Police handcuffing 5-year-old

[CFLarsen]

Straw man. You know better. This was a extreme circumstance and you know it. Stop lying.

I am neither lying or creating a straw man.

The police are also there to protect order. When I was a counselor I was told to call police in the event a child could not be calmed down. This is SOP for many institutions.

Oh, please! Is the police called every time a child throws a tantrum, yes or no?

If no, why in this case?

I don't know. I have said that perhaps it was wrong. I wasn't there.

You read the accounts. Judging from that, what do you think?

 

[CFLarsen]

Police exist to protect order. The fact that police were called is NOT proof that someone thought that there was a crime. You are being illogical.

The girl was breaking things and hitting. That is a crime BTW. People are arrested all of the time without charges being filed.

A 5-year old breaking things is a crime? Yeah, talk about Public Enemy No. 1! John Dillinger and this girl! PEOPLE BEWARE!!

 

[CFLarsen]

That proves NOTHING. It has been rebutted. There was nothing about handcuffs. You have not established that the act of handcuffing is abuse. Your making a non sequitur.

It is revealing that you mix up your counter-arguments, but I'm OK with that. It's your problem and not mine.

What will it take for you to admit that you are wrong?

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

You are calling handcuffing a child a "reasonable action"? Are you out of your f****ng mind?? How can you possibly condone that kind of behavior?



I am discussing the child in the OP. Are you?



I am striving to be honest. I simply cannot comprehend that you could possibly condone that a 5-year old was handcuffed, simply because she threw a tantrum.

How can you be so hostile to children?

in all fairness to MyCroft and Randfan, I think I understand where they are coming from... I think they have clearly stated they don't condone nor condemn the reaction to the child's behaviour. They don't see evidence of harm. I don't understand the necessity to demonise MyCroft and Randfan, or attribute to them hostility to children. I don't see why anyone needs to condone of condemn if they don't see things your way CFLarsen

 

[T'ai Chi]

Is this a job for the police? Should we call the police every time a kid throws a tantrum? I'm sure every criminal would love that!

Strawman alert! No one ever suggested doing that for every time a kid throws a tantrum.

The police are there to fight crime.

You are deluded to believe that that is the only function of police.

Had you taken the time to read the article, you would have discovered that she was calm when the police arrived.

Had you read AND understood my post, you'd have read AND understood that this apparently wasn't the first time she'd done such a thing. Additionally, how do you know that she wasn't just acting calm as soon as the police walked in? Additionally, if you'd have read AND understood a link I provided, you'd have read AND understood that she was reported to have been kicking police.

 

[RandFan]

You are calling handcuffing a child a "reasonable action"? Are you out of your f****ng mind?? How can you possibly condone that kind of behavior?

This is just an emotional response. You are trying to bully. Fallacy. Yes, it could be reasonable.

I am discussing the child in the OP. Are you?

You better damn well believe it and you still have NOT proven that the girl was harmed.

I am striving to be honest. I simply cannot comprehend that you could possibly condone that a 5-year old was handcuffed, simply because she threw a tantrum.

I am saying that absence of harm it is not a reason for outrage.

How can you be so hostile to children?

Where the hell does this come from? This is just a straw man.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I have. If you don't want to accept it, I can't do any more.

Claused-minded, where do you directly state the harm that is being done to the girl?

She is being labelled as a bad person?

Generally if you trash a place, hit people, kick officers, and do similar things in the past, ... that is bad behavior.

So, again, what is the real harm that was done?

 

[RandFan]

I am neither lying or creating a straw man.

Sadly, and I say that with all sincerity that is exactly what you are demonstrably doing. Putting handcuffs on someone is not the same as handcuffing that person to a table for 18 hours. That is wrong for any person of any age.

Oh, please! Is the police called every time a child throws a tantrum, yes or no?

A straw man. We clearly don't think so. Stop demanding answers when it takes you pages and pages of posts to answer a question. And there are a number of questions that you have never answered in other threads so back off.

