Police handcuffing 5-year-old

[Mycroft]

I see that there are no new points made, so I doubt we will get any further with this. There is one thing I would like to have discussed a bit more, though:

If handcuffs are so harmless and effective to control an unruly child, why have nobody used them for this purpose?

I think this question has been asked and answered many times over, hasn't it? Simply put, it has been said over and over that parents have more and better options than what are available to teachers and or police officers.

When are you going to answer the question on how this child was physically harmed?

 

[RandFan]

If handcuffs are so harmless and effective to control an unruly child, why have nobody used them for this purpose?

Most likely it's a perception thing. Kind of why different cultures eat different foods. I think fish eyes have an ick factor to them and so I don't eat them.

Handcuffs are iconic. They represent an extreme. They conjure up visions of children being chained, tied down and handcuffed as a part of abuse. The handcuffs are obviously associated with that abuse.

But on the other hand, there are many stories of children who have simply been locked in their room for months or years as a form of abuse. No handcuffs, chains or rope. Yet we don't make the same link, we don't have the same perception of simply locking a child in a room with abuse. In fact being locked in a room can be scary for a young child. We accept it because it is a norm. Handcuffs are not a norm.

This is just my opinion, FWIW.

 

[RandFan]

Off-topic, but I regret to inform you that irregardless has been promoted to a genuine (albeit lame-ass) word.

Hey, I'm not truly a pedant. It's just that word is like nails on chalkboard to me. I purposely break a number of rules in my writing because I think the rules are wrong in those instances. I think Begging the question and Begs the question should be different and I'm sure that the latter is missused so much that it soon will be.

In any event, if you are correct then this is the most egregious example that I am familiar with since the inclusion of the word "ain't" in the dictionary. As Dino said "Ain't that a kick in the head?"

BTW, what the hell does irregardless mean? Is it regard or regardless? Technically it must mean to regard, right?

Edited to fix spelling errors. I changed "its" to "it's" and "writting" to "writing". In the future I'll have to keep my critiques to myself.

Never mind --Miss Emily Leticia

 

[CFLarsen]

Most likely it's a perception thing. Kind of why different cultures eat different foods. I think fish eyes have an ick factor to them and so I don't eat them.

Can you name one culture that accepts unruly children being handcuffed? One that we would call civilized?

Handcuffs are iconic. They represent an extreme. They conjure up visions of children being chained, tied down and handcuffed as a part of abuse. The handcuffs are obviously associated with that abuse.

Thanks for making my point.

But on the other hand, there are many stories of children who have simply been locked in their room for months or years as a form of abuse. No handcuffs, chains or rope. Yet we don't make the same link, we don't have the same perception of simply locking a child in a room with abuse. In fact being locked in a room can be scary for a young child. We accept it because it is a norm.

That is another discussion.

Handcuffs are not a norm.

This is just my opinion, FWIW.

Handcuffs used on children sure isn't the norm. And what words did you use to describe that kind of use?

"Extreme". "Abuse".

 

[Kopji]

I don't usually post on these subjects because one of my kids was diagnosed with bipolar disorder long ago, and there is a usual stigma associated with it that we are either horrible parents or he's misdiagnosed or whatever... it is not something most people understand and frankly I don't

Our reality means that instead of keeping the sharp kitchen knives in a nice little rack, they are locked in a toolbox so they won't be grabbed during a rage. Our lives are filled with little things like that. There is always the chance that your usually 'normal' kid can 'go off'. You hope it does not happen but it does with little warning.

If it did happen at school, I would hope for a couple things.

1:
This incident went on way too long. If the school had called me at work saying my child was out of control, I can't imagine anything that would keep me from not walking, but RACING to the school. Workplaces usually understand, and if they don't there are always good lawyers to help them understand.

2:
Baring some weird earth splattering reason that I could not get there, I would not want it filmed. Gawd what were they thinking?

3:
I would not want it on the seven o clock news. This in itself is a renewed violation of the child. "See you in court".

