Police handcuffing 5-year-old

[RandFan]

RandFan thank you for your thoughtful response.

Thank you.

Are you buttons easily pushed? I wonder why you don't have me as a model that I am a shining example of civility and serenity.

As long as we realize we are human and try to calibrate for biases and ego.

Of course it helps if everyone simply realizes that I am always right.

Seriously, I have the impression that from the very first response you were irritated. Claus has the " charisma" to drive people crazy but this time he was innocent he didn't post anything provocatively initially.

My problem is not his opinion but that he expects all of us to share that opinion. He doesn't think that those who disagree can be reasonable. I have said I can respect those who disagree.

I agree but there are cases --and this is a classic example-- that behaviors are judged that we have nothing but our experience to offer because even studies contradict one the other. I don't have children but I am the president of the board of an institution that used to belong to the Greek Church and provides for kids of the streets, gypsies mostly. I visit them almost everyday and there are days that I wish to do to them things that handcuffing seems innocent in comparison

You know, an hour ago I was thinking that maybe the outrage was caused by the fact that we say the policemen treating a child as an adult and this is what shocked us.

Without a forensic examination we cannot tell whether the kid was physically harmed or not, I believe that it hasn't been harmed at least from what I saw.

Yes and this thread is a good lesson for those who think that everything can be subjected to a skeptical approach. Behaviors cannot be approached like that. This doesn't mean that we cannot exercise critical thinking but there are cases where evidence is not that... evident!

Yes I do understand. In the institution I mentioned previously we have teachers and a couple of them have confessed to me that their dream is to collect money and continue their studies in the States. When I saw the video on TV I felt that I believe in your system more than some teachers do. I respect the Police Force but when teachers call the Police I believe that there is something wrong here, something that needs to be investigated and fixed.

I don't have any problem with having an investigation and if I hope the police are not called in the future. Hopefully we can solve these problems without them. I have said that this incident may very well have been handled without the police.

Thanks Cleo, You are always Classy.

 

[RandFan]

--------------------------------

Since you brought it up, and I ain't any linguistics major...pick the one that suits you.

I ain't either. If I were there wouldn't be so many "Last edited by RandFan on..." notes on the bottom of my posts.

BTW, are you the great "I am"?

 

[Kaylee]

The kiddie leash is a form of restraint. It's not all that common, (I think they were moderately popular in the late 80s/early 90s.) and a bit weird, maybe even out of "normal" usage nowadays.

The kid doesn't seem to be physically harmed by the device.

I recall seeing them used sometimes in the 60s and 70s on 2 or 3 year olds, usually by mothers with large families, full arms (groceries, etc.) and lots of distractions. It may not look pretty but it's probably better than a lost toddler. I haven't seen them lately, but my current neighbors tend to make more use of babysitters, daycare and deliveries. Or keep them strapped inside a stroller.

I agree the kiddie leash looks weird, but I never saw a kid unhappy to be on one. I've seen more kids cry about being kept strapped in a stroller when the parents were too harassed to keep a watchful eye on them and let them out so they could walk instead.

 

[RandFan]

I know, but I did vote GOP at state and local level, where educational issues are more important.

I just couldn't bring myself to not vote against W.

I know lot's of people in the same boat. It's understandable. I drove a close friend to an anti war demonstration and promised her to keep an open mind during the whole thing. Still I voted for Bush. She forgave me.

 

[crimresearch]

I'm intrigued by the lack of commentary on the similar incident that occured in Friday in West Virginia.

http://www.dailymail.com/news/News/2005042622/

Given that the incident with the 5 year old occured weeks ago, but got no interest until the video was broadcast, I'm guessing that lack of video plays a role in the non-response to the handcuffed 7 year old case.

Which may play into the notion that emotional reactions to images from the TV screen are powerful, but not neccesarily logical... or useful.

 

[Renfield]

I saw the video and I don't necessarily think there was any choice in the matter. The child could easily have been restrained by 'holding' her arms behind her...at a distance to prevent getting kicked...but, unless the adult was willing to bruise the child, this was probably the safest, most prudent way to handle the situation.

I saw some commentater on television saying the student needed a "timeout". I think the people who are horrified at this have never had to deal with a truly unruly child, one who was destroying property, uttering profanities, committing violence against adults and others students. Sorry, but these students need a little stronger discipline then a timeout, and communication is not the problem. The whole reason the police were called and the school videotaped this is the severity of this students bad behavior.

 

[crimresearch]

I recall seeing them used sometimes in the 60s and 70s on 2 or 3 year olds, usually by mothers with large families, full arms (groceries, etc.) and lots of distractions. It may not look pretty but it's probably better than a lost toddler. I haven't seen them lately, but my current neighbors tend to make more use of babysitters, daycare and deliveries. Or keep them strapped inside a stroller.

