Police handcuffing 5-year-old
- Thread starter CFLarsen
- Start date
-
- Tags
- handcuffing police
CFLarsen said:
I don't have to:
1) I am allowed to hold him in place until he calms down which is much more of an immeadiate response since I do not wear a utility belt around the house.
2) I have access to all those other nifty restraining devices which work much better.
3) Hand-cuffs are too big for my 2 year-old.
4) My 5 year-old is well parented, would never do what this girl did, and if she did, I would expect him to be hand-cuffed.
Well I am all caught up on this thread and it seems pretty typical for a Clauser.
My conclusion stands:
Claus,
You are intellectually bankrupt. You do better at badgering and belittling people who believe in God. You cannot post in this (politics) forum without arrogantly belittling the US. You cannot accept the idea that humans are irrational at times. You cannot accept the fact that you err and will bend over backwards to find some patch of dry land born of pedantic and semantics upon which to remain standing and demanding.
If you had any integrity, you would admit forthwith that handcuffs, while possibly excessive in this case, a) did not cause physical harm to the child, b) does not mean that all children in the US are dealt with this way, and c) that you know very little about raising children.
I will not hold my breath as humility is a hat you have yet to try on.
My conclusion stands:
Claus,
You are intellectually bankrupt. You do better at badgering and belittling people who believe in God. You cannot post in this (politics) forum without arrogantly belittling the US. You cannot accept the idea that humans are irrational at times. You cannot accept the fact that you err and will bend over backwards to find some patch of dry land born of pedantic and semantics upon which to remain standing and demanding.
If you had any integrity, you would admit forthwith that handcuffs, while possibly excessive in this case, a) did not cause physical harm to the child, b) does not mean that all children in the US are dealt with this way, and c) that you know very little about raising children.
I will not hold my breath as humility is a hat you have yet to try on.
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,869
CFLarsen said:
It could be that it was lost in the shuffle and I missed it, but could you kindly quote the message where you answered the question of the physical harm caused by handcuffs?
I remember you responding with a question, but not with an answer. A question is a neat rhetorical trick, but behind that is surely an actual response. Are you capable of making a positive statement as to the physical harm caused by handcuffs? If it's bleeding obvious, it should take you but a moment to explain.
RandFan thank you for your thoughtful response.
Are you buttons easily pushed? I wonder why you don't have me as a model that I am a shining example of civility and serenity.
Seriously, I have the impression that from the very first response you were irritated. Claus has the " charisma" to drive people crazy but this time he was innocent he didn't post anything provocatively initially.
You know, an hour ago I was thinking that maybe the outrage was caused by the fact that we say the policemen treating a child as an adult and this is what shocked us.
.
Yes I do understand. In the institution I mentioned previously we have teachers and a couple of them have confessed to me that their dream is to collect money and continue their studies in the States. When I saw the video on TV I felt that I believe in your system more than some teachers do. I respect the Police Force but when teachers call the Police I believe that there is something wrong here, something that needs to be investigated and fixed.
To Diogenes
Who distributed the video would be my next question. I agree that this video will cause more harm than the handcuffing did to the kid. Now somebody will come and ask me for evidence to support this view. I cannot provide any, so don't get into the pain to ask me for proof.
RandFan said:
Are you buttons easily pushed? I wonder why you don't have me as a model that I am a shining example of civility and serenity.
Seriously, I have the impression that from the very first response you were irritated. Claus has the " charisma" to drive people crazy but this time he was innocent he didn't post anything provocatively initially.
I agree but there are cases --and this is a classic example-- that behaviors are judged that we have nothing but our experience to offer because even studies contradict one the other. I don't have children but I am the president of the board of an institution that used to belong to the Greek Church and provides for kids of the streets, gypsies mostly. I visit them almost everyday and there are days that I wish to do to them things that handcuffing seems innocent in comparison
You know, an hour ago I was thinking that maybe the outrage was caused by the fact that we say the policemen treating a child as an adult and this is what shocked us.
Without a forensic examination we cannot tell whether the kid was physically harmed or not, I believe that it hasn't been harmed at least from what I saw.
.
Yes and this thread is a good lesson for those who think that everything can be subjected to a skeptical approach. Behaviors cannot be approached like that. This doesn't mean that we cannot exercise critical thinking but there are cases where evidence is not that... evident!
Yes I do understand. In the institution I mentioned previously we have teachers and a couple of them have confessed to me that their dream is to collect money and continue their studies in the States. When I saw the video on TV I felt that I believe in your system more than some teachers do. I respect the Police Force but when teachers call the Police I believe that there is something wrong here, something that needs to be investigated and fixed.
To Diogenes
Who distributed the video would be my next question. I agree that this video will cause more harm than the handcuffing did to the kid. Now somebody will come and ask me for evidence to support this view. I cannot provide any, so don't get into the pain to ask me for proof.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
What you said..c0rbin said:
I actually use to respect and enjoy the way Claus gave the woos no quarter.. It has evolved into mere badgering of anyone who disagrees with him, with no informed rebuttal..
A very recent example of what CFL demands of others can be explored in this thread:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55698&perpage=40&pagenumber=1
Seren,
- You have no evidence whatsoever that the Nazca's didn't create the patterns.
- You have no evidence that these pipes ever existed.
