Police handcuffing 5-year-old

[T'ai Chi]

Bump!

What is the evidence of specific physical harm done to this girl?

 

[ranson]

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.

Hailing from WV myself, a likely difference is the reaction of the parents. Whereas the parental unit in the girl's case appears already hostile to the school, and is preparing to sue, the WV parents probably reacted with "Where can we get a set of those cuffs?"

I know that's what mine would have said, and that doesn't make for controversy and news.,

 

[Kaylee]

Yes, it seems the parents' attitudes are completely different in this situation. Per the link in the WV story:

…the boy's parents came to the school to meet with the police chief and a member of the district administration.
"They tried to figure out the problem and why he has these anger fits," said Bankey... [police chief

Emphasis added.

 

[Zep]

Thanks for the info re videotaping - I had forgotten that in the last few days.

IMHO, although it's a guess and I can't substantiate this, I think the school administrators were expecting the mother to sue them. So despite the official reason given, they probably were ready to videotape at any point in order to have whatever documentation they needed to protect themselves. If so, I can't say I blame them.

So would it be fair to say that the situation was more complicated, in a legal sense, than first appeared via this one video?

 

[Kaylee]

So would it be fair to say that the situation was more complicated, in a legal sense, than first appeared via this one video?

Definitely. IMHO.

 

[Zep]

Definitely. IMHO.

So it might have been a number of quite different scenarios, really, with different driving reasons behind them. This is why I asked about how, who and why the videotaping was done (and not who released it to the public - their reason for doing so is fairly obvious).

 

[Suddenly]

There used to be general agreement that a teacher can and should take such action. I find myself longing for the good old days on this one.

However, none of this explains why, if a school decides to allow a teacher to grab a child, that the school should be able to dodge financial responsibility for an injury caused by a zealous teacher grabbing a kid with perhaps a physical condition.

There are a couple of possible explanations. First, if the teacher is acting outside the normal realms of behavior for a teacher, why does the school district bear any responsibility at all?

Because they hired her. They are more at fault than the injured child, and are jointly liable along with the teacher.

Second, when "the school district" has to pay out, who suffers? The school administration?

Yes, politically they do. Heads may roll.

The teachers? No.

Again, the particular teacher may be fired. Other than that they shouldn't be punished as far as I can see...

The students.

I think that is a bit of a stretch. If anyone, I'd say the taxpayers do...

The school district still isn't bearing any responsibility, because no one except the students themselves lose anything. Third, if an injury happens, did someone necessarily "cause" it?

If there is a finding of liability, the jury thinks someone caused it.

That is one of the biggest problems with the lawsuit culture in America. Any time something goes wrong, a cause and a responsible party must be found, it seems.

Sounds about right. Ever consider the alternative? Cars exploding, Coal dams breaking, and so forth are just one of those things. How dare we try to investigate and figure out if these things can be avoided....

When a student has to be restrained, in a very small number of cases, injury will result. I say that controlling the situation is very important, and must be done. The need to get that classroom back in working order should have outweighed the risk of injury to that girl. If an injury does, in fact, occur, then the teacher is not necessarily guilty of anything.

So, according to you, instruction time in a kindergarten class (mostly daycare anyway) is so important as to permit a course of action that not only presents a very small increase in accidental injury, but also a great cover story for abuse?

I think that's a bit nuts.

Our society is so out of whack that those words seem shocking, but I think they are true.

Well, maybe you and Hammy can go bowling sometime...

Then an injury is 10 times more likely to be the result of a hot-head teacher being too rough than chance.

All of these numbers are just made up, but the point is that yes, chance injuries may occur, but I'll bet that more occur because some teacher is a hot-head.

This is a legitimate point In my earlier statements I made it sound as if all injuries would be the result of pure chance, but I don't believe that. If all teachers were allowed to grab children when they are unruly, some teachers will be more likely to cause injury than others. A teacher with a nasty temper is more likely to be involved in an incident that results in an injury than one who is calm, cool, and collected.