If no, why in this case?

HeeelllooooOOOOO.... Have you not been paying attention. This was an extreme incident. Watch the video again.

You read the accounts. Judging from that, what do you think?

That I don't know what the policies were. That I don't know what was in the head of the police officer. That I don't know if there wasn't a previous incident where this child responded badly when the police were involved. {sheesh}

 

[RandFan]

It is revealing that you mix up your counter-arguments, but I'm OK with that. It's your problem and not mine.

??? What??? Can't you be coherent? Nothing in your "bleedin obvious" post proves that handcuffing a child is abuse.

What will it take for you to admit that you are wrong?

Being proven wrong. What will it take you to admit that you do not have a single piece of evidence that this girl was harmed?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Are you out of your f****ng mind??

This from someone who, when on a plane, seeing someone with a gun, would kill first and ask questions later, irrelevant if the person with the gun can carry it legally, is an air marshall, etc., most likely endangering himself and others because he wants to play superhero! Give us all a break.

I am striving to be honest. I simply cannot comprehend that you could possibly condone that a 5-year old was handcuffed, simply because she threw a tantrum.

How can you be so hostile to children?

You are still being highly dishonest here. That much is obvious. She did more than throw a tantrum (although, before you said she did "nothing", and now you're changing your story!). We know that some relevant things are

-swung many times at other people, endangering others
-totally trashed an office
-climbed upon and stood on a table, endangering herself
-wasn't compliant to the majority of adult commands
(did all the above for about an hour total)
-kicking officers (source: http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2005/4/22/78949.html)
-the girl's behavior had prompted the school to call city police a few days earlier (source: http://www.sptimes.com/2005/04/23/S..._of_disc.shtmle)

To me, it sounds like

a) present danger to herself and others, and
b) there was at least one similar episode in the past

Moreover, it sounds like after a past episode, the mother was informed that handcuffs would be put on the girl (source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=694504&page=2)

Perhaps it was to send a message to girl, but mostly to her parents, that this continued behavior is NOT tolerated in a place of learning?

You ignore evidence that it has happened before, and that the mother was warned about it. You also ignore a completely trashed office, the kicking of police officers, and other relevant factors. You have still not coherently detailed all the harm that this girl supposedly took.

That is dishonest ignoring of the facts by you, not by randfan.

 

[Orwell]

Not even comparable.

That is called specious reasoning. It was upsetting. Sending a child to his or her room for the first time can be pretty scary.

Sure, most of us agree. We have said as much. That is not our point. Why the outrage?

Sure, but absense of harm why the outrage?

So handcuffing a 5 year old girl is perfectly acceptable, right? It's not overkill; it's a separate incident unconnected with the general behaviour of Floridian police forces. Right-o.

Boy, things must be pretty tense down in Jebland!

Oh sorry, I know, specious reasoning...

 

[username]

Is this a job for the police? Should we call the police every time a kid throws a tantrum? I'm sure every criminal would love that!

I am going to give the school administration the benefit of the doubt unless there is evidence to the contrary. That the police were called suggests to me that this child was way out of control. The word 'tantrum' suggests routine childish behavior. All kids have tantrums now and then. I assume the police being called indicates this was something more than a tantrum and included the child attempting to hit others. Assault is the kind of thing that needs to be dealt with severely, the earlier the better as far as I am concerned. It is a line that must never, ever be crossed. Kids who grow up having their 'tantrums' tolerated are only going to grow bigger and stronger.

I have a child the same age as this child. He has tantrums. I usually ignore them or at most talk to him to try and calm him down. He doesn't attempt to hit me when he has tantrums nor does he damage property. If he ever did my disclipline would go far beyond talking or ignoring. I don't know what this child actualy did beyond the description I read that included assault. I don't care the age, that kind of behavior warrants more than a calm talking to.

The police are there to fight crime. Is it a crime for a child to throw a tantrum? Don't you think that's going over the top here?

