Police handcuffing 5-year-old

[CFLarsen]

Well, Claus, when are you going to tell us what the definite physical harm to this girl was? You've waffled about "the normal upbringing" and now you've pointed out that it's possible for handcuffs to cause physical harm. (I wonder why you didn't think of that four pages ago?) Now, can you tell us what the definite physical harm was in this particular case?

Or are you going to back down and say that it's possible for handcuffing to cause physical harm, although it didn't happen in this particular case. At least, you have advanced absolutely no evidence that it did so.

You could even change your argument to the position that the risk of physical harm from handcuffs, however slight that risk, is unacceptable in this case. But that would be a change in position, as you'd appreciate and leap on with glee if anybody other than yourself made it.

Are you going to handcuff your children when they are unruly or not?

 

[Kaylee]

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 see no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water. There are some truly psychopathic companies incorporated in America and the only thing that motivates them to act within reasonable modes of behavior is the fear of financial loss.

Also as some posters have said, this (school discipline) is an issue that varies by region and does not appear to be a problem everywhere. For example, other USA schools use timeout rooms or even corporeal punishment without fear of instigating lawsuits.

So instead, why not have a grassroots process, where needed, to put together a list of clearly stipulated discipline measures that a school administration can undertake if necessary. This consent form would be signed by the parents at the beginning of each school year to show that they understand. Requiring signatures would be more important as a communication tool than anything else, and help ensure that everyone was on the same page as far as expectations go.

Edited to rephrase a sentence in the first paragraph.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Are you going to handcuff your children when they are unruly or not?

Be a man, Claus, and answer the question. This is really unworthy behavior from you. You're not going to change the subject, and you're not going to wriggle out. You made a claim that the girl suffered "definite physical harm" from the handcuffs. What was the nature of that harm?

Why on earth should anyone answer your questions, when you've been dodging this one since page 8?

 

[Ed]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kerberos
Or perhaps we don't get the frivilious lawsuits they get in the states.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





That's true. But it isn't merely a case of frivolous lawsuits, it's the whole society.

Unfortunately, the basis for the OP and the tedious aftermath is made clear here.

 

[CFLarsen]

Be a man, Claus, and answer the question. This is really unworthy behavior from you. You're not going to change the subject, and you're not going to wriggle out. You made a claim that the girl suffered "definite physical harm" from the handcuffs. What was the nature of that harm?

Why on earth should anyone answer your questions, when you've been dodging this one since page 8?

I have not been "dodging" it. I have answered it.

Now, are you going to answer my question?

 

[BPSCG]

Okay, I'm late to this discussion, so apologies all around if I go over well-trodden ground; I read page 1, skipped over 2-11, read 12 and 13.

Question for those who think handcuffing the child was unacceptable: What should have been done with her?


It seems to me everyone involved was trying to do their best to let her exhaust herself and not hurt herself or anyone else. But she did disrupt an entire class. At what point do you say, "Look, this isn't working, and the cost in disruption isn't worth it."?

Maybe they should try some other form of restraint. How about swaddling?

Caption under the above image:

We did swaddling at the hospital and for a few days after we brought her home. Somehow we got out of the practice and haven’t done it over the last 3 weeks or so. Over the last two days, it’s been tangibly noticeable how quickly she calms down and sleeps when swaddled. It’s also been super helpful when she has gotten overtired and has a hard time falling off to sleep. It’s eliminated that problem all together. Got to love that!

Emphasis mine.

Another, perhaps less-comfortable form of restraint:

If that doesn't work, then there are other possible remedies for disruptive behavior by someone who is not an imminent threat:

1) Let inspections continue;
2) Keep sanctions in place;
3) Institute a Candy-for-Food program.

 

[RandFan]

What do you think? I am not interested in what you think other people think about this. I am asking what you think.

I have been telling you what I think for 12 pages. If you don't know yet then you are an idiot.

Would you - personally - use handcuffs on your children, if they were unruly? Just yes or no.

