Police handcuffing 5-year-old

[Ladewig]

Police officers generally do not carry "humane" restraints, such as are often aboard ambulances. Perhaps this might have been a better way to go? If the child was out of control, working with paramedics might have been an option.
Then again, maybe not. Not all areas have such personel available.

I'l be surprised beyond belief if you can show me an ambulance that carries humane restraints that are small enough to fit a five-year-old child.

 

[CFLarsen]

It wasn't me who brought DK into the discussion.

It wasn't me either.

 

[Zep]

That's one possible explanation. Another is that she might be suffering from some type of mental illness.

Unless the acting out is of an organic nature and she accidentally or intentionally hurts herself in the time-out room.

Quite correct. In which case the room should contain only a foam matress and a foam pillow, and she would need to be monitored as well. And it would make "taking into police custody under restraint" even less appropriate.

But again, this whole situation needs to be explored with the parent(s) and the appropriate support folks. In this case, they should have started the moment the mother appeared on the scene. Maybe there WAS a medical or mental illness reason why the girl behaved badly. However I would suggest that her response to the appearance of the police and being handcuffed and frogmarched out would suggest she was a fairly "normal" frightened 5yo and not medicated.

 

[SlippyToad]

What was seriously wrong with the actions of the officers to warrant such outrage?

Five-year olds, in addition to weighing usually no more than 50 lbs, are also living in a world of extremes. They likely know that handcuffs mean that they are "evil," since their world is basically broken down into black and white terms. Going from having a temper tantrum to being labeled evil is terrifying.

A school official who can't effectively restrain a five-year-old needs to be fired NOW.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm sorry CFL, but this does not fit RL. Unless children in your country are fed tranquilizers in their milk.

Now, there's an idea...

A real scenario.

Sure, kids throw tantrums. So? It doesn't eliminate the need for adults to be in charge.

 

[CFLarsen]

Five-year olds, in addition to weighing usually no more than 50 lbs, are also living in a world of extremes. They likely know that handcuffs mean that they are "evil," since their world is basically broken down into black and white terms. Going from having a temper tantrum to being labeled evil is terrifying.

Very true.

A school official who can't effectively restrain a five-year-old needs to be fired NOW.

Very true. What happens if they can't effectively restrain a 10-year old? 15?

 

[Kaylee]

It wasn't me either.

I did. Waaaay back on page 1 of the thread. And not because I wanted to damage international relations but because I was curious about alternative ways of handling the situation. In hindsight I can see that wasn't the best way to phrase it. 30 lashes with a wet noodle for me, OK?

 

[Tmy]

Five-year olds, in addition to weighing usually no more than 50 lbs, are also living in a world of extremes. They likely know that handcuffs mean that they are "evil," since their world is basically broken down into black and white terms. Going from having a temper tantrum to being labeled evil is terrifying.

A school official who can't effectively restrain a five-year-old needs to be fired NOW.

She was "evil" and deserved to be handcuffed. I take that back, she deserved 5 ACROSS THE EYES!

Corporal punishment does have its place.

 

[Kerberos]

I did. Waaaay back on page 1 of the thread. And not because I wanted to damage international relations but because I was curious about alternative ways of handling the situation. In hindsight I can see that wasn't the best way to phrase it. 30 lashes with a wet noodle for me, OK?

Make it 50.

 

[Kaylee]

A school official who can't effectively restrain a five-year-old needs to be fired NOW.

I don’t think its that simple. I think its fair to say the school has a no corporeal punishment policy and is not aware of the timeout room idea. However, every school is probably aware of lawsuits. Also I suspect that the administration wanted to get the kid out of their school and I know that's not easy to do in the public school system. Sometimes people use the strategy of giving someone enough rope to hang themselves with. Wasn't it convenient that the whole thing was on tape? And the little girl is in another school now…

Also I notice that a lot of people are concerned about the troublemaker. I feel sorry for her, she is probably just the victim of truly poor parenting skills ... but what about her classmates? Any concern for them? Realistically speaking how much can a teacher with a very large class (in the USA -- almost all public school classes are very large -- average was about 30 among the ones I personally knew about) do to make up for poor parenting skills? I think the school knew what outcome they wanted to have and did the documentation to make it happen. I don't blame them.

