RandFan said:
You are welcome. To my experience policemen and women might me undereducated and underprivileged but most of the times the sight of a kid can soften them, a white child for sure. I haven't observed the same sensitivity for gypsy children ( I mention gypsies because I have repeatedly represented them in court) but maybe I haven't seen enough policemen on duty during the 10 years that I practice criminal law and you have more exprerience in this field.
Are they objective reasons?
It's seem that the Law aknowledges that the whole procedure of arresting and trialing a minor might have significant affects on him/her that's why it describes in details the procedure and that's why the trials of minors are not public.
Then please share with us those reasons.
According to my knowledge the effect of psychological traumas might need some time in order to be evident, this is what Law believes so that's why the Law provides for minors, in order to avoid future psychological traumas.
How and why is this significant?
It is significant for two reasons. First it determines the nature of the potential offender.A detainee that wasn't handcuffed during his arrest uses this fact as a card in his defense. The Law aknowledges that putting handcuffs is apart from necessary ( sometimes) a humiliating process. That's why in a trial you often hear to the defense complaining to the judge that the accused "has been handcuffed as a common criminal".
In Law everything has a specific symbolism that intends to pass a specific message to the society. I bet that from now on many kids will behave themselves when they are reminded by their parents of what happened to " that girl in that school".
Fine, this is your opinion. Can you give us objective reasons why?
Because the kid was tiny. If a police officer or a tecaher hugged her tighly she wouldn't be able to move. If he spoke to her softly she would eventually stop if she wasn't mentally ill.
Trust me. It works. I do it all the time with my black 8 month old dog.
Yes, and so have I. Can you objectively tell us what it is about your judgment that brought you to this conclusion?
I think that I have done that above.
Thank you for sharing. Do you have any objective evidence that this fact caused her harm?
I believe that I am serious enough to have stated that the kind of evidence you need only to dodge instead of investigating the issue is not available.
Do you have any objective evidence that this was done because she was black.
I have a vague memory of some reports of Amnesty International
regrading police brutality and minorities
http://www.rightsforall.amnesty.org/what/appeals/police.htm
Watch the video again, this was an extreme situation. It lasted a long time. The teachers absolutely tried persuasion.
I don't have any reason to doubt your perception of events. I think that you have kids. Do you believe that if you were an observant of the scene and you decided to take action and take the kid in your arms you would fail to stop her?
I have questionned kids in court, kids that have been subjected to sexual abuse and a forensic psychiatrist has told me once that the trick with the kids is the tight hug, especially with tiny kids.Of course in order to hug a kid you have not be disgusted by the fact that it's black or gypsy.
If a 35 years old childless litigator knows that, I have difficulty to believe that an american teacher, trained in an american colleage doesn't know that.
I really resent this. Many if not most of us have said that we found the incident troubling and that it was perhaps not warranted.
In that case I apologize and to be honest your fierce attempt to rationalize the whole scene makes me believe that you were genuinely disturbed.
Which is not objective evidence. Things are NOT always as they appear.
I totally agree with you and I stated it from the beginning but both of us saw the same video. Imagine that both of us were members of the same jury. Doesn't this sound interesting?
Wrong, we simply wanted to know why we should be outraged.
The following comment might be taken as a cheap one but please don't take it as such and give me at least the benefit of the doubt. I have read the posts of your son. Certainly a smart kid that would make a difference even in the worse kind of school.
Schools though RandFan are important mostly for the underprivileged, the poor and the infants of illiterate or problematic parents. That scene depicts a badly functioning system and as a citizen you should feel outraged. Plato said that the educated and the priviled have the obligation to fight for the rights of those who don't know that they have them.
Yes it was but it was my way to show my disturbance.