I think it is possible this was an overreaction, but as I said I am giving the school administration and police the benefit of the doubt. Even if it was an overreaction I am with the others who stated they don't see any harm in cuffing the girl. Perhaps if she had some sort of discipline at home others wouldn't have to do it for the parents.

Had you taken the time to read the article, you would have discovered that she was calm when the police arrived.

As I said this may have been an overreaction. However, if the police were told this child frequently or easily became physically violent then I don't blame the cops for cuffing her. It is, in my opinion, a reasonable measure to take to ensure everyone's safety including the child's. Again, I see no harm in the act of cuffing her other than possible shame. In my opinion this child should feel ashamed for her actions.

She was calm when the police arrived. Do you still think it was appropriate to handcuff her?

Depends. There certainly are circumstances under which I would think it appropriate. Even if overkill, I still see absolutely no harm being done to the child. What harm do you see the girl experiencing?

I was arrested for a DUI years ago. I was horribly shamed simply from realizing I was guilty of a grossly irresponsible act. Still, I was handcuffed while transported in the squad car. Did I need to be cuffed? Absolutely not. Was I harmed by the cuffs in any way? Absolutely not. I don't see the act of handcuffing a person who has done wrong to the point of requiring police intervention as being excessive. Neccessary? Maybe, maybe not. No harm either way that I can see.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Whoa, I can't believe this went on this long, and I don't have time to read all of the pages.

My conclusion is that the school needs to be given options so that the cops don't need to be called. I see the cuffing as the only option in this case until the school is allowed to handle these kids themselves.

A 5-year old breaking things is a crime? Yeah, talk about Public Enemy No. 1! John Dillinger and this girl! PEOPLE BEWARE!!

The child broke things, tore things off of walls, and hit people. The school was not allowed to do anything about it. They aren't allowed to touch the kid. The teacher was allowed to take her off furniture (since it posed a risk to the kid), block the kid's blows, and try to stop her from ripping things off walls. That's it. They are not allowed to restrain her or touch her otherwise.

It is clear that the school's policies don't allow for intervention that would allow them to handle the child's behaviour. They have to call the parents or cops. Those people are allowed to restrain the child, the school is not.

Once the school is allowed to put the kid in a room where no harm can be done to the kid or anything else, then their hands are tied.

The police were called in this "tantrum" case because of the excessive behaviour (hitting, breaking things, endangering herself by climbing on tables, etc.) and because the parent coulnd't come any sooner. Most kids don't get that bad. This kid clearly needs more help than this school is allowed to offer. This is obviously a "special" case. I'm sure the school doesn't have to call the cops with every tantrum that happens there. If that was the case, then I'm sure they would have to take a hard look at their policies and make some changes.

As a parent I would not be shocked to see my child cuffed if my child were acting that way. The child would learn that the cops would not be called if she didn't hit others, break things, and rampage rooms. I don't feel it was excessive at all. The kid needs to learn that she can't just get away with everything she did for so long a period. That's what I mean about consequences. If you do "A", then "B" will happen. That's the only way a kid learns, especially a kid like that. I just wish the teachers were allowed to consequence the kid. The obviously are not allowed. That's ridiculous. Instead they can only follow the kid around and repeat "allowable phrases" over and over again.

The kid clearly knows the teachers can't do anything, and that's probably why she gets so out of hand. My kids would walk all over me too if I wasn't allowed to punish them. The kid didn't even sit down until she saw the cops. She knew then that there would be consequences for her behaviour. Up until then she knew she could whatever she wanted to.

That school needs a system of taking away privileges or a time out room, or SOMETHING. Or maybe they've done all that, and it still doesn't work.

Claus, did you watch the videos?

 

[RandFan]

So handcuffing a 5 year old girl is perfectly acceptable, right?

Asked and answered over and over again. NO, NO, NO. Why do you keep asking that?

It's not overkill

It is demonstrable that I said it is likely. You are making a straw man and arguing ad nauseam. If you care about credibility then you will stop.