I agree the kiddie leash looks weird, but I never saw a kid unhappy to be on one. I've seen more kids cry about being kept strapped in a stroller when the parents were too harassed to keep a watchful eye on them and let them out so they could walk instead.

Cleopatra's manufactured distress aside, unless one's child is travelling on all fours, those things are hardly leashes, in the dog leash context.

What they were, was sensory feedback device for the parent who wanted a signal when a child tried to travel outside of close proximity.

Using them to yank a kid around or otherwise hurt the child, is (much like handcuffs) probably all in the mind of the beholder.

 

[Renfield]

I hate to ask questions. It seems that sometimes it is inappropriate to question some of the posters here at JREF. What was seriously wrong with the actions of the officers to warrant such outrage? Have handcuffs been shown to cause any serious or lasting harm? Short term harm?

Aren't handcuffs part of the policy of police to subdue individuals? Are there rules not to handcuff individuals based on age?

The child wasn't hurt. Being cuffed and put in a police car was frightening I'm sure, but that kid needed a shock. These days there's so little a school can do discipline wise. Now you can't even have the police remove a student that's become violent?

 

[Renfield]

In my case, that is exactly correct. I don't think it is appropriate to treat a five year old as if she were a dangerous felon. The handcuffs themselves don't bother me. The fact that she had to be handed over to police bothers me.

You don't have to be a fellon be taken in by the police just. Being destructive, violent, a public nuisance and a danger to those around you is enough. Sounds like this kid qualified.

 

[Mycroft]

Am I the only one who thinks this child-restraint looks like some jr. BDSM fantasy?

I can see the harm.

 

[Phrost]

Wow, 15 pages because Claus hates America and his ideaology overrules his skepticism.

Seriously bro, you've lost the argument. You're losing your credibility as a skeptic and publisher of a skeptical website by engaging in wooish debating tactics.

The reasonable position on the subject should be derrived from the facts that:

* You weren't there, you only saw a video of a single incident.
* You don't know the history of the child for certain, her home situation, or medical/mental history.
* The child was destroying the office to which she had been removed from her class for unacceptable behavior.
* The child was striking the adult which while not a serious physical risk to the adult, still needed to be dealt with in some manner so as to not encourage similar behavior in the future.
* The child was climbing on chairs and tables which posed an immediate risk of injuring herself.
* Reasonable attempts to do get her to stop the behavior verbally had failed, and the school was not empowered legally to restrain the child.

So how do you manage to draw the conclusion that the people who finally did restrain the child were in the wrong? It makes no sense at all, if you're being intellectually honest, objective, and dispassionate.

What we do know of the history also supports her being restrained, as one of the officers had previously warned her that the next time she acted like that she would be handcuffed.

I'd ask you if you'd support a policy that allowed school administrators to use soft, padded, handcuff-like restraints, but given your history of being completely irrational in this thread I don't feel I'd get a straight answer from you.

Sheesh.

 

[clk]

You're losing your credibility as a skeptic and publisher of a skeptical website by engaging in wooish debating tactics.

He's a publisher of a skeptical website? Man, if that's true, then I'm sad to say that I've just lost some respect for the skeptic's movement

 

[crimresearch]

Anyone can have a website, and put up other people's skeptical articles...

That doesn't make them a skeptic, anymore than having a website with every available scrap of information on Madonna makes you an entertainer. Not even if Madonna herself occasionally says nice things about your website.


Or maybe I'm just being too...skeptical.

 

[specious_reasons]

He's a publisher of a skeptical website? Man, if that's true, then I'm sad to say that I've just lost some respect for the skeptic's movement

SkepticReport.com - it's in his sig.

To be fair, Claus does do a good job of bringing in articles from good people, and he also has some skill at debunking paranormal claims.

Claus has blind spots in his critical thinking and unfortunate behavioral quirks, but that is not unique or special to Claus.

 

[clk]

SkepticReport.com - it's in his sig.

To be fair, Claus does do a good job of bringing in articles from good people, and he also has some skill at debunking paranormal claims.

Claus has blind spots in his critical thinking and unfortunate behavioral quirks, but that is not unique or special to Claus.

If he made a mistake and admitted it, then that wouldn't be a big deal. But when the editor of a Skeptic's magazine starts using obvious fallacies:

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

and then sticks to the fallacy for pages on end, then you have to wonder, what differentiates him from a 'woo woo'? And do the editors of other skeptical journals share the same type of attitude as Claus? God, I hope not.

 

[RandFan]

If he made a mistake and admitted it, then that wouldn't be a big deal. But when the editor of a Skeptic's magazine starts using obvious fallacies:


and then sticks to the fallacy for pages on end, then you have to wonder, what differentiates him from a 'woo woo'? And do the editors of other skeptical journals share the same type of attitude as Claus? God, I hope not.

