Police handcuffing 5-year-old

[Kaylee]

Oh, with about all of them.

I doubt you read the first 4 pages of the thread. If you had, I'm sure your posts would have been worded differently.

 

[RandFan]

Oh, with about all of them.

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

I hope I made myself clear.

You made yourself clear but sadly you fail to do anything but restate your objection. Why is her age a serious issue here? Can you demonstrate harm?

We have been asking for page after page of some evidence that the child was harmed. No one has yet to offer a single piece of objective evidence that the child was harmed or that there was an expectation that she likely would have been harmed. It is simply skepticism, do you have evidence?

 

[T'ai Chi]

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.

In a link I provided, apparently the girls feet were cuffed too, because the girl apparently was kicking officers.

Do you ignore, again from a link I provided, the hint that there was a previous incident, and that the mother was warned what would be done? If so, why do you ignore this?

 

[Kaylee]

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.

Agreed.

 

[T'ai Chi]

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.

So what type of corporal punishment are you suggesting that would have solved the problem better than the restraints?

Spanking? Rapping the knuckles with a ruler?

How would that have looked to the parents, to the media, to the world, if that were caught on video?

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.

But, like claus, you have not specifically said what the harm was. You just said she was harmed, then described the events. What was the specific harm done to her?

 

[wahrheit]

The legal system and the habit, or better said, the "abused" possibilty and right of suing anybody for almost anything, seems to be a big part of the problem here.

When I was in the States and had to see a doctor, I had to sign a bazillion forms. I will not make her responsible for this, or that, nor this or anything else. Mind you, it was absolutely nothing serious, a five minute doctor visit. (You don't have to sign anything when you see a doctor here in Germany, Name, address and d.o.b. or an insurance card is all you need, so I was understandably suprised to see how much effort U.S. doctors need to put into avoiding being sued after they tried to help you...)

 

[TragicMonkey]

The legal system and the habit, or better said, the "abused" possibilty and right of suing anybody for almost anything, seems to be a big part of the problem here.

When I was in the States and had to see a doctor, I had to sign a bazillion forms. I will not make her responsible for this, or that, nor this or anything else. Mind you, it was absolutely nothing serious, a five minute doctor visit. (You don't have to sign anything when you see a doctor here in Germany, Name, address and d.o.b. or an insurance card is all you need, so I was understandably suprised to see how much effort U.S. doctors need to put into avoiding being sued after they tried to help you...)

But then, we have cases where the doctor screws up, and amputates the wrong leg, or does the lasik surgery wrong and blinds the patient, or leaves some forceps in the guts....I wonder how much those forms protect the doctors in cases like that?

Although there was a misdone lasik surgery in my town that left the guy with kaleidoscope vision in one eye. Permanent, unfixable, and giving him headaches. He had to cover that eye to make any sense of what he saw out the good eye. Sued, naturally, and the court awarded him the cost of the surgery, nothing more. So he broke even. Except, of course, for losing an eye.

 

[wahrheit]

But then, we have cases where the doctor screws up, and amputates the wrong leg, or does the lasik surgery wrong and blinds the patient, or leaves some forceps in the guts....I wonder how much those forms protect the doctors in cases like that?

Which was exactly my point. If a doctor really screws up badly then he'll get sued, anyway. Same over here, of course, no matter if any forms were signed or not.

It was more this "hysteria" regarding the fear of getting sued that I meant, and the fact that punitive damages (correct term?) are sometimes extremely high in the States, often it seems without correlation to the actual harm being done. Obviously, that's what happened in this kindergarten as well, the woman being afraid of getting her a** sued until she is broke and out of business.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Obviously, that's what happened in this kindergarten as well, the woman being afraid of getting her a** sued until she is broke and out of business.

Actually, it would have been the school that was sued. She might have lost her job, or been criminally prosecuted for child abuse (which would have definitely cost her the job, and future jobs), but I doubt anyone would bother to sue her as an individual, unless she had a lot of money. The school might have insurance to cover civil suit damages as well.

 

[Orwell]

There are no good reasons to have cops called to handcuff a 5 year old girl. Argue all you want, but a 5 year old is neither big enough nor mature enough to cause serious arm to adults. In places were people aren't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, restraining a 5 year old is a pretty straight forward and easy thing to do. For instance, I once restrained a pissed off 6 year old boy by simply holding him by his shirt collar at arms length until he stopped screaming and kicking. A normal adult with some educational experience and training should be able to do it, without having to call the cops.

 

[TragicMonkey]

There are no good reasons to have cops called to handcuff a 5 year old girl. Argue all you want, but a 5 year old is neither big enough nor mature enough to cause serious arm to adults. In places were people aren't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, restraining a 5 year old is a pretty straight forward and easy thing to do. For instance, I once restrained a pissed off 6 year old boy by simply holding him by his shirt collar at arms length until he stopped screaming and kicking. A normal adult with some educational experience and training should be able to do it, without resorting to calling the cops.

They might have been worried about the girl hurting herself, rather than adults.