...it's a separate incident unconnected with the general behavior of Floridian police forces. Right-o.

Boy, things must be pretty tense down in Jebland!

Not a clue what you are talking about.

Oh sorry, I know, specious reasoning...

Your first two sentences are straw men, not specious reasoning. The third and fourth are incoherent. No reasoning, specious or otherwise is there. You could at least to spot your own fallacy.

It's best to save irony meters for instances of irony. Absent that you just look stupid.

 

[Kaylee]

So handcuffing a 5 year old girl is perfectly acceptable, right?

Within the first 4 pages of this thread several people listed a few reasons why this might have been done. Which of these reasons do you disagree with and why?

 

[Orwell]

Irony is a form of speech in which the real meaning is concealed or contradicted by the words used.

 

[Orwell]

Within the first 4 pages of this thread several people listed a few reasons why this might have been done. Which of these reasons do you disagree with and why?

Oh, with about all of them.

Why? BECAUSE SHE IS 5 YEARS OLD, A SMALL CHILD!

I hope I made myself clear.

 

[Meadmaker]

As I read this thread, I begin to share some of Claus' outrage, although I think it is misdirected.

The fact is that it is totally outrageous that a five year old be taken away in handcuffs. And yet, that is exactly what our laws dictate is the appropriate thing to do. Earlier, he said that the problem was "the whole society", or words to that effect, and he is right.

There is something dreadfully wrong with a society that punishes people when they take appropriate action to maintain order in a classroom full of five year olds.

He suggested that it would be appropriate to remove the girl from the classroom, by force if necessary. He is right. However, that action is specifically forbidden.

Tmy has suggested a different approach, one that seemed effective at his Catholic school. He, too, is right. However, that action is specifically forbidden. I am not a big fan of corporal punishment, but neither do I equate it with child abuse. Moreover, I think it is preferable to hauling kids away in handcuffs.

Our legal system has created an environment where reasonable actions can bring about legal sanctions. That means that there really is something dreadfully wrong with our society.


Some people might think, since I have said putting a kid in handcuffs is worse than paddling her or carrying her into a timeout room against her will, that I think she was harmed by being put in handcuffs. This is not the case. I don't think any harm was done by the handcuffs themselves. However, I do think this girl was harmed.

I think she was harmed by being allowed to carry on in such a way, to the point that the only reasonable option left to the school administration was to evict every other child from a classroom, and then call the police. I think every one of those children in that room was harmed by being placed in an atmosphere where bizarre behavior was tolerated for a time, only in the end to have a classmate hauled away in a police cruiser.

And yet, that is what our society, through its legal system, has created as the logical outcome of that circumstance. There are times when use of a strong voice is not adequate to control the behavior of children. Sometimes, physical coercion of one sort or another is required. However, school officials in some districts are not allowed to use physical coercion in any circumstances. And police are required to treat every instance in which physical coercion is required as a potentially dangerous situation, in which policy calls for the use of physical restraints such as handcuffs.

The more I think about this case, the more outraged I become, but not at the police, or the principal, or the teachers. I am outraged at the system that makes reasonable actions punishable under the law, and unreasonable actions the only remaining actions to take.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Oh, with about all of them.

Why? BECAUSE SHE IS A SMALL CHILD.

I hope I made myself clear.

So it's okay for a small child to hit people, trash rooms and endanger herself? I think you are ignoring that the school is not allowed to do anything, and that this child's behaviour is excessive to say the least.

The school's policies need to change, until then the cuffing was not harmful and the kid needs to learn consequences for her behaviour.

You excuse her behaviour because she is little?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

The more I think about this case, the more outraged I become, but not at the police, or the principal, or the teachers. I am outraged at the system that makes reasonable actions punishable under the law, and unreasonable actions the only remaining actions to take.

That's it right there. The kids know what they can get away with. It's outrageous.

I'm glad my school has a time out room. They are allowed to punish kids that hit. No cops are needed.