segnosaur

Let's understand what we're each talking about ... by trashing, what level of damage and danger are you seeing? 'Damage' could mean anything from ripping up schoolbooks (something well within the physical strength of a kindergarden kid), overturning chairs or other types of furniture, marking up floors or walls with paint and/or markers. Of course, the 'level' of damage should be irrelevant here... the rules state quite clearly that teachers can't stop ANY of it. Are you suggesting that they can only intervene if they expect the level of damage to be higher than some preset level? No, I would have public insurance indemnify teachers for bona fide efforts to do their best in any given situation. And if schools can't afford the insurance? (All you need is one or 2 incidence to really drive up the cost of such insurance, and as I pointed out when talking about lawsuits, you don't necessarily have to do anything wrong to be hit with a lawsuit.) Cheap. You suggested teachers just "give students a hug". I pointed out potential physical dangers to the teacher if that particular policy were carried out. You seem to dismiss the dangers. Therefore, you must have no qualms about teachers getting hurt in the ways I described. Now, of course you DO keep suggesting body armour, but its very difficult to know whether you're serious about that or not. And if you are, what EXACTLY do teachers do in between the time the kid starts trashing the place and they put the armour on. That's not what it means to me. In that case, I hope you can find teachers that either 1) like getting punched in the groin, head-butted in the face, or getting your fot stomped on, or 2) are a little smarter in protecting themselves. Alright, I'll concede that in rare cases involving super-powered children given to eternal tantrums perhaps the police, or Spider-man or someone should be called in. Children are more than capable of continuing tantrums for lengthy periods. I remember watching a documentary where some kid had a condition similar to ADHD. The mother struggled for over 2 hours trying to get the kid to bed.... kid would get up, mother would pick the kid up and lay him back down and hug him for a sec, kid would immediately get back up... repeat for hours. I admit I haven't tendered any evidence. Do you really think it would be hard for me to find cases of people being injured while being handcuffed? Let me put it this way... for every case of a school kid injured once handcuffs are in place, I can probably find a case of a kid injured while being restrained. Yes, where that exception applies, I concede it. Except you'll never actually come out and specify WHAT you want the rule to be, other than the vague 'give a hug' concept. Under what conditions? How long? What do you do if it still doesn't work? What about kids that have been sexualy abused and for whom that type of contact will make things worse? Are you going to allow teachers to use restraints that are safe for them? If not (and you expect teachers to approach from the front), who pays if a teacher gets injured? Hey, I want to be convinced there's another way.... but as I've said before, all I've heard are vague, empty statements that have no real thought behind them.

Then you must be an incredibly lazy reader. In post 34 (page 3) of this thread I posted a reference (Including a link!) which involves a federal guideline which states: Physical restraint may not be used...as a response to property destruction, disruption of school order, a student's refusal to comply with a school rule or staff directive.. Go back and read it. So, basically a child can decide to trash the classroom, and as long as no other student was threatened they could destroy anything they want, and the teachers couldn't intervene at all. If you want to claim that making education a higher priority is the answer, you still have to explain how all that training will help if the rules say they still can't actually intervene. ... your post #34 has nothing to do with the Florida schools where the real incident took place no, the Town of Scituate, Massachusetts - which is the town of link you provided - didn't handcuff the little girl - the Avon Park Schools don't adhere to MA school regs -- so, calling ME the " incredibly lazy reader," is an error on your part -- you have that matter backwards. Yes, one of my references in post 34 is for a Massachusettes school... but in the very first paragraph, it points out that they are following the restrant policies of the federal Department of Education, a fact that I had already pointed out. You know, I don't have a copy of the exact policy that that exact Floriday school was following. But considering that I had a reference to the U.S. FEDERAL policy, and considering I had a reference to the policies at ANOTHER Florida school, do you have a particular reason to believe that THIS school would have different policies?

I hate to defend the "left wing". (I'm more of a libertarian myself, and think both the political left and political right need a brick upside their collective heads.) But, I think I should point out that not everyone who is "left wing", or who dislikes the president, or who things the president should be impeached is necessarily a believer in 9/11 conspiracies, nor is everyone who believes in such conspiracies a supporter of the left-wing. I am a regular contributor to a skeptics board who's posters hold a wide range of opinions (from left wing to right wing), but they all view 9/11 conspricies for the bogus junk that they are.