Yeah, I'm kind of torn. My ego aside, I was really impresed with him when I first encountered his posts and I liked his web site. Sometimes ego pushes you farther than you should go. I've had some weak arguments. At least give it a rest before you hit 9 pages. I think my weakest arguments were made when Earthborn was in the mix. She is good at spotting arguments and holding one's feet to the fire. That's beside the point. I guess I'm just saying that I'm not perfect.

 

[clk]

Yeah, I'm kind of torn. My ego aside, I was really impresed with him when I first encountered his posts and I liked his web site. Sometimes ego pushes you farther than you should go. I've had some weak arguments. At least give it a rest before you hit 9 pages. I think my weakest arguments were made when Earthborn was in the mix. She is good at spotting arguments and holding one's feet to the fire. That's beside the point. I guess I'm just saying that I'm not perfect.

No doubt that everyone has made weak arguments. But few people stick to flat out logical fallacies. And to see this type of thing coming from an editor of a skeptic's magazine....
I hope you are right, and that he is just being stubborn and realizes that he is wrong.

 

[Kopji]

My concern on the videotape aspect is that it analogous to putting the child in stocks for public ridicule.

Welcome to the Politics Forum!

 

[RandFan]

No doubt that everyone has made weak arguments. But few people stick to flat out logical fallacies. And to see this type of thing coming from an editor of a skeptic's magazine....
I hope you are right, and that he is just being stubborn and realizes that he is wrong.

Yeah, I agree.

 

[Zep]

Ahhh yes, the usual Zep...go for the ad homs about disabilities when you don't have facts and can't hold an honest discussion...

Talk about ad homs...

And speaking of being truthful, who do you suppose posted this?

"In their situation I would have let the girl simply bash my hands and arms as I walked backwards to the time-out room (5yo kids don't hit that hard!) - easily possible because the girl was far too preoccupied in hitting stuff to see where she actually was."

Gee, I wonder who.

Look, let's go over this again slowly.


1) The five year old child had a tantrum.
2) She was simply looking for attention, ANY attention.
3) The teachers let her hit them rather than the other children.
4) The teachers were providing the attention to the child BY BEING THERE.
5) The child repeated the tantrum whenever the teachers were present.
6) The child was not hurting herself, just stuff.
7) The teachers were prevented BY LAW from dealing with the situation.
8) The police were NOT prevented BY LAW from dealing with the situation.
9) The police, all five of them as per "procedure", handcuffed the five year old girl to remove her.

Now, can we be assured that you have read and understood this? This is my own viewpoint on the situation. My suggested solution, AS WRITTEN ABOVE MORE THAN ONCE, would have been:

1) Remove all attention to the girl's tantrum, INCLUDING the teachers' presence.
2) Isolate and contain the girl in a location where she can be monitored.
3) Remove her from the school premises to the parent(s).

OK, now is that sufficient for you?

Where are these magical imaginary 'time out rooms' in public schools? Have you ever even been inside one of these schools to see how every inch of space is double, triple, and quadruple used?

I went to 9 public schools during my education, all across Australia. All of them had some place unruly children could be deposited in isolation (usually outside in the principal's office). Some of them used other available rooms, one simply left the child standing in the hall.

But you still maintain the fiction that every unmanageable child in an overcrowded school has a nice quiet, empty, and completely safe room waiting for them, where they can be herded and left alone to magically get over whatever is behind their behavior.

You invented that fiction, not me. I await YOUR explanation of where you got it from.

Do you have the faintest clue as to what the causes of such behavior can be, before you rule out everything but a tantrum? Or can you now make psychic medical diagnoses from a video, like Claus?

Actually, I do know. And I also know my limitations in diagnosing children's behaviour. This child was throwing a classic tantrum - it was quite clear. As to WHY she was doing that then I clearly don't know for sure - I can hazard a guess or two, but that's an issue for social services, NOT the school.

And pray tell us then, what is the staff on that videotape doing, and how exactly is it different from what you claimed you would have done in their stead?

It was fine, UP TO A POINT. By allowing the girl to CONTINUE to hit them, and then try to "discuss" the situation with her or reason with her, they were providing the very attention she was seeking and that positively fueled her behaviour pattern, so the tantrums continued.

I think you will find that most parents here will confirm that you can't "reason" with little children like you can with adults - they simply don't have that capability at that age. They just know what they want, and they VERY quickly work out what they need to do to get it. In this case, the girl threw a tantrum because it gained attention for her, and children crave attention. So, no attention, no tantrum. Remove the audience, isolate, contain - as I have been saying.