Police handcuffing 5-year-old

[CFLarsen]

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.

OK, I don't think this is about you not being able to understand what I post. I am beginning to think that you are deliberately doing it.

We are not talking about tearing things off of the wall, but whether or not the girl could leave.

If you cannot debate honestly, then I see no reason to debate with you. I am not going to waste my time correcting you over and over again.

 

[Thanz]

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

Psst - you know what else isn't part of a normal upbringing? Hour long destructive tantrums where you rip apart your classroom then proceed to rip apart the principal's office because the teacher took away your jelly beans for misbehaving.

Perhaps you should just stick to the paranormal board where your BS seems to be more tolerated. You seem particularly unable to use critical thinking skills on this board, and you just come off as foolish.

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

Quite right. But I don't see many cultures that use handcuffs as part of a normal upbringing.

 

[RandFan]

Why, to control unruly kids!

And why would parents use them for such? A parent and a police officer are not the same thing. Their needs and means of control are different.

Were they handcuffed when they were unruly?

Would it make any significant difference? Can you prove it? If I had a severe problem that required them I have no doubt that I could use them without harm. Looking at them I see nothing inherent about them that would assume that they would be harmful. Restraint is restraint. I think it would be unusual and I think the associations we have with their use make them a poor choice for parents but I don't see any significant harm.

Further, and more importantly, you have not shown any.

 

[username]

Quite right. But I don't see many cultures that use handcuffs as part of a normal upbringing.

Which proves what?

It is interesting that most in this thread keep telling you that you are utterly failing to make an argument and your response is to continue failing to make an argument.

Your position that handcuffing harmed this girl still lacks any evidence whatsoever. Heck, I have handcuffed my child a few times. He wanted handcuffs to play with so I bought him some and I have put them on him more than once as a game. He wasn't harmed that I can tell.

How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?
How was this girl harmed?

Forgive my repitition, I would simply like to see you articulate some semi believeable meachanism in which harm may have occured or retract the claim.

 

[TragicMonkey]

OK, I don't think this is about you not being able to understand what I post. I am beginning to think that you are deliberately doing it.

We are not talking about tearing things off of the wall, but whether or not the girl could leave.

If you cannot debate honestly, then I see no reason to debate with you. I am not going to waste my time correcting you over and over again.

No, Claus, we are asking you to explain how handcuffing did physical harm to the child. The only explanation you have given is that "it's not part of a normal upbringing". As has been amptly demonstrated above, that is not a valid argument for proving that handcuffing does physical harm.

If you want to show that the handcuffing did physical harm, you have to show the results of that harm. Something physical. Bruises, strained tendons, abrasions, etc. Why is it so difficult to comprehend that? It's not. It's very simple. You are refusing to admit that you made a baseless claim, and after unsuccessfully trying to wriggle out of it you're now showing signs of packing up your marbles and leaving because other posters aren't "debating honestly".

Be a man, Claus. Admit you made a baseless claim, or produce evidence for it. You're beginning to look ludicrous.

 

[RandFan]

OK, I don't think this is about you not being able to understand what I post. I am beginning to think that you are deliberately doing it.

We are not talking about tearing things off of the wall, but whether or not the girl could leave.

If you cannot debate honestly, then I see no reason to debate with you. I am not going to waste my time correcting you over and over again.

You are the one NOT debating honestly.

The tearing things off of the wall is proof that this girl was not responding to directions. The principle was trying to stop her. The principle was telling her "no". It did no good. If she would tear things off of the wall, break things, hit the principle and simply walk around those who were directing her what makes you think they could keep her in the office? You offer NO evidence and the facts belie your claim.

 

[CFLarsen]

And why would parents use them for such? A parent and a police officer are not the same thing. Their needs and means of control are different.

But that's what we are discussing: The use of handcuffs on unruly kids.

Would it make any significant difference? Can you prove it? If I had a severe problem that required them I have no doubt that I could use them without harm. Looking at them I see nothing inherent about them that would assume that they would be harmful. Restraint is restraint. I think it would be unusual and I think the associations we have with their use make them a poor choice for parents but I don't see any significant harm.

Further, and more importantly, you have not shown any.

Just answer the question: Were they handcuffed when they were unruly?

 

[renata]

Quite right. But I don't see many cultures that use handcuffs as part of a normal upbringing.

That, of course was not your original claim, as others here so aptly showed.

Anyone can express themselves poorly, so I would suggest you admit the simple error and modify your position.

And I am out of this thread.

 

[CFLarsen]

You are the one NOT debating honestly.

The tearing things off of the wall is proof that this girl was not responding to directions. The principle was trying to stop her. The principle was telling her "no". It did no good. If she would tear things off of the wall, break things, hit the principle and simply walk around those who were directing her what makes you think they could keep her in the office? You offer NO evidence and the facts belie your claim.

