Police handcuffing 5-year-old

[Meadmaker]

Handcuffing a 5-year old girl is physical harm. If it wasn't, why aren't handcuffs part of a normal upbringing?

I handcuffed my son when he was five. Really. They were toy handcuffs, and we were playing cops and robbers, but in terms of the degree of restraint imposed, and the physical effects of being in the handcuffs, I'm fairly certain they were identical to real handcuffs.

I don't think I did him any physical harm.

 

[crimresearch]

I saw the video, and my very first thought was that the school teachers let the behaviour continue for far too long by simply "being there" and letting the girl have an audience. She was not hurting herself or the teachers in her mini-rampage, and would be highly unlikely to do so. In their situation I would have let the girl simply bash my hands and arms as I walked backwards to the time-out room (5yo kids don't hit that hard!) - easily possible because the girl was far too preoccupied in hitting stuff to see where she actually was.

Once in the time-out room, a quick exit with the door shut to leave her there, and she is both comfortably confined and has lost her audience

Don't know what video you imagine you saw, but in the video the real world saw, the teachers did exactly that...walked backwards while letting the child hit at their arms and hands.

Too bad they didn't have you there to tell them that they should have walked backwards, letting the child hit their arms and hands, instead.

And where people get the notion that schools are equipped with these imaginary 'time out rooms' where every misbehaving child can stay sans audience is beyond me...what is in these rooms? Rubber padding on every surface? Nanny Robots? Tranquilizer gas?

Where in the public schools are they located? Next to the hot tubs and the video arcades?


So once again returning to reality, the girl sat in the back of an air conditioned police car until her mother arrived to pick her up.


The Queen’s Lancashire Regiment must be fainting at the sheer distress of it all.

 

[Meadmaker]

But that's what we are discussing: The use of handcuffs on unruly kids.



Just answer the question: Were they handcuffed when they were unruly?

I see that other parents have also handcuffed their kids during play, and that no physical harm resulted, so now the question changes to "were they unruly".

I will acknowledge taht I have never handcuffed my child as a means of restraint or as punishment, but I'm not sure I see the relevance. First, the act of handcuffing wouldn't cause more harm to an unruly child. If they are unruly, before the handcuffs they could run into things and break them. After, they can't.

Furthermore, I have reached out to my child, and grabbed both of his wrists in my hand while pulling him toward his bedroom. That situation was much more likely to produce injury than if I had used handcuffs. And yet, I feel absolutely no guilt.

Just an hour or so ago, when putting my dear one to bed, he chose not to go. I informed him he really didn't have a choice, and he ought to settle down and go to bed. He upped the struggle. As I wrapped my arms around him, I noted to him, "Son, have you noticed how many of these conversations end with 'OW'?" Sure enough, as I carried him through his doorway, he jerked his head back, and it slammed against the door.

"OW. (pause) I need boo bear."

If only I had had some handcuffs, that whole incident could have been avoided.

But he didn't seem to be harmed in any real manner. I do my best to make sure that real violence or injury is as unlikely as possible in those situations.

[disclaimer]
The above incident is based on true stories, but a few incidents have been melded into one story for dramatic effect. All of the elements have indeed happened at one time or another. Tonight, it was his knee that got hurt, not his head.
[/disclaimer]

 

[TragicMonkey]

Meadmaker, your story intrigues me. What, exactly, is boo bear?

 

[crimresearch]

Meadmaker, your story intrigues me. What, exactly, is boo bear?

Boo bear is a rigorous scientific methodology that skeptical parents know about and share with each other.

 

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker, your story intrigues me. What, exactly, is boo bear?

Boo bear is a cube of plastic with water, or some sort of liquid in it. It is placed in the freezer so that the liquid might freeze and therefore be ready as an instant ice-pack to be applied to boo-boos.

The "bear" part of the name comes from the sickeningly sweet teddy-bear style thing that is wrapped around it.

 

[Mycroft]

Boo bear is a cube of plastic with water, or some sort of liquid in it. It is placed in the freezer so that the liquid might freeze and therefore be ready as an instant ice-pack to be applied to boo-boos.

The "bear" part of the name comes from the sickeningly sweet teddy-bear style thing that is wrapped around it.

We had something like that, only we called it an "ouch mouse." We still have the plastic ice cube, the mouse part vanished long ago.

 

[Meadmaker]

All I can say to that is THEIR LAW IS AN ASS.

Really.

And I wish to add to the Americans participating, that Zep is absolutely right, and encourage them to write to legislators who make these laws and demand that they change. Even if you can't bring yourself to actually vote for "the other side", you could at least threaten to do so.

Make the Democrats at least nervous that their unblinking support of the trial lawyers might actually cost them some votes.

