Police handcuffing 5-year-old

[Cleopatra]

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

You are an endless source for sig lines, Nozed. You could become rich by writing fortune cookies lines

 

[crimresearch]

Re: Re: Handcuffs

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.

Actually, isn't it the case that when questions were raised about the girl's many moves from school to school, and possible causes of such behavior, that the mother abandoned the limelight rather quickly?

Not that we should or could infer anything from that...

But rather to point out that those who have assured us that this was only a normal tantrum, and not something caused by trauma, pathology, or worse...haven't got a source for those assurances.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

You are an endless source for sig lines, Nozed. You could become rich by writing fortune cookies lines

"You should travel to meet an incredibly handsome stranger."






It was worth a shot.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Bumpet bump

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

 

[Cleopatra]

"You should travel to meet an incredibly handsome stranger."
]

It's a typical line I find in my PM Box almost on a daily basis. I hoped that they have paid you to come up with it.

 

[Meadmaker]

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?

It's important enought that the taxpayers pay for it. Whether or not that is a good idea, I'm not sure, but since we are paying for it, it might as well happen.


In a legal sense, heck yes. Beyond question. At least negligence. In a moral sense, opinions may vary.

The law and morality really ought to coincide. If they don't there is something wrong with the law. I believe that in our society, the law doesn't match morality.

When did it happen that imperfection became negligence? That's what we are talking about here. A child is injured because a teacher, doing something important, but slightly dangerous, makes a mistake in a difficult situation.

Not every mistake ought to be'"negligence".


but when talking about lawsuits we are not considering punishment, rather liability,

Then why do they call them "punitive" damages?

If we were limited to having medical bills paid, I could see your point, but that isn't what happens in a lot of lawsuits.

Let's consider the current case. What was the injury? Nothing. What harm occurred? None. But there is at least one lawyer out there who thinks it is worth a shot to get this case to a jury, because he thinks he can get a bigger car when it's over.

And when did a bruise become an injury?

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...

I think that is, indeed the central issue, so let's examine it.


We, as a society, have determined that instructing young people in academic subjects is of great value. So much so that we are not only willing to pay for it, but in fact we require everyone to participate. No exceptions.

So, if one student is creating a situation that makes instruction impossible, that student is causing a loss of something that society has deemed important. (In case anyone wonders, I strongly agree with society in that matter.)

Since that student is depriving the other students of something of value, then it stands to reason that it is important that an environment where people can receive that education should be restored. The only question is how much are we willing to risk in order to restore the positive educational environment.

Our society, currently, says that almost no risk is acceptable. Even the tiny amount of risk that would accompany physically removing a disruptive student against her will is deemed beyond the acceptable level of risk We know this, because people are held liable for taking that level of risk in the event something goes wrong. If punitivfe damages are assessed, they are in fact punished for taking that risk.

I think it is a problem.

One way to examine the issue is to compare our current situation with those of ancient days, such as when I was a kid in the 1970s. The emergency rooms weren't filled with injured students who had received abuse by their teachers. Indeed, I feel confident that the school I attended was safer than the school my son will attend. I think if you compared injury rates to students on school grounds from the 1970s to today, you would find that more students are injured today as a result of violent confrontations. I attribute part of that safety to the fact that teachers in my school were allowed to take appropriate actions on small problems, before they became big problems.

P.S. I'm still thinking about the cover-up related issues. I'll get to them, and how they apply to school cases.

 

[gnome]

Bumpet bump

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

I think the only person that was arguing this has left the thread.

 

[crimresearch]

But we still aren't done holding our breath for those who assured us that this was just a normal tantrum, to share their sources, are we?

 

[gnome]

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...

Has any study been done of this? I have always suspected the judge's final instructions to the jury to be heavily influential. Sure, some may have already made up their mind and will vote that way without much debate. But for those that actually plan on thinking about it, discussing it, and making a rational decision, that is valuable guidance. I also half suspect that there are more of the deliberating type than the knee-jerk type on most juries, just because people without a lot of patience will often find an excuse to avoid jury duty anyway.

These are completely subjective ideas, not backed up by any experience at all. I welcome any contradiction by people with real knowledge of how it goes.

 

[Iamme]

Bumpet bump

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

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

Nothing.

So...since it's nothing, I have decided to call the police on you where they will promptly come and handcuff you. See how you like it.

 

[Zep]

Re: Re: Handcuffs

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.

I think I may have mentioned this before, myself.

What I saw was a child that had already learned, before going to school, that a violent tantrum will always gain her what she desires if it is denied her. Her age, and her mother's response, suggests that (mis)behaviour was learned at home.

 

[Zep]

A legal question: If the child had hurt the teacher during her little tantrum (let's say by way of example that she stabbed the teacher's hand with a pencil) to an extent that the teacher was the suffering party, to what extent can the school sue the child (OK, the child's parent(s)) for medical bills and other punitive damages?

 

[T'ai Chi]

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

Nothing.

So...since it's nothing, I have decided to call the police on you where they will promptly come and handcuff you. See how you like it.

I don't think I'd like it. I don't think the girl liked it. But that doesn't address claus's claim of there being physical harm done. Not liking something is not the same as being physically harmed.

