Texas

School Cop Who Body-Slammed 12-Year-Old Girl into Concrete Fired Over Paperwork

Joshua Kehm failed to submit incident report, and when he did, he called it an "accidental fall."

|

Turns out violently endangering a child through

Firable offense.
Youtube

excessive force can get your fired in the US.

Joshua Kehm, the San Antonio district police officer working the beat at Rhodes Middle School, was fired by the San Antonio Independent School District (SAISD) on Monday, after having been placed on paid leave following an incident last month where he grabbed 12-year-old Janissa Valdez from behind, spun her around and slammed her onto a concrete walkway.

Kehm was trying to defuse what he had reason to believe was an imminent fight between Valdez and another girl, but his actions caused more damage than two sixth-grade girls would have likely been able to inflict on each other. 

After witnessing video of her daughter being manhandled by an officer whose presence at school is meant to ensure student safety, Valdez's mother told a local TV news station, "You could actually hear her head hit the concrete. That's what hurt me the most…he didn't even seem like it bothered him. He still handcuffed her after she was unconscious."

SAISD Superintendent Pedro Martinez told MySA.com that Kehm was fired because he failed to immediately report this instance of use of force (as required), and once he did file his report, "it was not at all consistent with the video." According to Martinez, Kehm had indicated that Valdez ended up on the ground as a result of an "accidental fall."

Martinez said, "We understand that situations can sometimes escalate to the point of requiring a physical response; however, in this situation we believe that the extent of the response was absolutely unwarranted." The superintendent added that the investigation is ongoing, and that further discipline could be forthcoming regarding "possible inaction of school administrators."

Watch video of the incident below and read Reason's earlier coverage of the incident, which notes how post-Columbine overreactions have led to an over-policing of public schools, sometimes with disastrous results. 

NEXT: Yugely Hated Trump Even With Clinton in New NBC Poll

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Defuse, not diffuse. LUCY!

    1. I watched Lucy the other nigh.Scarlett’s hot,but,too old for you.

        1. Woah, 2014? I was sure it came out last year.

  2. Want to meet a girl? come on http://goo.gl/mxiosK
    the Best adult Dating site!

    1. Can I body slam her?

      1. “She” might just body slam you!

  3. Next headline : Kehm Sues School District, Victim’s Family

  4. “…however, in this situation we believe that the extent of the response was absolutely unwarranted.”

    So, not necessarily fired over paperwork. Most likely, that’s an open and shut way to fire him without even getting to what’s on the video. It doesn’t mean what was on the video was acceptable because, well, they said it wasn’t.

    1. The union is going to have to a better job negotiating the next contract.

    2. Of course, “unwarranted” does not mean “unacceptable” or “fired”.

      If they wanted to send a message that beating the shit out of 12 year old girls was a firing offense, they could have done so. The fact that they didn’t tells you it isn’t a firing offense.

      Silence is acquiescence is approval.

      1. It doesn’t tell me that at all. Not any more than the SCOTUS ruling on a narrow ground means the broader ground wouldn’t also be accepted.

        If you can fire a guy, right now, for lying in the face of video evidence, he’s still fired. There’s no need even to speak of whether the takedown was acceptable or not. I’m sure it’s not like they fire everyone who submits a false report.

        1. I see this differently. If he was fired due to poor paperwork protocol, he will likely get his job back. All he has to do is find some cases where other police were merely reprimanded for submitting similarly egregious reports (should be hard to find) and he wins his appeal.

          1. *”shouldn’t” be hard to find

          2. At that point, he’s left you no choice. You go after him for the violence.

            The fact that he lied about it demonstrates that he knows how it was perceived.

        2. You may see it that way, Mohawk. But I doubt the other cops will.

          They will see “fired for a technicality”. They will not see “fired for beating up a 12 year old girl”. Those are different messages, with different outcomes.

  5. David French and bad ass authoritarian women hurt most.

    1. Heather MacDonald will be along shortly to tell us how protests over this video will cause cops to die screaming in the streets.

  6. Turns out violently endangering a child through excessive force can get your fired in the US.

    can get you fired

    or

    get your ass fired

  7. Stupid cop. All he had to do was say the magic words: I feared for my life. Those words are magic and not to be questioned. Had he done that nothing else would have happened.

  8. “…however, in this situation we believe that the extent of the response was absolutely unwarranted.”

    “We can not stress too highly how poor the response was.”

    “We feel the lack of appropriate response was unjustified.”