I have answered this question over and over and over. When you will you get a clue? And why do you demand answers when you REFUSE to answer them?

If no, why not? Would you be worried about hurting them?

NO, I WOULD NOT BE WORRIED ABOUT HURTING THEM!!!! How many times must I tell you that.

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.

Is there something about "NO" that you do not get?

Will I have to answer this question for another 12 pages?

Would you be worried what other people think?

I might, how is this relevant to your proposition?

 

[RandFan]

Ok. After all one doesn't need to be an expert in order to form an opinion about an incident of everyday life.

That is correct. I'm trying to make it clear that I am not an expert.

Lawyers complain only about things that they have a chance to win. If those things are "everything" this is another discussion.

It was an exaggeration to prove a point. One with which you helped prove. That something will help win a case doesn't make it valid.

The point that you dismissed that easily is that according to the police practice, cuffs are used in order to restraint individuals -potential dangers to police officers and civilians, individuals widely known as " common criminals".

I DIDN'T dismiss it. I said I was not impressed with it.

Since in this thread you have been stating YOUR experiences/anecdotes I thought that you would be open in reading other people's experiences.

I have stated clearly that my anecdotes are to demonstrate why "I" believe the way I do. You said "trust me". I'm not going to "trust" you because this is anecdotal, it is also assumptive. I will accept it to understand why YOU believe that.

Randfan, I am not surprised you don't accept anything since you are not here to discuss but to demonstrate that we were wrong even to question a practice that appeared odd.

I resent your telling me why I am here. I have said plainly that it is quite appropriate to question this incident. I have said that if it were my kid I would be concerned. THAT is not my point. My point, and I have made this quite clear, is that I do not believe that there is any reason for outrage.

Furthermore, I am more than willing to have a discussion. I resent the fact that Claus is not willing to. We are simply wrong and he refuses to give us evidence why we are wrong.

Since hugging a kid is considered an abusive behavior?

As you describe it is restraining and you can thank American lawyers for making most forms of touching out of bounds including hugging. I will say that friendly hugging which is accepted by both parties is not prohibited but there is a caution about it to keep it brief.

I am still surprised at your stance. In reality what has pissed you off is that Clauss started the thread and you took it as another silly debate Europe vs USA.

And I still resent you telling me what I think.

Anyway. There is something in this story that I have missed. How come the whole incident was filmed? Who asked for a camera?

It is in the article. Someone brought a camera for some other reason. You will have to read it.

RandFan

 

[RandFan]

Perhaps you could show where I claim that?

Not only do you claim more likely to harm. You claim that it is de facto harm.

Handcuffing a 5-year old girl is physical harm.

Emphasis mine.

Page 10, first post. 04-25-2005 10:31 AM

 

[RandFan]

I have not been "dodging" it. I have answered it.

Now, are you going to answer my question?

No, no you have not. This is a lie. In 12 pages you have not proven that this girl was harmed. You declare that she has. You declare that handcuffs ARE harm. You demand that we answer questions. You fallaciously assert that since we don't use handcuffs that it is somehow proof that they are harm. You ignore the reasoned arguments why you are being fallacious.

You have NOT answered it.

 

[Kopji]

Handcuffs could be used as a tool of humiliation (the Phoenix sheriff uses pink ones). This is not the case here, they are being used simply as restraint. Using handcuffs are WAY better than the last police foray into schools, which resulted in using a Taser gun on a kid. (go count the unintentional Taser deaths) So maybe they are doing better...

The police sometimes use large nylon ties to restrain, that would have been a less provocative choice. Handcuffs have a high symbolic value.

Maybe one of the forum legal guys could comment on the school giving the film to the media, because that seems completely out of line. I've never seen such disregard for a child. It's not allowed here, papers regularly blot out underage information, sometimes even blotting out the family name if it might lead to identification.
The US court system goes to extremes to keep kids faces and names private. Using this child to make a point about police tactics in the media seems far worse than the handcuffs.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

..................