Too bad he ran from this thread, but it was expected. I'm sure he learned something, at least, if he is truly as open minded as he wants us to believe, that everyone making claims needs to provide evidence, not just those he gets off on calling "woos".

 

[c0rbin]

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

Nothing.

So...since it's nothing, I have decided to call the police on you where they will promptly come and handcuff you. See how you like it.

Yep. I have seen people get arrested. By people I mean adults, peers, drunks, and vagrants. Some of them reacted just like a two-year old getting strapped into the foldy seat in the shopping cart.

WHHHAAAAAAA!

 

[LostAngeles]

Apparently the girl was on "A Current Affair" tonight. I noticed the program description as I turned it over for "The Simpsons." I doubt any of us happened to see it.

 

[Zep]

It was on one of our shallow nightly current affairs programs last week. The (predictable) commentary was along the line "Only in America..."

 

[rdtjr]

I'd just like to point out, for those longing for the "good old days" when teachers could physically punish students that the reason that no longer happens is because some of those teachers and administrators were sadistics bastards who beat the hell out of kids.

Frankly, while the pendulum has swung probably too far the other way, we are mostly better off these days. I have too many relatives or older co-workers who suffered under at least one angry priest or nun, or some public school official with a little too much of a taste for dishing out the pain. I would rather err on the side of caution and let the parents deal with it. And when parents prove incapable or unwilling to deal with their children (as appears to be the story in this case) call the police, call DCPS and let them deal with the socially maladjusted tot and the poor parenting.

 

[Suddenly]

The law and morality really ought to coincide. If they don't there is something wrong with the law. I believe that in our society, the law doesn't match morality.

Law and morality are never going to coincide on a 100% basis, simply because different people will have a different idea of what morality is and the law must be universal.

(Plus the law should also be limited to public matters, and not private, but that is a whole different issue)

When did it happen that imperfection became negligence? That's what we are talking about here. A child is injured because a teacher, doing something important, but slightly dangerous, makes a mistake in a difficult situation.

If we could isolate that issue, you have a good point.

The problem is that the difference between a mistake, negligence, and even intentional harm is the subjective mental state of the teacher. Which is a larger problem that can only be solved by some sort of mind-reading device.

Not every mistake ought to be'"negligence".

I'd agree. However, we also wonder if a simple mistake occurs who should pay the medical bills, the person making the mistake or the person suffering it...

Which is a whole different question, I know, but as the next snippet reflects we may have different ideas of what we are talking about.

but when talking about lawsuits we are not considering punishment, rather liability,

Then why do they call them "punitive" damages?

If we were limited to having medical bills paid, I could see your point, but that isn't what happens in a lot of lawsuits.

Punitive damages cannot be recovered in simple negligence cases, only compensatory damages such as medical bills and pain and suffering. Punitive damages usually require an higher level of culpablity than negligence. Some intent would have to be shown by someone, like if a teacher had a long history of hurting children and the school left her in a position to continue, that would be an appropriate situation for punative damages...

Punitive damages are special damages that require special proof. They are not a normal part of a civil remedy. However, when punitives are awarded in great amounts, it attracts quite a bit of attention...

Let's consider the current case. What was the injury? Nothing. What harm occurred? None. But there is at least one lawyer out there who thinks it is worth a shot to get this case to a jury, because he thinks he can get a bigger car when it's over.

What would be his point? That the teacher should have handled it?

He's going to get "Claus"ed. He has to produce evidence of harm or he gets no jury.

Idiot lawyers are part of the cost of any system in a free society where people have the right to access a court.

 

[Suddenly]

A legal question: If the child had hurt the teacher during her little tantrum (let's say by way of example that she stabbed the teacher's hand with a pencil) to an extent that the teacher was the suffering party, to what extent can the school sue the child (OK, the child's parent(s)) for medical bills and other punitive damages?

If I assume no special laws or immunity issues...

I don't think the school can sue because it was not the harmed party. The teacher was. So, if I answer that question...



The main issue is whether the teacher assumes any risk of injury based on her acceptence of employment. This also suggests the issue of whether this is considered an injury caused by a workplace condition, in which case I think all U.S. states have a "workers compensation" which pre-empts tort law, and gives the teacher a claim against the school.

This is a no-fault system. The teacher needs to show only a workplace injury in order to recieve compensation for medical bills, lost work and so forth.

This is what would usually be the result, but if this were not to apply for whattever reason...

The first issue seems to be whether under the law of the state that the child is old enough to be found liable in tort. This differes greatly. If not, then it ends, unless they try to claim the parent was negligent in how the child was raised thus causing the injury, but good luck with that...


If there is no age problem legally I think they could sue the child and the parent under that same hard to spell (respondeat superior?) doctrine that allows one to sue an employer for the actions of an employee... which as I recall really results in joint and several liability but that may be getting to technical...

 

[Suddenly]

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?

Duh!! All of them!!!

A class action suit against the school board, the firm building the school, and every corporation that supplied any building materials. Clearly, the construction of the school was negligent in that the design led to air quality and lighting issues that lead to predictable aggressive behavior among students and faculty, thus causing all schoolplace injuries ever and all the profound psychological damage associated with them.

I plan to ask for 398 million, but I'll settle for 1 million in attorney's fees and a new pencil for each named plaintiff...