 

[RandFan]

I suspect you are being facetious here. We don't put children in handcuffs, for the same reason we don't put them in jail, flog them in public or put them in the stockade.

Is this evidence? Sorry, this is just a woo-woo response.

You don't know me, so your assessment is worthless.

Someone with children would likely understand. It is called inference.

Again, you are more concerned about covering your own ass than solving the problem with the child. If you don't think that putting a child in handcuffs is harmful, why didn't you do it in the grocery store?

No, this does not follow. I can't be sued by someone else for restraining my own child.

I note that you are busy pointing out that there are laws to protect the child from abuse, yet you don't consider handcuffing a child as such. Do you think there is a reason why cops generally don't put kids in handcuffs?

Again, this is evidence? I agree that it might not be a good idea in general I have said this from the very beginning. That is not the point. Can you demonstrate harm?

I am taking her to a safe place. How do you suggest we do that, without "restraining" her in some way? Oh, yeah, sorry: Handcuff her.

Damn straight! Are you just now getting this?

Have you ever used handcuffs on children? If not, why not?

I don't have handcuffs. I've never been in a position that called for them. I'm not a policeman. If I were a policeman in that situation I might. This is NOT evidence.

Yes, you are crystal clear on your priorities: What it looks like to others. You don't give a ◊◊◊◊ about kids.

Non sequitur. Lacking evidence of harm I don't see a reason for outrage. I have said from the very beginning that putting hand cuffs on kids might not be such a great idea.

Look at the child. Listen to her. You tell me she wasn't harmed?

Woo-woo response. You've got to be kidding. Harmed how. Being upset and being harmed are two different things.

Would you treat your own kids like that?

Like what? Putting handcuffs on them? Can you demonstrate that there is harm or is this that wink wink nudge nudge thing?

 

[RandFan]

Go ahead, RandFan. Handcuff your child and see what happens.

Your definitions are non sequiturs. You have NOT shown that there is harm. Again, do you have ANY evidence?

 

[RandFan]

Five-year olds, in addition to weighing usually no more than 50 lbs, are also living in a world of extremes. They likely know that handcuffs mean that they are "evil," since their world is basically broken down into black and white terms. Going from having a temper tantrum to being labeled evil is terrifying.

This is simply specious reasoning. I don't believe that at all. Call me a skeptic but I would like some evidence.

A school official who can't effectively restrain a five-year-old needs to be fired NOW.

When I was a counselor it was forbiden for me to restrain anyone. The school could and likely would be sued for it. We were instructed to call the police. It is very likely that it was the same for this school.

 

[CFLarsen]

Your definitions are non sequiturs. You have NOT shown that there is harm. Again, do you have ANY evidence?

I showed you. Look for "the bleedin' obvious".

Try to handcuff your child and see what happens.

 

[RandFan]

I showed you. Look for "the bleedin' obvious".

Nothing in the post mentions handcuffs.

Try to handcuff your child and see what happens.

I assume that they will be upset, and your point? My children have been upset when I sent them to their room. How is either evidence of harm?

I would not let my child go to her friends house, she was upset.
I would not let my child have a candy bar at the store, he was upset and threw a tantrum.

Being upset is NOT proof of harm. Again, can you cite proof or are you going to continue to offer the very same evidence that woo-woos do, "you just know it dude". It's bleeding obvious there's a god." Sorry, I want PROOF.

I have seen my child upset and they are fine afterwards. A hug, a discussion that is all that is needed.

 

[Tmy]

I showed you. Look for "the bleedin' obvious".

Try to handcuff your child and see what happens.

