Police handcuffing 5-year-old

[rdtjr]

"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.

I guess some of the folks here are not used to seeing the police show up to an incident (especially one that involves violence) and simply handcuff all involved parties until they sort things out? It's much safer that way.

I had a friend assaulted when we were out at a bar. Our group was sitting doing our own thing, but it seems that some guy took exception with one of my buddies... this guy just walked up and punched him in the chest with no warning. Needless to say, a few blows were exchanged before the bouncers separated and restrained the pair.

The cops showed up and handcuffed both my friend and his assailant while they took statements and tried to assess what happened. After about 45 minutes of leaning against a squad car my buddy was released and his attacker was carted off.

Now, did my friend like being cuffed in front of all of those other people? No. Was it embarrassing? Yes. Had he done anything wrong? No. But the police did the right thing to cuff them both until they sorted the whole mess out. When they arrived they had no idea who was the aggressor or if either one would lash out at them.

Child or no, an aggressive violent person should be put into passive restraints until they can safely be put somewhere to minimize harm to others and themselves. What's the big deal?

And on the tazer incident... is it really necessary to point-out that the child was waving about a large shard of broken glass and had already self-inflicted wounds? I love the idea that police are supposed to physically interact with anyone, even a child, in possession of a deadly weapon. What would have happened if the police had charged in on that kid? Probably they tackle her and wrest the glass shard away. But, they could also get badly cut (and think about where a young child's arm height is... yeah cuts in the groin can be rather dangerous). They could have seriously hurt the child attempting "disarm". Hmmm, two 180 lbs cops versus one 75lbs child... nah... no risk of serious injury there if they opt to charge in.

This whole argument reminds me of the people who argue that cops should try to disarm a grown adult weilding a weapon. Good one, Ace, we'll just shoot the knife out of his hand... I think some people have watched too many episodes of the A-Team.

 

[specious_reasons]

Baring some weird earth splattering reason that I could not get there, I would not want it filmed. Gawd what were they thinking?

The teacher was taping another exercise, but left it running when the child started to act out, according to one of the news stories. Evidently, they thought it was a good idea to tape her actions in the office, too.

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.

It might not just be "the law" as it were. Parents are afforded a lot of power in local public schools. I've used this fact to my advantage in the past. Parents can cause trouble, get people fired, that kind of thing. School officials have a tendency to defer to parent's wishes unless it directly conflicts with school policy.

I suspect one of the reasons why this girl was handled this way was because the mother made such a big stink about her child being punished last time. This is not necessarily a legal threat to school staff. It might be that they feared the mother was more disruptive than the daughter. I suspect that's one of the reasons why this escalated.

 

[CFLarsen]

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

That is not the same as claiming that handcuffs lead to more harm than not. You are grossly distorting what I said.

You are thoroughly dishonest.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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

In all fairness to Kopji, I don't see where he suggested the police provided the video to the media..


I'm surprised it was the lawyer...


I share Kopji's outrage that the video was made public by the media, with no effort to conceal identities..

 

[RandFan]

That is not the same as claiming that handcuffs lead to more harm than not. You are grossly distorting what I said.

You are thoroughly dishonest.

Not true. You claim that handcuffing a child IS harm. If it is then you should be demonstrate that. A study showing that handcuffs are more likely to cause harm than not would be expected IF handcuffing a child IS harm. I grant that a study of adults would not fit your proposition.

 

[CFLarsen]

Not true. You claim that handcuffing a child IS harm. If it is then you should be demonstrate that. A study showing that handcuffs are more likely to cause harm than not would be expected IF handcuffing a child IS harm. I grant that a study of adults would not fit your proposition.

So, you admit that I did not state that handcuffs are more likely to harm. You admit that I did not state that handcuffs are defacto harm.

Thank you.

 

[Thanz]

So, you admit that I did not state that handcuffs are more likely to harm.

Is it your position that handcuffs are NOT more likely to harm? If that is your position now, it seems at odds with everything you have said.

You admit that I did not state that handcuffs are defacto harm.

Either this is a typo, or you are completely deranged. First, you did say that handcuffs are defacto harm. You said, direct quote, "Handcuffing a 5-year old girl is physical harm." You have clearly said that handcuffs = harm. You haven't provided proof, of course, only assertion.

Second, there is nothing in what Randfan said that would indicate that he admits you haven't made such a claim.

What colour is the sky in your world?

 

[Meadmaker]

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

That's a legitimate point, but it isn't complete. I know my own phrasing of my point could lead one to believe that I thought this incident was reason to change laws, but I don't actually believe that. I'll try to give a better explanation of what it is about this incident that suggests a need for voter initiated change.


While this example is extreme, it is instructive to observe the reactions of many Americans on this board. We all recognize that, in America, a child misbehaving in school can result in a lawsuit. We all recognize that, in America, teachers are frequently prevented from taking action that most people think they ought to take.

In other words, this incident is recognized as just an extreme version of a common problem. By itself, it means little, but it illustrates a bigger problem.

Furthermore, I think I could go through the archives of this forum and find several threads devoted to incidents in which police action was directed at a situation which, twenty years ago, would have been treated as a school discipline problem, and could have been taken care of without evacuating a classroom, and without handcuffing a five year old.


So should we vote Republican just because of this incident? I wouldn't say so. However, in my humble opinion, the Republicans are more likely to solve this particular problem than the Democrats.

Most Americans participating in this conversation do not believe that any specific individuals are responsible for the obviously ridiculous event that happened here. Most of us believe that the problem is with the system. Well, if the problem is systemic, then we are each obligated to view how we might influence that system, and we should use that as one factor in how we vote. For my part, it makes me more likely to vote Republican, which is a big change in my voting habits.

 

[rdtjr]

You admit that I did not state that handcuffs are defacto harm.

Thank you.

Wow. Just.... Wow.

You have been claiming through 8 pages that simply putting handcuffs on a child is harm to that child. And now... what? Seriously? Wow.

 

[crimresearch]

In all fairness to Kopji, I don't see where he suggested the police provided the video to the media....

I was responding to this:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kopji
.. the school giving the film to the media,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Shera's post.


And so far, everyone concerned has acted in a manner tht would pass with no comment unless the police were involved...the media uses footeage of 5 year old children every day....medical facilities restrain people regularly, school staff deal with out of control kids...kids scream and cry....

But let the police become involved and suddenly there must be something worng.

Someone equates handcuffs with 'harm' and public floggings.

And others are so sure that something terrible has been done here.

But nobody can seem to provide anything more than emotion as a basis for their reactions.

Note that emotion is a perfectly normal and acceptable basis for forming a reaction.

But it doesn't work so well as a basis for supporting assertions or reaching logical conclusions.

Just because 'it looks bad' shouldn't be where skeptics stop thinking.

 

[RandFan]

So, you admit that I did not state that handcuffs are more likely to harm. You admit that I did not state that handcuffs are defacto harm.

Thank you.

No. Not true. You demonstrably did state that handcuffs are defacto harm to children.

Handcuffing a 5-year old girl is physical harm.

Thank YOU!

 

[CFLarsen]

Is it your position that handcuffs are NOT more likely to harm? If that is your position now, it seems at odds with everything you have said.

TO CHILDREN!!

Either this is a typo, or you are completely deranged. First, you did say that handcuffs are defacto harm. You said, direct quote, "Handcuffing a 5-year old girl is physical harm." You have clearly said that handcuffs = harm. You haven't provided proof, of course, only assertion.

TO CHILDREN!!

 

[RandFan]

13 pages and all we have from Larsen is "what would you do and why?" Which is fallacy. Just because someone would pray to god doesn't make god real. One's behavior is proof of nothing. I can't challenge my held beliefs by asking what I would do. I can only seek objective evidence.

Larsen, for the "I don't know how many times" time...

Do you have any objective proof that handcuffing a 5 year old is abuse or that it is even likely to cause harm.

 

[CFLarsen]

Wake me if something new happens.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I was responding to this:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kopji
.. the school giving the film to the media,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Shera's post.


And so far, everyone concerned has acted in a manner tht would pass with no comment unless the police were involved...the media uses footeage of 5 year old children every day....medical facilities restrain people regularly, school staff deal with out of control kids...kids scream and cry....

But let the police become involved and suddenly there must be something worng.

Someone equates handcuffs with 'harm' and public floggings.

And others are so sure that something terrible has been done here.

But nobody can seem to provide anything more than emotion as a basis for their reactions.

Note that emotion is a perfectly normal and acceptable basis for forming a reaction.

But it doesn't work so well as a basis for supporting assertions or reaching logical conclusions.

Just because 'it looks bad' shouldn't be where skeptics stop thinking.

I may be introducing my on bias, but I felt that the majority of responders ( within this thread ) did not share Claus' outrage at the cuffing of the girl.


As we can all see, the discussion degenerated into other issues, other than whether or not the police acted correctly.


I said early on that I didn't have a problem with cuffing the kid; then Kopjis post shifted my attention to the question of the video being released. IMO, this question is far more significant.

 

[Number Six]

Cavaet: I've only read the first four pages of posts. Reading 160 is enough, I don't need to read all 520.

Here's my opinion. People are making way too big a deal out of this. I don't know if it was the best thing to do but if it wasn't then it was just a minor error in judgement rather than a giant offense.

People are reacting emotionally to the sight of a screaming child and to handcuffs, which they associate with other bad things. I think this is evidenced by some people basically saying that she should've just been carried to another room instead of handcuffed. Huh?!? Wouldn't carrying the kid away be using _more_ physcial force than using handcuffs? Yes it would, but carrying the child away wouldn't involve an item we associate in our minds with criminals so that makes it okay to some.

If the teacher picked up the kid and carried her away s/he'd have been fired. This whole incident is a good example of someone being in a situation where no matter what they do people are going to complain. I think it is patently ufair to crucify people stuck in that situation.

If a kid is throwing a tantrum you have to either restrain them or not restrain them and either looks bad and has the potential for causing damage to the child. Imagining you can magically wish an unpleasant situation away is woo thinking and unworthy of this board.

 

[Kodiak]

Wake me if something new happens.

 

[crimresearch]

Kodiak, you rock.

 

[davefoc]

I said early on that I didn't have a problem with cuffing the kid; then Kopjis post shifted my attention to the question of the video being released. IMO, this question is far more significant

I tend to agree, I find it hard to imagine how a school could have released the video. I would have thought that even if they had releases from the parents that allowed the video taping they would have erred on the side of caution and not released the video.

However, I suspect that the mother would have eventually forced its release given her reaction to the situation. Now my guess is that the release of the video will serve as one more claim in her law suits.

I wouldn't like to have been anybody associated with this thing. It looks like law suit city no matter what anybody does. Unless of course they could have gotten hold of CFL who could have given them advice in how to handle the situation correctly based on his vast knowledge of handling children throwing temper tantrums. This would have helped the situation a lot because in addition to suing the cops, the city, the school, the principal, the cameraman and the teacher the mother could have sued CFL .

 

[c0rbin]

Anyone who has ever had a kid (unlike our friend Claus) knows that we mean adults strap them down and restrain them against their will for their own safety all the time.

We have car seats, high chairs, strollers, shopping cart straps, carrying slings, cribs with mean bars, gates, hand-holding across the street.

We are responsible for their safety. Handcuffs are non-destructive and safe means for restraining a person--adult or child.