Police handcuffing 5-year-old

CFLarsen said:
They are bad for kids' upbringing.
Click to expand...
Proof please?

Sure. It proves that your example is invalid. You have not used handcuffs on your kids when they were unruly.
Click to expand...
  • I have shown that handcuffs are not harmfull in at least some situations and I'm willing to bet in most.
  • Most importantly, You have not shown that they are harmful in any except when used to handcuff a child to a table for 18 hours but then the handcuffs weren't really the problem were they. Had the child been tied or taped to the chair for 18 hours it STILL would have been wrong.

It proves that you use invalid examples.
Click to expand...
You claimed, and I QUOTE: "Handcuffing a 5-year old girl is physical harm"

This is false. Thank you.
 
Kodiak said:
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??
Click to expand...

I already gave you my answer. That you don't like it is not my problem.
 
CFLarsen said:
Yeah. How do you think the kid came to be in the principal's office?
Click to expand...
Simple, at times she was compliant. There are at least 2 ocassions where she is following directions. This was simply one of those times.

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.
Click to expand...
You have not proven this.

Keep on arguing otherwise, though.
Click to expand...
I can only argue the evidence. It is on my side.
 
TragicMonkey said:
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.
Click to expand...
Still waiting.
 
CFLarsen said:
I already gave you my answer. That you don't like it is not my problem.
Click to expand...

Pretend I'm stupid. Could you please take 10 seconds out of your busy day properly instructing law enforcement on how to correctly handle unruly juveniles and point out the post where you answered my questions?

Please, Claus? Show everyone here how you are NOT a social elitist...
 
CFLarsen said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not sure about the actual waltzing, but basically, yes - she went there of her own choice. She was escorted, but not bodily moved (aka the "Larsen Method") to the office. From your link:
Dibenedetto and Tsaousis have two breakthroughs - once when they persuade the girl to clean up a small mess she made near Ottersbach's office and another when they finally get her to leave the classroom with them.

In the second instance, Dibenedetto brings herself to eye level with the girl and tries to get her to talk about why she's upset. She gives the girl the option of walking with her or Tsaousis to the office. When the girl relents, the educators praise her for making an "excellent choice."
Click to expand...
 
Kodiak[/i] Just to be perfectly clear: You consider anything that isn't part of a "normal" upbringing said:
I am talking about handcuffs and their use. They are not part of a normal upbringing.
Click to expand...
This is not an answer. Kodiak asked a sincere question and he deserves a sincere answer.

CFLarsen said:
I already gave you my answer. That you don't like it is not my problem.
Click to expand...
This is a lie. You did not answer the question, you obfuscated.

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

A is bad because it is not part of B.
 
RandFan said:
Simple, at times she was compliant. There are at least 2 ocassions where she is following directions. This was simply one of those times.
Click to expand...

Prove it.

Or am I the only one who has to prove claims?
 
Kodiak said:
Pretend I'm stupid. Could you please take 10 seconds out of your busy day properly instructing law enforcement on how to correctly handle unruly juveniles and point out the post where you answered my questions?
Click to expand...

I can't explain it better.

Kodiak said:
Please, Claus? Show everyone here how you are NOT a social elitist...
Click to expand...

I have no idea what that is.
 
Thanz said:
Not sure about the actual waltzing, but basically, yes - she went there of her own choice. She was escorted, but not bodily moved (aka the "Larsen Method") to the office. From your link:
Click to expand...

(cough) Where does it say that she willingly comes to the principal's office? All it says is that they get her to leave the classroom.

Here's what you left out - and for a good reason:

In the second instance, Dibenedetto brings herself to eye level with the girl and tries to get her to talk about why she's upset. She gives the girl the option of walking with her or Tsaousis to the office. When the girl relents, the educators praise her for making an "excellent choice."
Click to expand...

She is given a choice between the principal or Tsaousis. But there is no choice of going to the principal's office or not.

We have a case, where the cops have been called, because the principal can't control the girl. Does anyone really want to argue that the girl could leave anytime she wanted?

Please! :rolleyes:
 
CFLarsen said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...
I only need to answer your question. You asked me how i thought she came to be in the principles office.

CFLarsen said:
How do you think the kid came to be in the principal's office?
Click to expand...
That IS how I THINK she came to be in the principal's office? If you don't like my answers don't ask me questions.

Or am I the only one who has to prove claims?
Click to expand...
No, sadly you have yet to prove your claims.
 
username said:
How was this girl harmed?
Click to expand...

She was taught (most likely "once again") that physical behavior is the way to deal with a problem.

Next question, please.
 
CFLarsen said:
(cough) Where does it say that she willingly comes to the principal's office? All it says is that they get her to leave the classroom.

Here's what you left out - and for a good reason:
Click to expand...
Can I now call you a liar, Larsen style? Look at my post. I did not leave that out.

She is given a choice between the principal or Tsaousis. But there is no choice of going to the principal's office or not.
Click to expand...
 I read it differently than you do. There is no evidence that she was bodily forced to go to the office. In fact, it says that she relents, and is praised for her excellent choice. The excellent choice is in going to the office - not on who she went with.

If you know anything about kids, you know that the false choice set up is common to get kids to do something you want them to do. You don't ask your kid if they want to get dressed. You don't ask your kid what they want to wear. You tell them that it is time to get dressed - do you want to wear the blue top or the red top? It gives kids the illusion of choice where none really exists. I expect that is what happened here - they told her they have to go to the office and give her the option of escort. If she had still refused to go, I very much doubt she would have been dragged there Larsen style.

We have a case, where the cops have been called, because the principal can't control the girl. Does anyone really want to argue that the girl could leave anytime she wanted?

Please! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Do I think she could leave? No, not really. They likely closed the door and blocked her way. But would they have physically grabbed her or hugged her or carried her anywhere? Likely no.

But, so what? Your solution involved holding her captive. Is this any different? Further, all of this is a smokescreen as you STILL have not provided evidence that she was physically harmed AT ALL, let alone from just the handcuffs.
 
Originally posted by CFLarsen
Not proven, then.
Click to expand...
Your inability to follow along is frustrating.

CFLarsen said:
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?

Randfan
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?

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Yeah. How do you think the kid came to be in the principal's office?

Randfan
Simple, at times she was compliant. There are at least 2 occasions where she is following directions. This was simply one of those times.
Click to expand...
  • We are discussing the possibility of the girl leaving the office (by your own words).
  • You say it is impossible (or at least unlikely).
  • I say it is plausible.
  • You ask for evidence.
  • I give the evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom