Police handcuffing 5-year-old

[Orwell]

Sadly, I exercised the only option I can think of along those lines. Last November, I voted for Republicans in state and local elections. That was an uusual step for me, but I finally decided that our ridiculously litigious society was sufficient reason to seek change.

Yeah, and now public school teachers won't be able to do their jobs because they will lack the necessary money!

Between a rock and a hard place, eh?

 

[T'ai Chi]

7 pages and no evidence that this girl was harmed. Which raises the question, what is the point of the thread?

At first I thought it was for claused-minded to moan about the USA. I was partially correct.

Now it is just another thread for him to avoid providing actual evidence of his claims, to appeal to emotion, and etc.

Of course, he could prove me wrong by providing the actual evidence of harm done. That should be 'bleedin' obvious' to him, the exceptional skeptic that he is.

 

[T'ai Chi]

It is overkill to use cops and handcuffs to restrain a 5 year old girl. It's silly, cowardly and pretty ****ing unfair.

Cowardly... yeah, they should have got in the boxing ring with her, or had a duel at high noon, something like that.

ELT, are you going to ever show exidence of actual harm? Yes, we know she was young. Yes, we know she had cuffs put on her. Yes, we know she didn't like it. Yes, we know you don't like it. All of that obvious stuff aside, where is the actual harm done? Is it the famous nebulous mental anguish? What??


(gets the popcorn)

 

[T'ai Chi]

Ahh bull. You're in bad faith.

He didn't even got off the ground. And no, he didn't turn blue. I was judt essentially holding him in place. He was managing to hit me in the shins on occasion, but a 6 year old can't punch or kick properly. He wasn't even hurting me! How many of you smart asses have kids? Six year olds are not very strong!

What was the relation between you and the child? What was the setting?

Again, none of us doubt for a second that any of the adults involved couldn't have physically handled the child. That is NOT the point here. The point is that in a school setting one cannot just do that. You know, real world laws and such.

Also, as you ignore, thsi girl appears to have had an incident before, and her mother was talked to before. So, not an isolated incident, it seems, but perhaps an ongoing pattern.

 

[FortuneHunter]

Just viewed the video....

Seems the child calmed down as soon as she saw the officers. (heck who wouldn't - give the teacher grief - as opposed to fighting with policeman?).

Were the officers and handcuffs needed?

At that point No. Appeared the officers walked in the room told the girl she "needs" to calm down...but handcuffed her anyways.
Turns into a "what if" or "should of" in regards to actions. If they didn't - she might of freaked out more. If they should of negotiated her behavior it could of been another hour or so of negotiations. Then again - they should of brought her mother in? They should of just let her sit there?

Then again, maybe they should of brought The Negotiator in.

*shakes head*

Kudos to Christina Ottersbach during that time.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I can't believe someone would say the kid didn't know what she was doing. She knew the teachers couldn't do a darn thing. Nothing bad happened to her before, so why not do it again?

The cops had promised handcuffs "next time". If they didn't follow through, then the kid would know she could have her little fit every time instead of doing whatever it was she apparently didn't want to instead of throwing a fit.

The mom couldn't come for hours. The mom knew what was going on. The mom knew handcuffs were promised.

Yes, this is idiotic. We all get to see and put in our useless 2 cents.

We don't know this kid. We don't know if she has some sort of syndrome (my son has tourettes, and he acts out similarly-just would have had a lot more screaming and yelling and head banging added to the scenario).

All we know is that the school can't do anything but call the parents and then call the cops.

Heck, no school could do anything about my son until he had a diagnosis. It was tough to get that diagnosis as well. Very few schools are equipped to deal with these kids.

The kid needs to know what consequences will happen with what behaviour. Even then, the behaviour will still happen, it will just happen less and take less time. If the only consequence is handcuffs and cops (really silly, but if there are no othe options), then so be it.

The kid needs to be in a school that can deal more effectively with that kind of behaviour problem. Hopefully that video will allow for some resources. I'm just darn grateful my community has schools equipped with teachers able (and allowed) to handle behaviours, and a time out room.

This whole thing has made me doubly glad to have the resources my son needs available in his school. I feel sorry for that school and empathize with that child's mom.

 

[RandFan]

No, my argument is that calling the cops to handcuff a 5 year old is egregiously stupid.

Based on what?

It's very inefficient too.

Gasp, inefficiency. Yes, no maybe.

It's also unfair: the kid wasn't old enough to know what she was doing.