 

[Zep]

Don't know what video you imagine you saw, but in the video the real world saw, the teachers did exactly that...walked backwards while letting the child hit at their arms and hands.

To where? They just backed her around the same room. Later they were filmed trying to talk her out of another tantrum. The report spoke of repeated attempts to reason with the child. Read what I said - I said they exacerbated the situation by just being there. The whole idea is to remove all audiences from the child, including the teachers.

And where people get the notion that schools are equipped with these imaginary 'time out rooms' where every misbehaving child can stay sans audience is beyond me...what is in these rooms? Rubber padding on every surface? Nanny Robots? Tranquilizer gas?

Where in the public schools are they located? Next to the hot tubs and the video arcades?

Slippery-slope argument noted. Lack of common sense as well.

Congruent to the goal of removing the audience, any vacant space where she could be supervised would do. At home, it's usually the child's bedroom. In this case, just leaving her alone in the class room would have been sufficient. Sure, she may have tried busting up more stuff, but it is highly unlikely she would have hurt herself (unless, as noted before, she had mental issues). They could have kept an eye on her, she would be safe, and they could have tidied up any mess easily enough afterwards.

So once again returning to reality, the girl sat in the back of an air conditioned police car until her mother arrived to pick her up.

Which was yet another instance of attention-seeking behaviour added to her potential list. What will she do next time? Why, she will throw another tanty safe in the knowledge that she will be get a nice ride in a police cruiser because the police are nicer than the nasty old teachers, and that mummy will come REAL SOON as a result! So would you not agree that this is a POSTIVE reinforcement of the girl's anti-social behaviour?

The Queen’s Lancashire Regiment must be fainting at the sheer distress of it all.

Why? Will they be the ones called in next time the girl misbehaves, to prevent any pesky legal repercussions?

 

[specious_reasons]

And I wish to add to the Americans participating, that Zep is absolutely right, and encourage them to write to legislators who make these laws and demand that they change. Even if you can't bring yourself to actually vote for "the other side", you could at least threaten to do so.

Make the Democrats at least nervous that their unblinking support of the trial lawyers might actually cost them some votes.

I don't think that you can make any assumptions about American society with this.

First of all, Louisiana public schools are allowed to (and do) have a corporal punishment policy, and Louisiana is one of the most litigious states in the U.S. Different states have different laws. Whole regions of the country have differing cultural standards.

Second, this is obviously an extreme case. People don't always manage extreme cases as well as we would like.

Third, from the news story, the mother of this child had already instructed that the asst.principle was not to touch her child...

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/18/Tampabay/In_schools__violence_.shtml

She accused Dibenedetto of harping on the girl to the point where she "acted up" in class. "Ever since I told her to stay away from my daughter, there's been problems."

This was an extreme example. Drawing conclusions about American society from it is ridiculous.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Boo bear is a cube of plastic with water, or some sort of liquid in it. It is placed in the freezer so that the liquid might freeze and therefore be ready as an instant ice-pack to be applied to boo-boos.

The "bear" part of the name comes from the sickeningly sweet teddy-bear style thing that is wrapped around it.

That is so cute!

Do they have a monkey version?

 

[crimresearch]

To where? They just backed her around the same room. <SNIP>

The video clearly shows the school staff backing away from the girl, and letting her hit them on the arms and hands..and none of the usual tricks you employ to draw attention away will change that.

Tapdance all you want, claim it never happened, yell '◊◊◊◊ statistics!', or 'D**khead!' all you want....at the end of it all, you will still be unable to discuss facts.

 

[Zep]

This was an extreme example.

I imagine so. But it is not an isolated example, even for this one girl. Apparently she was already known to the police (listen to the video comments by the officers), and she acted completely in character as if they had been involved with her somehow before when she had got into trouble (scared). It was a 5yo tantrum, nothing more than that, and I would venture to suggest further that she thinks this is "normal behaviour" because she has been getting away with this at home for some time and the mother is too G-d "precious" to stand up to her own petulant child.

My comments about the law being an ass are along the lines that I suspect such incidents will likely recur if the underlying issues are not addressed, namely: how to deal with disruptive children in the school environment. Corporal punishment is not "the" answer in every case, clearly, and I would suggest it would have been highly counterproductive in this particular situation because it would be reinforcing the attention-seeking factor. (Personally I don't think corporal punishment is the answer in any case, but that's not quite the issue here.)

In my view, the underlying issue is that the teachers did not, were not able, or were not permitted to deal with the child's situation in an effective manner because of the possibility of punitive legal consequences. And they delegated that task to a force for whom such concerns were less of an issue because they have a stronger legal authority to deal with socially disruptive issues.