Does it follow that the injury that occurred during the confrontation with the "hot head" is a result of "negligence or malice?"

In a legal sense, heck yes. Beyond question. At least negligence. In a moral sense, opinions may vary. I think so, no less than a hot-head that kills someone is moraly culpable. Here the harm is less, so the culpability is less, and I'd be more apt to find a hot-head less culpable than one that acts with specific intent to cause pain, but still culpable of negligence, or maybe even being reckless...

"Hot heads" are one specific sort of human beings, which come in a wide variety of flavors, colors, and personalities. Teachers have responsibility to maintain order in the classroom. On those rare occaisions when they must use physical means to do so, shall we castigate the "hot heads" for normal human failings when they make a mistake that results in an injury?

The last sentence is a key here. I say yes, if it can be avoided, but when talking about lawsuits we are not considering punishment, rather liability, which seeks to place the cost of conduct on the proper party. It seems clear to me that if a teacher hurts a student, the first place that cost should land is the teacher, and the last is the student. The school board falls somewhere between. This isn't about crime and punsihment, just liability.

It's a tough job, and not everyone can do it perfectly. Shall we punish those who make a slightly higher number of mistakes when doing something very difficult?

Well, beyond the objection to "punishment" per se, the answer is yes, if the harm is foreseeable and preventable. This of course goes back to our differing opinions w/r/t to the value of instruction time versus the increased risk. That issue seems to be rather crucial as to the rest of this...

For some reason the school has chosen to err on the side on inaction. I'd speculate that this is because experience has shown that the policy in place carries the least risk of negligent injury once all the variables (including the chance that the teacher is a hot-head) are considered...

I think your speculation is correct. This is precisely what they fear. And, contrary to all conventional wisdom, I am saying that this policy is a mistake. It is the policy which our legal system either mandates, or makes logical through the threat of lawsuits, but, IMHO, it is bad for schools, bad for society, and bad for children.

Again, I have trouble seeing how a policy that carries the least risk of a hurt child is wrong...

When the child on the videotape began the tantrum in class, the way to minimize the risk of negligent injury, and thus the possibility of a lawsuit, was to empty the classroom. I will not fault the school faculty for doing what they did, because of the legal environment. However, in a better world, I think they should have taken the chance on the injury, removed the disturbance (i.e. the girl), and let the rest of the class continue.

If the chance of injury was high, I would probably feel differently, but it was low. However, in order to avoid the smallest chance of injury, the certainty of destroying the education of the rest of the class was allowed to occur.

What do you think was the effect that this incident had on the other members of that class?

Well, I think the disturbance was going to completely distract the rest of the class no matter how it was handled. I'm a cynic so I'd speculate that it gave the children some relief from the BS that passes for education and let them get outside and play like they probably should be doing anyway.... but that is a whole different issue. It may illustrate why I'm a bit unpersuaded by any appeal to lost instruction time.

For what it's worth, I think your arguments related to coverups and motivations for investigations are legitimate. I'm going to ignore them for the moment, just for reasons of length. Anyone who, like me, advocates tort reform ought to have an answer for them.

One thing to consider, though, is whether our tort system is the only possible way to address these problems, or the best. It is what we use today, but it has some severe problems, and if it were not available, there would be a motivation to create some system that could address the problem, without some of the problems caused by the tort system as practiced in America today.

It is highly complex, and the problem I have with "tort reform" (meaning the current Republican form) is that it only focuses on surface negatives usually using anecdotal evidence and dubious statistics, and not on the issues that caused the system to be how it is, such as the cost of health care, not to mention how the positve effects of the system.

Any restrictions on tort access will need to be accompanied by methods to address these problems. I'm all for reform, but just tossing people out of the courts is not "reform." That is just shifting the cost of harm back to those least able to afford and/or prevent it.

 

[Kaylee]

Any restrictions on tort access will need to be accompanied by methods to address these problems. I'm all for reform, but just tossing people out of the courts is not "reform." That is just shifting the cost of harm back to those least able to afford and/or prevent it.