This is a claim, Proof please?

And it's probably unnecessarily scary.

It is your opinion that it is unnecessary. Perhaps, but then so is going to the dentist. Is there harm?

Disciplining five year olds should be a teacher's or a parent's job. And they should have the power to do it, within reason.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda.

It amazes me that no one at the school went "wait, we're going to far, this is silly. We're asking the cops top do our job!"

That is just your opinion.

And finally, I'm very surprised that the cops accepted to do this. Had I been the cop in charge, I would have refused to handcuff her.

This is proof by YOUR authority. Odd since you are not a police officer.

 

[crimresearch]

Odder still, since it has been pointed out repeatedly that policies exist relieving both school, and law enforcement staff of certain options.

But armchair quarterbacks have *such* a distinguished record for accuracy.

 

[Elind]

This whole thing has made me doubly glad to have the resources my son needs available in his school. I feel sorry for that school and empathize with that child's mom.

That is kind of you, but if there is blame to be placed, do we not mostly believe that it lies with the parenting? And let's not forget that it took little time for a lawsuit to be announced. Lawsuit to achieve what, other than pocket money?

Sadly I have watched at close range what I imagine that this 5 or 6 year old will be like in 10 years or so, and it is most likely exactly what the parents were like, and still are.

 

[Orwell]

Again, none of us doubt for a second that any of the adults involved couldn't have physically handled the child. That is NOT the point here. The point is that in a school setting one cannot just do that. You know, real world laws and such.

Also, as you ignore, thsi girl appears to have had an incident before, and her mother was talked to before. So, not an isolated incident, it seems, but perhaps an ongoing pattern.

So what you think is the right thing to do? To allow the school teachers to take charge, or to call the cops?

I think the answer is obvious. If the laws are the problem, then they're stupid laws and they should be changed. If they can't be changed when it's obvious they're stupid, then your country as a serious problem.

 

[RandFan]

So what you think is the right thing to do? To allow the school teachers to take charge, or to call the cops?

I think the answer is obvious. If the laws are the problem, then they're stupid laws and they should be changed. If they can't be changed when it's obvious they're stupid, then your country as a serious problem.

If the child had been harmed then you would have a point as it realates to this single incident and perhaps others. As it is after pages and pages of requests no one has given one single piece of evidence that there has been any harm. Absent harm this anecdote proves nothing. Even with harm it is only an anedote. But there is NO harm. Yet you persist in making the same non-arguments.

 

[RandFan]

Why is critical thinking so hard?

 

[Orwell]

Based on what?

Well, you know, there's this thing called common sense, maybe you've heard of it?

And then there the golden rule: treat other as you want to be treated. If my child, for some reason, was behaving that way, I wouldn't want the school to call the cops. I would want them to restrain him, within reason. In a similar situation, how would you wish your kids would be treated?

And then there's another thing you seem to lack, and that's empathy. Even though the kid is probably a brat, well, I can't help feeling sorry for her. She's just a small kid!

I might not be a police officer, but see, I know who I am and what my values are. I don't treat kids the same way I treat adults. They're kids! It is unreasonable to expect a fiver year old to have enough maturity to handle their emotions. But here you are, apparently finding it perfectly acceptable that a 5 year old should be treated in a way similar to the way responsible adults are normally treated...

 

[RandFan]

Well, you know, there's this thing called common sense, maybe you've heard of it?

Yes I have. Common sense says that there are psychics, gods, people who can see the future, folks who talk to dead people. Common sense is not proof of anything.

And then there the golden rule: threat other as you want to be treated. If my child, for some reason, was behaving that way, I wouldn't want the school to call the cops. I would want them to restrain him, within reason.

I would want no harm to come to my child. If they did call the cops I might be concerned but I would first see if my child was harmed. That is GOOD sense. I'll take good sense any day. Besides, you have not proven that your way is the common way. Have you?

And then there's another thing you seem to lack, and that's empathy. Even though the kid is probably a brat, well, I can't help feeling sorry for her.

Oh, I can feel sorry for her but this is fallacy. Whether or not I feel sorry for her does not prove whether or not there is any harm. Do you plan to trot out every fallacy known to man?

I might not be a police officer, but see, I know who I am and what my values are.

Irrelevant.

I don't treat kids the same way I treat adults.

Straw man. Irrelevant. The salient point is "was there any harm"? Why is that so hard for you to understand?