Using this child to make a point about police tactics in the media seems far worse than the handcuffs.

Hear, Hear!

This is where the outrage should apply !


Who wants to bet that the film, and not the use of the cuffs, is the direction we will see the litigation take?

 

[Cleopatra]

RandFan your behavior in this thread has been a very unpleasant surprize to me. So far I had you for a strong but above all fair debater , that's why I respect you as a poster.

In this discussion and with your stance you try to force us to aknowledge only to you the right to post anecdotes and dismiss whatever argument we might bring just because you haven't found it impressive enough.

What's wrong? If you resent my telling you what you think maybe you should do us the favor and explain why you demonstrate this agressive behavior.

It is in the article. Someone brought a camera for some other reason. You will have to read it.

RandFan

Thanks, I will check it, I hope that in the article I will find the reason why the camera owner was allowed to film that.

 

[crimresearch]

"The point that you dismissed that easily is that according to the police practice, cuffs are used in order to restraint individuals -potential dangers to police officers and civilians, individuals widely known as " common criminals"...."

And again, Claus gets caught making up BS, and trying to pass it off.

According to 'the police practice', and policy, handcuffs are used for the safety of the individual, as well as the officer. They are used for control, not used to harm people.
And they are not reserved for any specific class of individuals.
Cases where they have been used to harm people have been treated as a *violaton* of policy.

Here is the Florida Department of Law Enforcement practice...(Note that the police in that video are trained to this statewide standard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Restraint Devices are the first level three (Physical Control) techniques listed on the Recommended Response to Resistance Matrix.
According to the Matrix, an officer is authorized to utilize an appropriate restraint device on a subject exhibiting all resistance levels from Presence up to Aggravated Physical Resistance.

Restraint Devices are an excellent tool used by criminal justice to control a subject for detention, arrest or transport."

Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission
Defensive Tactics Curriculum Legal and Medical Risk Summary
June 2002
page 11 Section VII Medical Review, subsection D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basically, what we have here is group hysteria of the highest woo order...and Claus is one of the carriers.

 

[crimresearch]

Hear, Hear!

This is where the outrage should apply !


Who wants to bet that the film, and not the use of the cuffs, is the direction we will see the litigation take?

NBC News this morning is 'suggesting' that the death of another child who ran out into traffic 'may have been caused' by this handcuffing incident, which 'might have led' children to be afraid that all teachers were going to handcuff them.

And that sort of crap is why Randfan is to be commended for requesting evidence from fear and superstition mongering woos like Claus.

 

[RandFan]

RandFan your behavior in this thread has been a very unpleasant surprize to me. So far I had you for a strong but above all fair debater , that's why I respect you as a poster.

I think I have been fair. I'm truly sorry if my actions have disappointed you. I promise that I try and be as honest and straight forward as possible. Please note that I am abusive and emotional from time to time. I acknowledge that fact. My buttons are easily pushed. When asked for an apology for rude behavior I will always grant one. I'm not exactly sure why you think that I have not been fair in this instance.

In this discussion and with your stance you try to force us to acknowledge only to you the right to post anecdotes and dismiss whatever argument we might bring just because you haven't found it impressive enough.

Let me restate and be as clear as possible here. Anecdotes have their place. They are perfectly acceptable to explain why the person using them believes what they do. Our experiences in life help form the basis of our understanding. But we need to understand that they are anecdotes. When someone offers me an anecdote as proof I must make it clear that it is simply NOT proof. Such an attempt is fallacy. Now, if my repeated use of my experience led you to believe that I expected you to accept my argument then I apologize. Such an appearance is wrong. I do NOT have any such expectation and it is incumbent on me to make that more clear than I did. I will accept that perhaps I used the example more than I should have. No one, I repeat no one should except my example as proof. It is only offered to explain why I believe the way I do. If Larsen wants to convince me he is going to have to offer proof that will overcome my life's experiences.

I hope that was made clear.

What's wrong? If you resent my telling you what you think maybe you should do us the favor and explain why you demonstrate this agressive behavior.

