with
the school itself. The key is that the child whether it be a boy or a girl, has to feel that
their parents are in fact there for them with an attentive ear. Something that doesn’t seem
to be happening in America given Winget’s reference to another study which found that
on average parents spend less than 3 minutes per week in meaningful conversation with
their children.
Unless American parents wake up and face up to the fact that caring for their children
goes far beyond putting a roof over their heads and buying them the latest electronics
gizmo, the increase in incidents of bullying will likely continue to rise, and with it a
further deterioration of our society as a whole.
In the case of bullying, it all truly starts and ends in the home.
10 | P a g e

About Dr. Richard Weinblatt:
Dr. Richard Weinblatt, former police chief, is a police expert who has served as a
criminal justice professor and police academy director/instructor.
He has worked in several regions of the country in reserve and full-time sworn positions
ranging from auxiliary police lieutenant in New Jersey to patrol division deputy sherriff
in New Mexico to Police Chief in North Carolina.
Dr. Weinblatt has written extensively on law enforcement topics since 1989. He has
provided media commentary on police matters for local and national media including AP,
CBS, CNN, HLN, MSNBC, and The Washington Post.
He is also the host of “The Cop Doc Radio Show” which airs LIVE from Orlando,
Florida, Tuesday & Thursday nights from 10:00 pm-11:00 pm (EST) across the Blog
Talk Radio Network.
About Jon Hansen:
As the lead writer for the PI Social Media Network's Procurement Insights and PI
Window on Business Blog's since their introduction in May 2007 and June 2009
respectively, syndicated monthly readership has grown to more than 1.2 million
worldwide.
Collectively, Jon has written 1,300 articles and papers on subjects as diverse as supply
chain practice, public sector policy, emerging business trends as well as social media.
Jon is also the host of the highly acclaimed PI Window on Business Show on Blog Talk
Radio (BTR). As a BTR Network featured host, Jon has welcomed leaders and
bestselling authors from the world of business discussing both timely and thought
provoking topics. The PI Window on Business Show airs throughout the week between
12:30 and 1:30 PM EST and 9:00 to 10:00 PM EST
On November 2, 2009 Jon's critically acclaimed first book, "Your Show Will Go Live in
5 Seconds" was released. This represented the first instalment in what will become the
Personal Branding in Social Media Series. In "Your Show Will Go Live" Jon shared his
experiences and insights in helping individuals and organizations to create and host a
show that informs, empowers and enriches your audience, your guests and yes, even
yourself.
His second book, "The Unsociable Business of Social Networking And Why The So Act
Social Network Will Change The World" was released in February 2010. Both books are
available through Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble bookstores.
His collaboration with Dr. Weinblatt on Tasers, Abortions and Parenting: Behind the
Curtain of Policing America his Jon’s third book
11 | P a g e

12 | P a g e