    IOW, weasels gonna weasel.

    1. If you hire bullies to enforce your rules you’ll pay a price.Cops are about deadly force,on men,women,old people,kids and dogs.

  9. Tulpa hit hardest. “I feel like I’m the one that got bodyslammed,” says pro-cop asswipe.

  10. Better start warming up the check writing pen fellas.

  11. When I was in school if you acted up you could get the paddle.Then that was deemed cruel.Now,they have cops in the schools that tase,handcuff,pepper spray and beat students.Then off to jail.WTF?

  12. According to conservative comment sections re: this story:

    a) bitch had it coming

    b) she was kicking, cop in danger

    c) thug, probably going to be pregnant soon

    d) what if she had a gun?

    1. You forgot poorly raised.

      I loathe conservative people who say such insipid things on this front.

      1. Right. My personal favorite was ‘I bet her mom had her when she was like 15 and this girl will be pregnant soon and will continue the cycle.’

        Yeah, those are reasonable assumptions to make based on a fight between two sixth graders. Extra legit.

        1. The alternative is to question the cop’s actions. Do you WANT these people to have a vein burst in their brains ?

    2. Justice in this case for these commenters would be to have the thug do it to them. I suppose some of them might think they had it coming? That would be easier than admitting they were wrong…

  13. Just watched the video. Had anyone other than a cop done that, it would have been attempted murder.

    1. If a parent did that to their child…I’ll let you fill in the blank.

  14. working the beat at Rhodes Middle School

    Old timers are supposed to say “back in my day” and all that, but what the actual fuck ? “working the beat” ? at a middle school ? Try as I might, I cannot imagine a cop patrolling my school, nor my parents and their friends allowing it (way back in the mid 1970’s).

    This cop slamming the kid is absolutely predictable and expected. You put a punk cop in the school and then you’re surprised when this happens ? Fuck everyone who supports the concept of a “resource officer” in the school. You are responsible for that girl’s head injury.

    1. Rhodes Middle School

      So racist.

  15. …and once he did file his report, “it was not at all consistent with the video.”

    I wonder where he learned to do that?

  16. This guy is only fired for now. He’ll appeal and get his job back, with pay.

    1. Yes, because he was fired for submitting an inaccurate report which probably happens often and which probably customarily results in a mere reprimand (if anything). That is his appeal in a nutshell and he will win.

  17. SAISD Superintendent Pedro Martinez told MySA.com that Kehm was fired because he failed to immediately report this instance of use of force (as required), and once he did file his report, “it was not at all consistent with the video.” According to Martinez, Kehm had indicated that Valdez ended up on the ground as a result of an “accidental fall.”

    I’m guessing “Accidental Fall” is the name of a WWE finishing maneuver.

  18. As I said last time this was posted.

    She landed on her side and those are paving bricks, nice soft fired clay masonry, set into an even softer sand base, not concrete, grow a pair you molly-coddlers.

    1. Good point. She may have life long damage to her arm and shoulder joint, but there’s little risk of permanent neurological impairment. So, you know, no harm no foul.

    2. Let’s see you get your head slammed into them in the same way. We’ll wait for the video and your retarded recap.

    3. I gotta say I agree.

      I don’t like to see this kind of thing happen. We still don’t see the entire interaction before the video starts. The girl got up right away and walked, no broken bones no missing teeth, no blood.

      Fighting with a cop is going to get you in more trouble.

      Still the officer should have filed the paper work and been truthful.

      1. Still the officer should have filed the paper work and been truthful.

        You’ve still got a little on your chin…

      2. The officer should have controlled a small girl in a less-violent fashion. You obviously know very little about traumatic brain injuries.

  19. I wonder if the district or the department are going to look back through this officer’s history if reports and see if this the first time he downplayed the violence he used.

  20. “According to Martinez, Kehm had indicated that Valdez ended up on the ground as a result of an “accidental fall.””

    He lied to cover up what he did. So, unlike his defenders, he’s aware what he did was wrong.

    1. Precisely. But apologists still gotta do the bootlicking thing.

    2. I had someone gotten the impression (perhaps from TV?) that lying on police reports was a crime. But, since he is not being charged with a crime, despite the lie being serious and the evidence being so indisputable that it would be an open-and-shut case at trial, I must be completely wrong about that.

  21. it’s always the paperwork they get you on, and oddly enough not the incident that caused all this in the first place.

    1. It’s how they got Al Capone.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.