I'm not sure how to respond. I think your telling me what I think presumptive. I admit that I have done the very same thing in other circumstance and therefore my criticism is perhaps somewhat hypocritical. Since it is my mind I know my reasons and motivations. At least I know them pretty well accepting that there could be subconscious ones.

The European thing has at best been tangential as it applies to me. It is not really my concern as it applies to this subject. I have not once made an issue out of it as others have, at least I don't remember having done so. My problem is the willful way in which Larsen refuses to debate honestly. A skeptic demands proof. It is the hallmark of skepticism. Larsen is a person who is ostensibly a skeptic. Skeptics don't rely on gut feelings. They relay on studies, empirical evidence, demonstrable facts. Larsen makes a claim but offers no such evidence. Which is fine except that he demands that we accept it and refuses to acknowledge that his belief is at best specious and entirely lacking in any evidence.

This has a way of pissing me off. I'm sorry but I think such behavior outrageous. As Randi has so aptly put it, we don't have to always be polite when people are being demonstrably stupid.

Now, let me be clear, believing that handcuffs are a bad idea is NOT stupid. Do you understand? I don't think that you are stupid for your position. I think reasonable people can disagree. I'm happy to have a discussion. In fact I tried to honestly engage in one with Larsen, he refused and chose to lie about what I said.

I hope this helps,

RandFan

 

[Kaylee]

.. the school giving the film to the media,

Do we know that the school was the source? There are other possibilities, I think. Since its a legal matter perhaps copies of the video had already been given to the police, District Attorney's office, the girl's family and/or the family's lawyer.

Any one of them could have passed on the video to the media, or someone with access to anyone of those parties could have done so unofficially.

because that seems completely out of line. I've never seen such disregard for a child. It's not allowed here, papers regularly blot out underage information, sometimes even blotting out the family name if it might lead to identification.
The US court system goes to extremes to keep kids faces and names private. Using this child to make a point about police tactics in the media seems far worse than the handcuffs.

I agree. I think the media should not only have left the family names out of their news story, but also blotted out the child's face. But of course that would have ruined the 6 o'clock news' titillation value.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

......
Thanks, I will check it, I hope that in the article I will find the reason why the camera owner was allowed to film that.

As a lawyer, I would think you would be more concerned about why the film was released to the media, with all subjects being clearly identifiable. Particularly the child.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

NBC News this morning is 'suggesting' that the death of another child who ran out into traffic 'may have been caused' by this handcuffing incident, which 'might have led' children to be afraid that all teachers were going to handcuff them.

And that sort of crap is why Randfan is to be commended for requesting evidence from fear and superstition mongering woos like Claus.

Which raises the rhetorical question:


" How did all those children learn that the child had been handcuffed? "

 

[crimresearch]

Kopji, like everyone else caught up in this mass hysteria, is spinning outrage from whole cloth.

Why would the mother's lawyer claim on national television that HE gave the tape to the media, if in fact the police did so illegally?

Is it so damn hard to stick to the truth, even if it doesn't produce the desired result of vilifying the police to one's satisfaction?

"according to a video released by a lawyer for the child's mother"
http://www.nbc6.net/news/4411488/detail.html?rss=ami&psp=news

"lawyer John Trevena, who provided the tape to the media after obtaining it from police....Trevena, who represents the girl's mother"
http://cbsnewyork.com/topstories/topstories_story_115104056.html

"according to a video released by a lawyer for the child's mother"
http://www.herald-zeitung.com/wire.lasso?report=/dynamic/stories/H/HANDCUFFED_GIRL

"lawyer John Trevena let the news media see the tape this week after obtaining he got it from police."
http://www.tampabays10.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=13475

"Largo lawyer John Trevena, who provided the tape to the media this week after obtaining it from police"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154405,00.html

"Trevena, who provided the tape to the media this week, said he got it from police"
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=696422&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Should I go on? Or is accurately linking to unvarnished facts like that making people uncomfortable?