And they aren't allowed to touch her themselves. What other options did they have, then?

eta: Plus, it wasn't as if the school teachers instructed the cops to cuff her, either. That was what the cops did when they were called. The school, unable to handle the situation, called the cops, who presumably have more authority and can touch the kid.

Calling the police in situations involving children isn't that bad an idea. It would trigger one of those social child welfare investigations, for starters. There are state agencies designed to deal with families having trouble with children, which would automatically become involved once the cops land in a situation with a berserk kid. It means that someone's going to ask why the kid's so crazy, and make sure she has a good home, and that she's not being abused and stuff. You know, treat some causes and not just the symptoms?

Oh, but I forgot. Police = bully force of Evil Government that just doesn't care about kids. Since that's being assumed as a given, I guess we can ignore all the beneficial consequences that will arise from having real cops and a real police report.

 

[Orwell]

They might have been worried about the girl hurting herself, rather than adults.

And they aren't allowed to touch her themselves. What other options did they have, then?

They could have disobeyed their stupid rules!

What amazes me is that the cops went along!

"Oh sure, we'll handcuff this dangerous perp! I mean, we don't have anything better to do."

 

[TragicMonkey]

They could have disobeyed their stupid rules!

And lost their jobs, and faced criminal and civil prosecution.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

There are no good reasons to have cops called to handcuff a 5 year old girl. Argue all you want, but a 5 year old is neither big enough nor mature enough to cause serious arm to adults. In places were people aren't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, restraining a 5 year old is a pretty straight forward and easy thing to do. For instance, I once restrained a pissed off 6 year old boy by simply holding him by his shirt collar at arms length until he stopped screaming and kicking. A normal adult with some educational experience and training should be able to do it, without having to call the cops.

And you'd be willing to lose your job to prove this point? How admirable.

The school has policies. If you don't follow them, well...as TragicMonkey already pointed out...

My brother was delivering papers when he was younger. A kid who lived by the paper box (where my brother had to pick up his papers everyday) came over and punched my brother every day. My brother was too small to do anything about it. So my mom went over with him one time. She grabbed the kid by collar and drug him across the street to his house and told him to leave my brother alone...blah blah.

Well, guess who ended up in court charged for assault? That was a circus. The whole school found out, some teachers and the principal were subpoenaed. It got thrown out of court (with some brats saying my mom lost anyway).

These teachers have to follow the policies or they will lose their jobs.

 

[Orwell]

And lost their jobs, and faced criminal and civil prosecution.

Then they're ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ moral midgets.

Yes, I would accept to loose my job over that. It's stupid to call cops to handcuff a 5 year old girl. Not only it is stupid, but it's cowardly. It's "pass the buck, let them cops do our job for us".

 

[RandFan]

There are no good reasons to have cops called to handcuff a 5 year old girl.

I don't agree. If policy prevented them from restraining the girl and the mother wasn't coming then it was appropriate.

Argue all you want, but a 5 year old is neither big enough nor mature enough to cause serious arm to adults.

That is besides the point. No one hear has argued that she was. If this girl hurt herself breaking something then they would have been at fault. How long does someone have to put up with her crap?

In places were people aren't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, restraining a 5 year old is a pretty straight forward and easy thing to do.

No, not necessarily. It was being taped and it is against policy for many organizations to do so. They could have been sued for restraining her.

For instance, I once restrained a pissed off 6 year old boy by simply holding him by his shirt collar at arms length until he stopped screaming and kicking.

Which could easily go on for some time and IS an instance where you could be sued.

A normal adult with some educational experience and training should be able to do it, without having to call the cops.

This is just second guessing. You weren't there. But it really does miss the point. How was this girl harmed. That it could have been done differently does not prove that she was harmed.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

What amazes me is that the cops went along!

"Oh sure, we'll handcuff this dangerous perp! I mean, we don't have anything better to do."

The cops won't have to be called if the school changes their policies. The handcuffs don't hurt anything, and the brat needs to learn a lesson. In this case it was needed.

You're complaining about the same thing we all agree on. The school needs a way to deal with this kid. We've covered that. A time out room or loss of a priviledge would do. I'm sure you'd agree.

 

[RandFan]

Then they're ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ moral midgets.

Yes, would accept to loose my job over that. It's stupid to call cops to handcuff a 5 year old girl. Not only it is stupid, but its cowardly. It,s "pass the buck, let them cops do our job for us".

That is simply emotional and only an opinion. You are entitled to it but you are wrong.

 

[Bikewer]

Technically, juveniles are not arrested. They are "taken into custody". Juveniles may be taken into custody if they present a danger to others, or to themselves.

Trying not to belabor the point, but the responding officers probably had standing orders that persons taken into custody, or placed under arrest, are handcuffed. Our department does.

The fact that the child was "calm" when officers arrived is immaterial.

Juveniles may be released to a parent or guardian, or to a responsible adult, in most cases. In the occasional case where such an adult is not available, the child is placed in Juvenile detention until such time as an appropriate adult is found. The Juvenile Code in most states does not make any particular distinction as to age, save to state at which point a Juvenile may be considered possible for adult certification in serious crimes.

 

[Orwell]

That is simply emotional and only an opinion. You are entitled to it but you are wrong.

Why am I wrong?