I strongly agree with you on this point but not on many of your statements in the rest of your post (chiefly the importance of kindergarten education). Children are in school to be educated, and by virtue of their immature natures they require discipline from time to time. It makes sense that the people entrusted with the education and care of children in the absence of their parents should be able to handle routine discipline issues. In this thread we've heard from several parents that their schools make good use of timeout rooms, for example. Otherwise the education system simply can't work.

I'll check in again tomorrow morning in case anyone wants me to clarify my last statement … but after that I'm out of this thread. We haven't been covering new ground and while we may not all agree with each other, I think most of us understand each other's positions. Well I confess -- I don't understand the willingness to sharply curtail access to the courts when other solutions could be arrived at. But that is a different topic and could be discussed in a new thread.

 

[Suddenly]

I strongly agree with you on this point but not on many of your statements in the rest of your post (chiefly the importance of kindergarten education). Children are in school to be educated, and by virtue of their immature natures they require discipline from time to time. It makes sense that the people entrusted with the education and care of children in the absence of their parents should be able to handle routine discipline issues. In this thread we've heard from several parents that their schools make good use of timeout rooms, for example. Otherwise the education system simply can't work.

I don't think we are talking about routine cases here. It isn't like the police are called in on a daily basis, just in cases where children become very violent. Besides, I'm all for teachers taking care of this, only that the school board take responsibility for harm, which would likely result in training teachers as to the physical side of things, and also would make videotaping any force a good idea for litigation purposes as to eliminate the "abuse" problem I suggest.

(It would go without saying that said tapes would be tightly controlled to protect the privacy of the student...)

However, schools seem to be handling this risk by adopting policies disfavoring physical contact and leaving that to the cops where necessary. Seems rational to me...

 

[crimresearch]

"In this thread we've heard from several parents that their schools make good use of timeout rooms, for example"

Yes, we've heard anecdotes and opinions about the desirability of those rooms, but has anyone actually provided evidence that these 'timeout rooms' sitting empty, and readily available for all disruptive children, and equipped with pads and pillows and nothing else that would make it unsafe to lock a child in them, actually *exist* in American public schools? Or the school in question?

Are they a New Age fantasy, limited to private upscale daycares, or are they in fact so prevalent in public schools, that teachers should be held to a standard of using them instead of calling the police?

Or are they just wishful thinking in the context of this particular incident?
Wave of hands and the problem child is magically out of sght, out of mind?

Because I'm a parent, and I've been inside multiple public schools as teacher and as parent, and given overcrowding, and shortage of space for teaching etc., I don't know where all of these magical empty, safe, rooms are.

And heaven help the teacher/principal who shoves the violent kid of a litigious parent into a closet, or a vacant classroom, instead of following board policy on notifying the authorities.

At least in the real world.

 

[Suddenly]

"In this thread we've heard from several parents that their schools make good use of timeout rooms, for example"

Yes, we've heard anecdotes and opinions about the desirability of those rooms, but has anyone actually provided evidence that these 'timeout rooms' sitting empty, and readily available for all disruptive children, and equipped with pads and pillows and nothing else that would make it unsafe to lock a child in them, actually *exist* in American public schools? Or the school in question?

Are they a New Age fantasy, limited to private upscale daycares, or are they in fact so prevalent in public schools, that teachers should be held to a standard of using them instead of calling the police?

Or are they just wishful thinking in the context of this particular incident?
Wave of hands and the problem child is magically out of sght, out of mind?

Because I'm a parent, and I've been inside multiple public schools as teacher and as parent, and given overcrowding, and shortage of space for teaching etc., I don't know where all of these magical empty, safe, rooms are.

And heaven help the teacher/principal who shoves the violent kid of a litigious parent into a closet, or a vacant classroom, instead of following board policy on notifying the authorities.

At least in the real world.

Feh... Come to West Virginia.

Outside of a few counties with a strange problem called "economic growth," space isn't a problem... most counties could have entire "timeout schools..."

Perhaps for a small fee you could bus your unruly children here for that purpose? We could use the revenue....