- You have no evidence that these pipes were made of "something more valuable".
- You have no evidence that something like a plastic mesh was used.
- You have zero understanding of what creates a greenhouse effect.
You are not doing so hot, are you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me paraphrase..
Claus,
- You have no evidence whatsoever that handcuffs always cause harm.
- You have no evidence that the child in this discussion was harmed by handcuffs.
- You have no evidence that anyone has ever been harmed by handcuffs.
- You have no evidence that this situation was not handled to the best ability of those present.
- You have zero understanding of managing a child who is having a temper tantrum.
You are not doing so hot, are you?
------------------------------------------------------------
Have you ever thought of creating a sock puppet named ' Badger ' ?
c0rbin said:
I second that. Clause appears to have fallen from grace. RandFan is upfront with his position. He is using a clear line of reasoning I can follow. I have yet to see an actual argument from those supporting the position that the girl was physically harmed. Opinions riddled with emotional conclusions and fallacious reasoning are not arguments. I am used to seeing that used to support someone's belief in the supernatural.
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
quote Cleopatra:
"Who distributed the video would be my next question. I agree that this video will cause more harm than the handcuffing did to the kid. Now somebody will come and ask me for evidence to support this view. I cannot provide any, so don't get into the pain to ask me for proof"
Are you trying to create a smokescreen for Claus to hide behind?
Exactly which one of the multiple links I posted leaves you with the question about who distributed this video?
And who has published these contradictory studies that refute the medical experts I cited in the FDLE evaluation of no harm from properly applied handcuffs in this sort of situation?
And we aren't allowed to ask you for proof either?
Is that a new rule for JREF?
Or just a new low?
"Who distributed the video would be my next question. I agree that this video will cause more harm than the handcuffing did to the kid. Now somebody will come and ask me for evidence to support this view. I cannot provide any, so don't get into the pain to ask me for proof"
Are you trying to create a smokescreen for Claus to hide behind?
Exactly which one of the multiple links I posted leaves you with the question about who distributed this video?
And who has published these contradictory studies that refute the medical experts I cited in the FDLE evaluation of no harm from properly applied handcuffs in this sort of situation?
And we aren't allowed to ask you for proof either?
Is that a new rule for JREF?
Or just a new low?
It took me a moment to decide whether I will reply to that or not. I will because it's a fun post.
Of course. How could have I thought that I could hide that from you, dear Inspector Clousseau?
I didn't open your links. I rarely open links in debates because usually they say nothing. Since I am bored could you --THIS TIME--because the previous time you just accused me for not being able to reply to your questions although you haven't posted ANY questions-- tell me who distributed the video?
This might come as a shock to you but I haven't read that but I didn't need to anyway since I have the same opinion. Also I didn't refer to the physical harm since I stated from my first post in this thread that I haven't read any forensic examination that proves ohysical harm.
It depends who is asking.
You know the reason why I avoid reading all of your posts- in the politics forum-- is because you remind me of my late husband. He was middle-aged,"menopausal" and he knew everything.Exactly like you.
Get in my ignore list for a while, young man.
crimresearch said:
Of course. How could have I thought that I could hide that from you, dear Inspector Clousseau?
I didn't open your links. I rarely open links in debates because usually they say nothing. Since I am bored could you --THIS TIME--because the previous time you just accused me for not being able to reply to your questions although you haven't posted ANY questions-- tell me who distributed the video?
This might come as a shock to you but I haven't read that but I didn't need to anyway since I have the same opinion. Also I didn't refer to the physical harm since I stated from my first post in this thread that I haven't read any forensic examination that proves ohysical harm.
It depends who is asking.
You know the reason why I avoid reading all of your posts- in the politics forum-- is because you remind me of my late husband. He was middle-aged,"menopausal" and he knew everything.Exactly like you.
Get in my ignore list for a while, young man.
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
I didn't open your links. I rarely open links in debates because usually they say nothing. Since I am bored could you --THIS TIME--because the previous time you just accused me for not being able to reply to your questions although you haven't posted ANY questions-- tell me who distributed the video?
I've already told you who distributed that video, and I backed it up with news reports, and I backed those quotes up with links.
And I've asked the questions repeatedly, as have others.
Nobody cares about your juvenile insults, pretended inability to read, or any of your other woo-woo backed into a corner tactics.
Your choice to refuse to examine reality, just as your choice to refuse to discuss honestly, shows the lack of integrity that you hold, not the people who are sticking to facts.
I've already told you who distributed that video, and I backed it up with news reports, and I backed those quotes up with links.
And I've asked the questions repeatedly, as have others.
Nobody cares about your juvenile insults, pretended inability to read, or any of your other woo-woo backed into a corner tactics.
Your choice to refuse to examine reality, just as your choice to refuse to discuss honestly, shows the lack of integrity that you hold, not the people who are sticking to facts.
CFLarsen said:TO CHILDREN!!
TO CHILDREN!!
So specifically show how this specific girl was specifically harmed. Do no appeal to hypotheticals. Do not ask me a question about cuffs. Just show evidence for your claim.
You cannot just define cuffs on children to cause physical harm, if they don't really cause physical harm, claud.
If it is bleedin' obvious, then LIST THE SPECIFIC HARM done. But, you can't, woo!
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Cleopatra said:
I am curious to see where this is going so I will answer "yes."