4:
I am 'ok' with the restraint the police used. Because I understand this was really extreme. It would be far worse to know your child harmed themselves or someone else's child. Handcuffs are extreme, but in this instance I cannot see how they could be considered child abuse. Child abuse is more of a continued behavior and this was not that.

5:
The lesson for me in anything like this, is that parents need to be involved with their kids. I can't imagine the mom's response in not coming to the school.

 

[RandFan]

I was honestly trying to answer your question. I thought you said that there were no new points to be made. You are a real dishonest a$$hole. You have taken my words out of context and edited them to make it look like I'm saying something that I am not. You are a woo. This is the kind of BS people are pulling on Randi all of the time.

Can you name one culture that accepts unruly children being handcuffed? One that we would call civilized?

And this would prove what? I can't name one, that I can't doesn't prove anything.

Thanks for making my point.

I did not make your point. I said it was a perception thing. Read it again you liar. You are a bold face liar. I said "associated". It is associated with that abuse not that they ARE abuse. Ask Randi sometime, things aren't always as they APPEAR. That is my point. Just because the handcuffs are associated with abuse doesn't mean that they are abuse. Do I need to repeat it?

That is another discussion.

The hell it is. By your logic locking kids in rooms IS abuse. Yet that is what you advocate. Why is that?

Handcuffs used on children sure isn't the norm. And what words did you use to describe that kind of use?

"Extreme". "Abuse".

Yes, and I said that there is an association with the word "abuse", NOT that the act of using handcuffs is abuse. Extreme is not de facto abuse.

You are seriously pathological. And I am not exagerating.

 

[RandFan]

I see that there are no new points made, so I doubt we will get any further with this. There is one thing I would like to have discussed a bit more, though:

If handcuffs are so harmless and effective to control an unruly child, why have nobody used them for this purpose?

I honestly thought you wanted a serious discussion. Not to hash over the same old crap. You are a liar.

 

[RandFan]

When are you going to answer the question on how this child was physically harmed?

Haven't you noticed? Larsen doesn't answer questions unless they suit his purpose. He will however demand others to answer his questions. He is a hypocrite and a liar.

 

[CFLarsen]

That is my point. Just because the handcuffs are associated with abuse doesn't mean that they are abuse.

What do you think? I am not interested in what you think other people think about this. I am asking what you think.

Would you - personally - use handcuffs on your children, if they were unruly? Just yes or no.

If no, why not? Would you be worried about hurting them? Would you be worried what other people think?

 

[Cleopatra]

I said:

Originally posted by Cleopatra
It might be but it might be not.Which scenario you consider more probable?

We won't know because in this case we don't know if such an attempt was made from the part of the teachers.Don't you think that risking to be kicked by a tiny little **** worths the pain?

To which Kodiak replied

Cuffing her is safer and more reasonable given the situation.

If cuffing a kid was the safer practice then school would be equipped with handcuffs.

A side note: Handcuffs do not cause physical harm, they don't even leave marks unless the prisoner resists during the arrest, sometimes the policemen have to twist his arms to put the cuffs on but this is another story. Personally i am not aware even of one incident where handcuffs injured a prisoner.

 

[Cleopatra]

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.

Ok. After all one doesn't need to be an expert in order to form an opinion about an incident of everyday life.

Lawyers will complain about anything. I'm not to impressed with this line of logic but I don't know enough to simply dismiss it.

Lawyers complain only about things that they have a chance to win. If those things are "everything" this is another discussion. The point that you dismissed that easily is that according to the police practice, cuffs are used in order to restraint individuals -potential dangers to police officers and civilians, individuals widely known as " common criminals".

Also, since you mentioned lawyers. Maybe you should correct that to : " American Lawyers" because in Europe lawyers don't encourage citizens to sue each other and the state about everything.

Assumptive and anecdotal

Since in this thread you have been stating YOUR experiencies/anecdotes I thought that you would be open in reading other people's experiences.

I don't accept that in this case. There is no corroborating evidence. People of color are arrested all of the time. Taken to its logical conclusion all of those arrests are race related.

Randfan, I am not surprized you don't accept anything since you are not here to discuss but to demonstrate that we were wrong even to question a practice that appeared odd. What so ever.You asked me what gave me that impression and I replied that there are extensive reports of police brutality towards minorities.

