Police handcuffing 5-year-old

[CFLarsen]

Please explain where the physical harm was. Bruises? Circulation problems? Allergy to steel? Wrenched shoulder? Skin abrasions?

Or are you making a claim, refusing to provide evidence, and ignoring all requests to do so?

In thread after thread after thread, you have insisted that people provide evidence for their claims. I invite you, for the third time, do so yourself. Give details of the physical harm suffered by the child, or admit that you were making a claim without evidence.

Handcuffing a 5-year old girl is physical harm. If it wasn't, why aren't handcuffs part of a normal upbringing?

 

[Suddenly]

Count me in on those that can't see the outrage...

Last I checked teachers were not required to be trained in physically restraining violent children. On the other hand, police sort of deal with that sort of as a matter of routine, drunks, crackheads, the mentally ill, ect. who must be subdued with a minimum of harm. They tend to do a good job, especially if they are being videotaped... And no, not all these people are prosecuted or even charged... Some are just taken home, some are placed in the mental health system... Depends on the situation.

If anything, this is an example where the "litigious" society has it right. An untrained person should not be performing potentially hazzardous acts like restraining a violent child, period. Sure, you keep her from obvious mortal peril, take her down off a desk or grab her before she sticks a fork in an electrical socket, but as long as there is no such danger just leave it to the pros...

Then again, I don't have children nor do I want them, so maybe parents are OK with having to send their children to institutions that approve of untrained people physically restraining unruly children... seems insane to me, but what do I know?

As per the Police behaviour, why not? No physical harm (at least no evidence of it), and if the kid is throwing these daily tandrums saying any psychological impact can be considered "harm" seems quite speculative, not to mention the huge "coals to Newcastle" issue...


Oh I forgot... she's FIVE YEARS OLD!!! ARE YOU NUTS!!! JUST GRAB HER YOU MORAL COWARD!!!

Yeah... that is a sufficent counterargument. It also worked to prove that gay marriage is evil, and a few years ago it was the main argument against racial integration of schools... and it is also the primary reason that we know that all athiests are immoral and can't be trusted....

 

[CFLarsen]

Dr. Harvey Karp, a pediatrician and child development expert at the UCLA School of Medicine

I'm still trying to find the interview. The only thing I can find so far is: Karp said when the 5-year-old Florida girl jumped on the assistant principal's desk, the principal kept taking her down. That was the right thing to do, he said.

Tips on Disciplining a Misbehaving Child

From your link:

Dr. Harvey Karp, a pediatrician and child development expert at the UCLA School of Medicine, offered some tips on how to discipline unruly children without resorting to drastic measures like calling the police.

Stop unacceptable behavior. Tell the child to stop or make them stop physically.

(Emphasis mine)

Thanks for providing a link that supports my point.

 

[CFLarsen]

This is disengenuous. As it relates to EXPERT OPINION! I'm absolutely entitled to offer my opinion as to when someone is wrong. Please have the intelectual honesty to note that your quotes of mine use the word opinion unless something is DEMONSTRABLY WRONG!

Bull. I got three words for you:

Utah Boys Ranch.

 

[CFLarsen]

Based upon watching the video I would have to say yes. When she wanted to go somewhere she did. The best the women could do was try to block her and that was not always successful. Would you not agree, just say yes or no?

Give me a break!! When an unruly 5-year old child is taken to the principal's office, that child stays there.

 

[RandFan]

Handcuffing a 5-year old girl is physical harm. If it wasn't, why aren't handcuffs part of a normal upbringing?

The worst logic I have ever heard. What praytell would one use handcuffs for? The needs of police are very specific. Handcuffs are tailored to their needs.

BTW, my son reminded me that he has a pair of cheep handcuffs and all of my children have been handcuffed. We were unable to distinguish any harm. You can by them as a novelty.

Item #: MU40 $1.95 EA.
Boxed. Metal with keys. 10 1/2"L.

You can get them at US Toy. They are metal, not plastic, which makes one onder why such a dangerous object is sold to children.

 

[username]

Handcuffing a 5-year old girl is physical harm. If it wasn't, why aren't handcuffs part of a normal upbringing?

You haven't shown harm from handcuffs. Your only evidence of harm is the presumption that since handcuffs aren't typically used in the upbringing of children they must be harmful.

Nevermind all the things that don't typically cause harm, but aren't part of the upbringing of most children such as milking cows. Few children milk a cow during their upbringing, is milking a cow narmful to children? Of course not. My point being you haven't done anything more than restate your claim.

Further, physically restraining a child is fairly routine in the upbringing of of many children. Heck, sending a kid to his/her room is physcially restraining a child as it grabbing them by the arm and not allowing them to run into the street or grabbing in a forced hug type embrace to settle them down when having a tantrum. I don't see handcuffs as being much different than any other form of physical restraint. Sometimes physcially restraining a child is necessary. Hold them with one's hands, lock them in a room or handcuff them, what is the difference in terms of harm to the child?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Handcuffing a 5-year old girl is physical harm.

A flat assertion, with no evidence. How can physical harm result when there is no physical damage to the person? It is because it is, and you refuse to explain why.

If it wasn't, why aren't handcuffs part of a normal upbringing?

This is reasoning? If X isn't physical harm, why isn't it a part of a normal upbringing? Substitute anything for X.

Is this really the best you can do? Sheesh, Claus. You're beginning to sound like your arch-rival. Can't you just admit you have no rational basis for claiming physical harm, or do you buy into your own hype to such an extent that you regard yourself as above the requirements of argument that you demand from everyone else?


eta: fixed spelling errors due to disillusionment.

 

[RandFan]

Bull. I got three words for you:

Utah Boys Ranch.

And this proves what? Did you not read my post?

I am not an expert. I have only my experience with my own children and two years as a counselor in a youth correction facility. I would defer to those who are experts.

I offer my experience only to demonstrate why I believe the way I believe. I have said on more than one occasion that I do NOT consider my experience as a reason to make me an expert. I had a couple of years of psychology and one term in child development. My education and experience were 20 years ago. I am entitled to form opinions based on my experience and education. I'm entitled to explain why I believe what I do. I'm NOT entitled to claim to be an expert. There is NO basis for that.

 

[Suddenly]

Handcuffing a 5-year old girl is physical harm. If it wasn't, why aren't handcuffs part of a normal upbringing?

Lemmee get this straight...

Handcuffing a 5 year old = C
Acts causing Physical harm = H
Acts part of a normal upbringing is = N

So, your claim is that C is included in the set of H, because C is not in the set of N.

This implies that H and N are not only mutually exclusive, but contain every possible act. Otherwise, it is just not at all coherent..

So, any act that is not in the set of N is in the set of H....
Or, that anything not part of a normal upbringing, must by definition be physically harmful.

Which is, let me be the first to point out, is massively stupid, offensive, and vaguely fascist...

 

[Kodiak]

Handcuffing a 5-year old girl is physical harm. If it wasn't, why aren't handcuffs part of a normal upbringing?

Just to be perfectly clear: You consider anything that isn't part of a "normal" upbringing, physical harm?!? Please answer this, my only question to you in this thread, before I respond in detail...


Oh, well, it looks like LegalPenguin beat me to it...

 

[RandFan]

Thanks for providing a link that supports my point.

And this proves what? Karp praises the women for their actions. Further, from your link,

Video shows police handcuffing 5-year-old

The Times interviewed several top educators, including two district officials who had seen the video and two professors at the University of South Florida's College of Education.

All praised Dibenedetto for using patience and good training in a tough situation. They said she gave the girl wide latitude to opt for better behavior, used clear commands, called for help from another educator, removed the other students from the room for their safety and to eliminate an audience for the girl, reinforced commands with hand motions and successfully avoided physical confrontation.

Touching the girl, they said, would have escalated the situation.

The two educators "can't control what the children do, but they can control how they respond to it and, to me, they responded admirably," said Robert Egley, an assistant education professor at USF in St. Petersburg. "I give them an A-plus."