My own view of the solution would be that the school should be empowered to "effectively isolate and contain" disruptive children safely so that they do not hurt themselves. Then the parent(s) will be asked to remove them from the school immediately - it is their problem, not the school's, to deal with this. A certain number of repeat offences result in expulsion. This should all be made very clear to the parent(s) up front when the child first goes to the school - the school is not a surrogate parent, no matter what the law may think, so they shouldn't have to put up with this carp.

Drawing conclusions about American society from it is ridiculous.

I agree completely. From first-hand experience, I would not do so.

 

[Cleopatra]

Since you are dodging *my* questions, may I assume that you agree that you are unable to answer?

I haven't seen any questions for me to answer. I went back and read again. I bet that this is my fault. Could you please post your question again?

 

[Zep]

The video clearly shows the school staff backing away from the girl, and letting her hit them on the arms and hands..and none of the usual tricks you employ to draw attention away will change that.

Tapdance all you want, claim it never happened, yell '◊◊◊◊ statistics!', or 'D**khead!' all you want....at the end of it all, you will still be unable to discuss facts.

Zep:
To where? They just backed her around the same room. Later they were filmed trying to talk her out of another tantrum. The report spoke of repeated attempts to reason with the child. Read what I said - I said they exacerbated the situation by just being there. The whole idea is to remove all audiences from the child, including the teachers.

Do your spectacles need adjustment, by any chance?

 

[varwoche]

Do you mean irrespective or regardless?

Off-topic, but I regret to inform you that irregardless has been promoted to a genuine (albeit lame-ass) word.

 

[crimresearch]

Do your spectacles need adjustment, by any chance?

Ahhh yes, the usual Zep...go for the ad homs about disabilities when you don't have facts and can't hold an honest discussion...

And speaking of being truthful, who do you suppose posted this?

"In their situation I would have let the girl simply bash my hands and arms as I walked backwards to the time-out room (5yo kids don't hit that hard!) - easily possible because the girl was far too preoccupied in hitting stuff to see where she actually was."

Where are these magical imaginary 'time out rooms' in public schools? Have you ever even been inside one of these schools to see how every inch of space is double, triple, and quadruple used?
But you still maintain the fiction that every unmanageable child in an overcrowded school has a nice quiet, empty, and completely safe room waiting for them, where they can be herded and left alone to magically get over whatever is behind their behavior.

Do you have the faintest clue as to what the causes of such behavior can be, before you rule out everything but a tantrum? Or can you now make psychic medical diagnoses from a video, like Claus?

And pray tell us then, what is the staff on that videotape doing, and how exactly is it different from what you claimed you would have done in their stead?

 

[CFLarsen]

Can I now call you a liar, Larsen style? Look at my post. I did not leave that out.

I stand corrected.

I read it differently than you do. There is no evidence that she was bodily forced to go to the office. In fact, it says that she relents, and is praised for her excellent choice. The excellent choice is in going to the office - not on who she went with.

Absolutely not. She gets to choose between persons - not whether she can go to the office or not.

If you know anything about kids, you know that the false choice set up is common to get kids to do something you want them to do. You don't ask your kid if they want to get dressed. You don't ask your kid what they want to wear. You tell them that it is time to get dressed - do you want to wear the blue top or the red top? It gives kids the illusion of choice where none really exists. I expect that is what happened here - they told her they have to go to the office and give her the option of escort. If she had still refused to go, I very much doubt she would have been dragged there Larsen style.

We are not talking about imaginary scenarios. We are talking about what really happened.

Do I think she could leave? No, not really. They likely closed the door and blocked her way.

Thank you.

 

[CFLarsen]

Geez. I posted this back on page 3.I would have thought that the situation is patently clearly obvious - it was a five-year-old's temper tantrum, that's all! The "why" of her problems should have been sorted out through the usual mechanisms that all children's behavioural problems are sorted - I have no idea what they might have been in this location, but I will allow that they do exist.

But I remain staggered, absolutely jaw-droppingly STAGGERED with DISbelief, that it took a whole bunch of grown-up teachers, presumably with training in dealing with unruly children, and five police officers to simply remove the child from the situation. Not even deal with it, just to remove her. And that only under restraint of handcuffs.

But it appears that the primary reason why this occured was that no-one of those adults wanted to be involved in any litigation that would be detrimental to themselves or their school, etc. So they delegated their responsibilities to the only authority that COULD deal with it without reasonable fear of litigious action being brought - the police. Who dealt with the situation "as per regulations".

All I can say to that is THEIR LAW IS AN ASS.

Really.

Well said.

 

[CFLarsen]

I see that there are no new points made, so I doubt we will get any further with this. There is one thing I would like to have discussed a bit more, though:

If handcuffs are so harmless and effective to control an unruly child, why have nobody used them for this purpose?