We are discussing whether or not the girl could leave the principal's office when she wanted to. You say she could.

Do you really think that sounds plausible?

 

[CFLarsen]

That, of course was not your original claim, as others here so aptly showed.

No? I thought I was very clear that I do not think it is appropriate to use handcuffs on 5-year old kids.

 

[RandFan]

But that's what we are discussing: The use of handcuffs on unruly kids.

{sigh} Fallacy. That parents don't use handcuffs does not mean that handcuffs are bad. Your logic is piss poor.

Just answer the question: Were they handcuffed when they were unruly?

Don't demand that I answer questions when you ignore them constantly you hypocrite.

Would it make any significant difference?

If I had a severe problem that required them I have no doubt that I could use them without harm.

I think it would be unusual and I think the associations we have with their use make them a poor choice for parents but I don't see any significant harm.

The answer is no but the answer does not prove anything. My children have been handcuffed without harm. My children have been restrained with out harm.

That I did not do both simultaneously PROVES NOTHING.

 

[RandFan]

No? I thought I was very clear that I do not think it is appropriate to use handcuffs on 5-year old kids.

Renata was simply showing how and why your logic was so poor. "Part of normal childhood" is demonstrably fallacious.

 

[RandFan]

We are discussing whether or not the girl could leave the principal's office when she wanted to. You say she could.

Do you really think that sounds plausible?

Based on the video? Absolutely, this is the second time that I have answered this question. She did everything else that she wanted. She,

• Broke things when told not to.
• She tore things off of the wall when she was told not to.
• She hit the principle when she was told not to.
• She went were she wanted to even when the principle was directing her in a different direction.

I can see no reason to come to any other conclusion.

Do you have any evidence to contradict the evidence that I have provided?

 

[CFLarsen]

{sigh} Fallacy. That parents don't use handcuffs does not mean that handcuffs are bad. Your logic is piss poor.

They are bad for kids' upbringing.

The answer is no but the answer does not prove anything. My children have been handcuffed without harm. My children have been restrained with out harm.

Sure. It proves that your example is invalid. You have not used handcuffs on your kids when they were unruly.

That I did not do both simultaneously PROVES NOTHING.

It proves that you use invalid examples.

 

[ranson]

Coming late to the game, but here we go . . .

My wife used to work as part of company specializing in behavior modification for children, adults, and families. Most of the business involved kids with violent emotional and/or disturbances. Of the child's actions in the video, I will say that they are typical, though not indicative, of the mental issues that my wife and her colleagues dealt with all the time. These included four-, five-, and six-year olds who had not only threatened murder and assault, but had attempted them. These students are often required by law to be integrated into normal classrooms, whether or not the school personnell are prepared to deal with the extremes this chilren are subject to.

If such mental disturbances are the case, normal modes of dealing with a child often have to be taken off the table. It is clearly shown that the school officials used many of those normal modes -- to no avail.

The many posters who have noted that teachers and administrators are constrained by policy in the physical handling of students may also note that it is often not only policy, but the law to avoid such contact. Even the intensive behavior modification practiced by my wife's former company ordered absolutely no physical restraint except to prevent imminent violence and injury to oneself or the child. In such cases, "hugging" restraint often lacks a calming effect, and is often a danger to the adult; headbutts, biting, and hidden weapons are main concerns.

She watched more than one young child led away in handcuffs for violent and disruptive action. More than once, she had to initiate the process to immediately place such children in a mental health facility.

Those who stand in outrage need to consider that, even though this is a child, the odds are that this is not a child functioning at the normal capacity of its age. It sounds likely that the child has undiagnosed problems; I don't know and can't say. The normal rules of polite schools and society may not apply. Outrage should be directed at the parent(s) who allowed this to occur for a second or third time without either

a) Disciplining their mentally healthy child properly
or
b) Getting help in dealing with their child's mental or emotional issues.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Is this OK with you? It isn't with me.

Yes.



Since you were not available at the time, they had to go with what they had...

 

[TragicMonkey]

No? I thought I was very clear that I do not think it is appropriate to use handcuffs on 5-year old kids.

And one reason you gave was that it causes physical harm to the child.

Name the physical harm.

Name the physical harm.

Name the physical harm.

 

[CFLarsen]

Do you have any evidence to contradict the evidence that I have provided?

Yeah. How do you think the kid came to be in the principal's office? Do you think she waltzed over there by herself, of her own free will? No, she was taken to the office and kept there, until the police arrived.

Keep on arguing otherwise, though.

 

[Kodiak]

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

...and therefore, according to your earlier post, cause physical harm!!!!

Why have you omitted this part in your obfuscating non-reply above?

Please answer this and the only other question I have put to you in this thread: Do you consider anything that isn't part of a "normal" upbringing, physical harm??