That is YOUR source.

 

[RandFan]

Give me a break!! When an unruly 5-year old child is taken to the principal's office, that child stays there.

Logic according to Larsen. You are making assumptions based on typical behavior. That doesn't work in this case. Most children when told to stop tearing things off of the wall by the PRINCIPLE stop. Most children do NOT break things when the principle is telling them not to.

 

[RandFan]

Lemmee get this straight...

Handcuffing a 5 year old = C
Acts causing Physical harm = H
Acts part of a normal upbringing is = N

So, your claim is that C is included in the set of H, because C is not in the set of N.

This implies that H and N are not only mutually exclusive, but contain every possible act. Otherwise, it is just not at all coherent..

So, any act that is not in the set of N is in the set of H....
Or, that anything not part of a normal upbringing, must by definition be physically harmful.

Which is, let me be the first to point out, is massively stupid, offensive, and vaguely fascist...

Not to mention fallacious but that fact wouldn't stop Larsen.

 

[gnome]

Handcuffing a 5-year old girl is physical harm. If it wasn't, why aren't handcuffs part of a normal upbringing?

Simple answer: because the need for handcuffs is not part of a normal child's experiences.

Your logic is very weak here... something you refuse to tolerate in others. You don't have to abandon your position to say there is no direct physical harm involved--simply refrain from using that as an argument for it, unless you're willing to give direct evidence. Perhaps you feel some other kind of harm is involved? Argue for that instead.

 

[RandFan]

Handcuffing a 5-year old girl is physical harm. If it wasn't, why aren't handcuffs part of a normal upbringing?

This is wrong on so many levels it is not funny.

• Assumes that all things that are part of a normal upbringing are good. This is a problem because what is or was part of a "normal" upbringing for some is not part of the upbringing now.
  
• There are demonstrably many benign things that are not part of a normal upbringing. Kissing the Blarney Stone is not part of most children's upgrining especially those outside of Ireland. By Larsen's logic it would be harmful for children to do so.

 

[CFLarsen]

The worst logic I have ever heard. What praytell would one use handcuffs for?

Why, to control unruly kids!

BTW, my son reminded me that he has a pair of cheep handcuffs and all of my children have been handcuffed. We were unable to distinguish any harm. You can by them as a novelty.

Were they handcuffed when they were unruly?

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm NOT entitled to claim to be an expert. There is NO basis for that.

Utah Boys Ranch.

 

[CFLarsen]

Just to be perfectly clear: You consider anything that isn't part of a "normal" upbringing, physical harm?!? Please answer this, my only question to you in this thread, before I respond in detail...

I am talking about handcuffs and their use. They are not part of a normal upbringing.

 

[renata]

This is wrong on so many levels it is not funny.

• Assumes that all things that are part of a normal upbringing are good. This is a problem because what is or was part of a "normal" upbringing for some is not part of the upbringing now.
  
• There are demonstrably many benign things that are not part of a normal upbringing. Kissing the Blarney Stone is not part of most children's upgrining especially those outside of Ireland. By Larsen's logic it would be harmful for children to do so.

Not to mention that "normal upbringing" varies culture by culture and overtime. One could say NOT hitting a child is harmful because spanking was part of "normal upbringing" at one point and still is in some cultures.

ETA
I was a counselor for a few years. We were strictly trained to avoid carrying kids or physically restraining them. Little ones are surprisingly fragile, one could dislocate their shoulders easily. One time we were crossing the road, and a kid bolted. I grabbed and yanked him by the arm to get him out of the road. He had a mild bruise on his forearm, and told his parents I bit (!) him. I got called on the carpet and had to explain, and still got yelled at. That same child caused so many problems we finally had to expel him. Unfortunately, no amount of patience, time outs, talks to the director, and so on helped- partially because parents loved the darling and all adults were evil. Some kids go nuts in unfamiliar territory and are capable of hurting themselves and others.


I am a little sad for this girl. She is obviously out of control and needs help. The lesson she will learn- she can act out and if someone restrains her, her mom will sue.