When I was a counselor such actions were expressly forbidden. I can see such actions to be very problematic. If this had been done instead I can see us discussing the inappropriate and abusive actions of the teachers today instead of the police.

Since hugging a kid is considered an abusive behavior?

I find this to be unsubstantiated.

...

Sorry, I don't find any useful argument in this statement.

....

I'm sorry but I find this unfounded and speculative.

....

I am still surprized at your stance. In reality what has pissed you off is that Clauss started the thread and you took it as another silly debate Europe vs USA.

Funny, because the parents in countries of Western Europe are notorious for beating their kids and I have heard in Cyprus that the British used to have specific whips to beat their kids. So, I don't know why any American would feel obliged to "apologize" to a European about this incident.

Anyway. There is something in this story that I have missed. How come the whole incident was filmed? Who asked for a camera?

 

[CFLarsen]

Personally i am not aware even of one incident where handcuffs injured a prisoner.

Plenty.

Here.

Here.

The manufacturers even warn against injury.

Restraints Can Be Deadly Force

If an officer over-tightens, fails to double-lock, or leaves handcuffs on a person for an extended period of time, the person can be severely injured. This type of injury is usually referred to as "handcuff neuropathy." Handcuff neuropathy, similar to carpal tunnel syndrome, is damage to the person's radial, ulnar, and/or median nerves caused by the compression of the handcuffs. This nerve damage can manifest itself as pain in the wrist, hand, and/or fingers; loss of strength and weakness of grip; numbness; loss of flexation; diminished light touch sensation; and tingling sensation in fingers(2). This nerve damage can be long term or permanent. Since such an injury is usually classified as "serious bodily harm", it can be argued that the officer used deadly force.
Source

Perhaps we can drop this idea that handcuffs are safe to use?

 

[Cleopatra]

Claus for a simple transportation from a place that the arrest took place to the closer police station, handcuffs cannot harm anybody.

We are talking about common situations here.

 

[CFLarsen]

How come the whole incident was filmed? Who asked for a camera?

Those are very good questions.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus for a simple transportation from a place that the arrest took place to the closer police station, handcuffs cannot harm anybody.

We are talking about common situations here.

Even in common situations, there are serious precautions to be taken.

And we are not talking about a common situation here, are we?

 

[T'ai Chi]

I see that there are no new points made, so I doubt we will get any further with this. There is one thing I would like to have discussed a bit more, though:

If handcuffs are so harmless and effective to control an unruly child, why have nobody used them for this purpose?

Claud, where is the specific physical harm to this girl?

Keep dodging, pseudoskeptic..

 

[T'ai Chi]

Plenty.

Here.

Here.

The manufacturers even warn against injury.



Perhaps we can drop this idea that handcuffs are safe to use?

Perhaps you could show some stats that handcuffs lead to more harm than not?

Thanks.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Those are very good questions.

Uh, no, it is not.

The originaly news article explains clear as day why the event was being filmed. The teacher was being evaluated on teaching methods, so it was being filmed. When the girl acted up, they kept rolling.

 

[CFLarsen]

Perhaps you could show some stats that handcuffs lead to more harm than not?

Thanks.

Perhaps you could show where I claim that?

Thanks.

 

[TragicMonkey]

She was definitely harmed physically. If you are not convinced, then you are not convinced.

Why don't you try to handcuff your child and see what happens?

Well, Claus, when are you going to tell us what the definite physical harm to this girl was? You've waffled about "the normal upbringing" and now you've pointed out that it's possible for handcuffs to cause physical harm. (I wonder why you didn't think of that four pages ago?) Now, can you tell us what the definite physical harm was in this particular case?

Or are you going to back down and say that it's possible for handcuffing to cause physical harm, although it didn't happen in this particular case. At least, you have advanced absolutely no evidence that it did so.

You could even change your argument to the position that the risk of physical harm from handcuffs, however slight that risk, is unacceptable in this case. But that would be a change in position, as you'd appreciate and leap on with glee if anybody other than yourself made it.