Yeah you get a recation. Just like when you take away somthing dangerous they found, or give them a timeout, or whatever. Kids often cry when they dont get their way. Should we just let them do as they please?

"Oh little johnny is playing with matches. I best not take them away. He will be upset and emotionally scarred if I do!"

And as kids, we use to play with Police toys. Plastic handcuffs and guns. Oh the horror!

 

[RandFan]

Yeah you get a recation. Just like when you take away somthing dangerous they found, or give them a timeout, or whatever. Kids often cry when they dont get their way. Should we just let them do as they please?

"Oh little johnny is playing with matches. I best not take them away. He will be upset and emotionally scarred if I do!"

Bingo. That they are upset is not proof of harm. Larsen can't get this through his skull.

 

[CFLarsen]

Nothing in the post mentions handcuffs.

I assume that they will be upset, and your point? My children have been upset when I sent them to their room. How is either evidence of harm?

You think you will keep your child if you handcuff him?

 

[Kaylee]

2) If it was clear that the girl was quiet and compliant at the time the police showed up, why did they bother to handcuff her at all? Surely all they had to do was ask her to accompany them to the vehicle, taking her by the hand if necessary.

On that point particularly, I would tend to say that the police did the right thing in removing the girl, but that they overreacted in handcuffing her as she was already "compliant" at that time.

There were a lot of comments on this earlier in the thread. I don't know if you saw them or not? Here's a few of them cut and pasted below. Your post doesn't mention how to deal with the issues the other posters mentioned -- namely police regulations and the obligation to avoid doing anything that can trigger a lawsuit.

Originally posted by Ethos of the Eons
When the cops get there, one says "do you remember me?" Then says something about telling the mom about the handcuffs before.
I'm thinking they are just following through on a previous promise. It certainly did the kid no harm. The kid didn't even sit down until the cops got there. Too little too late kid.

I don't see what the big deal is. Somebody needs to consequence the kids, and apparently the teachers aren't allowed to do anything.

Originally posted by H3LL
Are the police protecting themselves?

If, as has been suggested, the policemen restrained the child by other methods, such as holding her arms etc., would this not cause bruising on a delicate childs skin when she struggles.

As the bruising would be clearly caused by hands, would this leave the officers open to litigation?

Correctly applied handcuffs will cause bruising if the child struggled. That bruising would be evidently self-inflicted.

My thinking was that a child covered in bruises from police hands would cause more outrage and law suits than a child bruised from their own struggles in handcuffs.

I'm guessing here, so would appreciate some feedback.

Originally posted by crimresearch
As seen in this thread, the perception of a crying child in handcuffs is laden with emotional content, but nobody has been able to define the actual harm.

Bruising, abrasions, possibly a dislocated shoulder...none of these look good from a law enforcement policy or liability standpoint when hands are employed.

The sooner that inanimate restraints are employed, the better in most cases.

Originally posted by Bikewer
The youngest child I ever arrested was seven. It was a resisting as well; I and a juvenile detective had to fight with the lad and restrain him. (We won....)

A couple of factors. One, most police departments specify that persons taken into custody must be handcuffed. Many police officers disregard this precaution with particularly compliant individuals, but it's always potentially hazardous.

In this case, with a small child who was evidently having some sort of control problems, one could concievably see the child causing problems in the police car if she were transported to a juvenile facility, or a hospital. Again, departmental procedure may specify this.

Police officers generally do not carry "humane" restraints, such as are often aboard ambulances. Perhaps this might have been a better way to go? If the child was out of control, working with paramedics might have been an option.
Then again, maybe not. Not all areas have such personel available.

Many schools specify that staff and faculty can almost never physically restrain students, unless they are being directly assaulted. The fear of lawsuits looms large.

ETA corrections like misattributed quotes

 

[Tmy]

You think you will keep your child if you handcuff him?

Well Im not a police officer. I can get introuble for handcuffing adults wh/o their permission! No matter how sexy it seemed at the time!