They're kids! It is unreasonable to expect a fiver year old to have a full grasp of the world.

Agreed, and this is important because? If you could show harm then this would be relevant.

They're too immature and not yet very rational. Ask any parent if you don't believe me.

Oh, we have admitted this before. It is irrelevant and doesn't prove harm. Are you going to also recycle all of the bad arguments that have been thoroughly discredited. Harm dude, show harm. Other wise it is just an unfortunate incident. Critical thinking requires an objective reason for your claim. Harm would be one. I can't think of any other and neither can you.

 

[Orwell]

My previous post has been rewritten.

You obviously don't know what the expression "common sense" means: it's sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge.

And you don't seem to have much of it.

FYI, in Canada, you can't physically discipline a child, but the Supreme Court recently held that teachers and school administrators can use reasonable force to restrain students who are posing a threat to themselves or to others, if I recall correctly. That's reasonable, and it doesn't involve neither cops nor handcuffs.

So nighty night, don't let the bed bugs bite!

 

[RandFan]

You obviously don't know what the expression "common sense" means: it's sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge. In other words, being reasonable.

There are different definitions. This is the one I use.

The term common sense (or as an adjective, commonsense) describes beliefs or propositions that seem, to most people, to be prudent and of sound judgment, without dependence upon esoteric knowledge. These beliefs and propositions are sometimes developed often having studied, or conducted, empirical research.[/b]

So, "beliefs", "seem", "most people". I prefer objective and critical. It is true that what is common sense is sometimes empirical but it is not required.

But let's assume your definition. Can you prove that your position is the "reasonable" one?

And you don't seem to have much of it.

This is ad hominem. Do you know what fallacy is? It looks like you are trying to set some kind of record for using fallacy.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
Well, you know, there's this thing called common sense, maybe you've heard of it?

Common sense should tell you that handcuffs were designed as a way to restrain people without harming them, and that seeing them used, even on a very young child, should not be inherently shocking.

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
And then there the golden rule: treat other as you want to be treated. If my child, for some reason, was behaving that way, I wouldn't want the school to call the cops. I would want them to restrain him, within reason. In a similar situation, how would you wish your kids would be treated?

How does the golden rule apply to the parents of the other children who presumably want their kids to be educated while at school? Or the teachers who would rather be teaching their class rather than hovering over a single child having a tantrum?

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
And then there's another thing you seem to lack, and that's empathy. Even though the kid is probably a brat, well, I can't help feeling sorry for her. She's just a small kid!

I feel bad for my daughter whenever I have to punish her somehow. So what? Actions have consequences. Learning that lesson may not be pleasant, but it’s not so bad as not learning that lesson.

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
I might not be a police officer, but see, I know who I am and what my values are. I don't treat kids the same way I treat adults.

Do you think she was charged with vandalism and assault? I doubt it, but that’s what an adult could have been charged with.

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
They're kids! It is unreasonable to expect a fiver year old to have enough maturity to handle their emotions.

Unless there is something medically wrong, she should have the maturity not to throw a tantrum that lasts more than an hour.

Originally posted by Ex Lion Tamer
But here you are, apparently finding it perfectly acceptable that a 5 year old should be treated in a way similar to the way adult criminals are normally treated...

Personally I think all discipline represents a failure to elicit cooperation and good behavior through positive means. In that sense, it’s not really acceptable that anybody get punished for anything. However, since we are imperfect at eliciting cooperation through positive means, punishment will sometimes happen. As far as punishments go, handcuffing is worse than many, but not as bad as some.

 

[Orwell]

You know what you have here? Teachers unwilling (or incapable) to do their jobs, and cops excessively eager to do theirs.

I dunno know about you, but to me that's not very healthy!

 

[RandFan]

You know what you have here? Teachers unwilling (or incapable) to do their jobs, and cops excessively eager to do theirs.

This is just speculation.

I dunno know about you, but to me that's not very healthy!

You are now arguing ad nauseam. You just can't avoid the fallacy can you.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You know what you have here? Teachers unwilling (or incapable) to do their jobs, and cops excessively eager to do theirs.

I dunno know about you, but to me that's not very healthy!

For the last time, the teachers WERE doing their jobs. They aren't allowed to grab the damned kid! If they had, they'd be doing the opposite of their jobs.

Your objection is to the fact that their jobs require them to not touch the kids in these situations. Fine! But you can't say they weren't doing their jobs correctly. You can only say that they correctly did their stupid jobs.