 

[nightwind]

Handcuffs

It is a good idea for all schools to have a padded timeout room, in which out of control juveniles can be thrown into.

I have more problem with this kid tearing things down, hitting the teachers, etc. than I have with the handcuffing, which is just a way of restraining. This kind of behavior in a kid this young is disturbing.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this won't be the only pair of handcuffs that this kid sees during her life.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Because they hired her. They are more at fault than the injured child, and are jointly liable along with the teacher.

Whoa. Wasn't this a public school? If so, isn't there a bit of inconvenient governmental immunity in the way of a negligence case?


N/A

 

[Suddenly]

Whoa. Wasn't this a public school? If so, isn't there a bit of inconvenient governmental immunity in the way of a negligence case?


N/A

Depends on the state I guess... However, that they are negligent is a seperate issue from whether they are immune from suit.

Which is a more complex idea than I even want to think about right now... I know that here is more or less works out that immunity exists unless there is an insurance policy, although it really isn't quite that simple... except that it is. I got an "A" in law school for an exam that had such a question. Thankfully, I've completely forgotten the details.

In Florida I have no idea, but I suspect you are correct that it could be an issue. However, if all it requires is a higher finding of wrongdoing than negligence, say recklessness or worse, as a practical matter all that changes is the instruction that the jury will ignore anyway...

 

[hammegk]

Well, maybe you and Hammy can go bowling sometime...

Couldn't catch your last ambulance?

Again, I have trouble seeing how a policy that carries the least risk of a hurt child is wrong...

Sounds like a lawyers bread & butter to change that policy pronto; "hurt" children should make great lawsuits.

Or maybe you spend your time forcing parents to stop disciplining their kids?

 

[Suddenly]

Couldn't catch your last ambulance?

Nah... by the time I get to my car to chase it there are like 34 guys in front of me....

Sounds like a lawyers bread & butter to change that policy pronto; "hurt" children should make great lawsuits.

They do!!! I need a bigger house as I can't fit a decent sized snooker table in my basement right now, so maybe I should change my stance on the issue...

Or maybe you spend your time forcing parents to stop disciplining their kids?

Nah. No money in that. If parents stopped abusing their children it would dry up all the criminal defense work... not to mention eliminate a useful defense.

Whoops... I'm sorry. I forgot you are a Virginian.

So let me know if you understand, or if I just need to type more slowly...

 

[hammegk]

I think we understand each other, thanks.

Who would you want to represent to maximize your take if the 'cuffed little darling had hurt one or more children, and then been hurt by a teacher stopping her from doing more damage?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Couldn't catch your last ambulance?

Retract that slur.


I have never been beaten to the scene by an ambulance in my career.

 

[gnome]

Re: Handcuffs

It is a good idea for all schools to have a padded timeout room, in which out of control juveniles can be thrown into.

I have more problem with this kid tearing things down, hitting the teachers, etc. than I have with the handcuffing, which is just a way of restraining. This kind of behavior in a kid this young is disturbing.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this won't be the only pair of handcuffs that this kid sees during her life.

Here is an excellent point that the news is seeming to miss--where is this girl's behavior coming from?

Now, I'm not going to claim I have specific evidence that this girl is suffering some kind of abuse at home--but look into the family life of every other instance of a child going violently out of control in school, and I suspect you will find a disturbing pattern.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Depends on the state I guess... However, that they are negligent is a seperate issue from whether they are immune from suit.

[snip]

In Florida I have no idea, but I suspect you are correct that it could be an issue. However, if all it requires is a higher finding of wrongdoing than negligence, say recklessness or worse, as a practical matter all that changes is the instruction that the jury will ignore anyway...

The state may have waived immunity for state entitities in certain situations, and I am not sure about Florida.

The majority position would not allow any suit unless the Plaintiff could fit a cause of action under Federal law -- specifically a civil rights violation under 1983 or similar statute -- which uses a standard tantamount to intentional conduct. Hard to even get it to a jury against the school itself (trust me on this one). Many states do provide exceptions, however, and Florida may well do so.

N/A