Believe it or not, the civil service was already politicized. Of course, since Canada had been run by the Liberals for so long, a change to a Conservative government would probably cause a giant culture shock. Quebec 'separatism' never really went anywhere. Keep in mind that when Quebec had its first referendum, Trudeau was in power. (And Trudeau is viewed by many as some sort of 'super-federalist', able to leap tall separatists at a single bound, or some other junk like that.) Frankly, I think support for 'separatism' is probably more a factor of the strength of personality that the leader of the separatist forces has. True, I think it was a failing that Mulroney never cut the deficit. But lets consider a few facts: - While the later Chretien government DID manage to cut the deficit, much of their efforts involved deep cuts to things like Health care and the military (much more than Mulroney did). Perhaps those cuts were necessary, although from the way people react, health care cuts are considered 'bad'. - Chretien also benefited from taxes voted in under the conservatives (which they either did not get to implement, or who's effect had not been fully felt.) Also, Chretien benefitted from a very long period of high global economic growth, and very low global interest rates, both of which helped control and/or reduce the deficit So, while Mulroney failed to make necessary cuts, I think Chretien's "success" has been more due to luck than actual skill or policies.

Spying on American people without a warrant is not just, "illegal," it is a violation of the very Constitution Bush swore to defend. I'm assuming that you're referring to the NSA warrantless surveillance issue. It may well be that the warrantless surveillance laws passed by congress and used by Bush is unconstitutional, but they way the law in the U.S. (and probably every other contitutional democracy) works, that does not necessarily make it 'illegal'. Its up to the president and congress to make laws, and later on for the Supreme court to rule on the constitutionality of those laws when they are challenged. If the laws are found to be unconstitutional, they can't be used; until then, the assumption is that they are valid. I am as yet unaware of any challenges to the surveillance laws that have reached the supreme court. Many presidents have used and/or passed laws that were later found to be unconstitutional. For example, the president used to have a Line Item Veto which allowed him to eliminate sections of proposed legislation while still passing the remainder of the law. The line-item veto was brought in in the 1990s, and was used by Clinton several times before the Supreme court decided it was unconstitutional. However, the fact that Clinton used a law that was later found to be unconstitutional was not (nor should it be) considered an impeachable offense.

I can undestand people not liking Bush. There are a lot of things I don't like about him either. The question is, can they even impeach him and over what? Impeachment implies criminal activity. I can point to several things Bush has done that would be classified as inept, idiotic, etc.. But last time I checked, none of those things were particual illegal, and I don't think you can impeach a president just because they're doing a rotten job.

Well, there are a couple of reasons that the Liberals under Martin may have lost the election (even if Chretien was in power during the scandal). First of all, while Chretien was the leader, there were plenty of lower-level Liberals who were involved. Since there was no guarantee that they all left with Chretien, had the Liberals won the last election we could have continued to have Liberal scams, even with a new leader. (Not that I'm suggesting any other party will be perfectly innocent.) Secondly, while Chretien was the leader and seemed to be the most affected by ad-scam, we still don't know whether Martin knew anything. Remember, Martin WAS a senior minister from Quebec, and he did have many contacts in the province (as part of his leadership goals.) If all that stuff was going on while he was in cabinet, then either 1) he knew about it and was part of the coverup, or 2) he was oblivous/incompetent to the scams when he should have known better. Neither option is particularly inspiring. Oh, and while you're busy praising Martin as the innocent victim... keep in mind that many of the details of ad-scam could have been revealed much ealier, except Martin had a commons committee investigating the scandal end their work early before they could reveal anything too damaging. Perhaps a cunning move on his part, but not exactly the move of someone who is particually eager to run a clean government.

You know, you think you're funny, but you're not... Been to New Jersey lately? ...While driving and holding a full milkshake container between his legs, a man squeezed the container and spilled half of the drink in his lap when he leaned over to reach into his bag of food. Due to this irksome mishap, he became distracted and hit the car in front. The driver of the second car tried to sue McDonald's for causing the accident. He claimed that they should have told the man who had hit him that eating while driving was dangerous. From: http://www.zurich.com/main/productsandsolu...0040318_005.htm

Hey yeah, you're right. My mistake, and I appologize. . When I went back and reviewed the posts, I overlooked that post (probably because the formatting was messed up. (Although its a lot smaller mistake than claiming teachers are legal guardians of their students when they are not.) So hey, you one one. Of course, everything else in your 'argument' has been cr*p. I'm still waiting to find out: - What do teachers do if they haven't yet put on their protective gear while the kid is trashing the classroom - What exact rules you'd put in to deal with these cases... get them to restrain/hug the kid as long as necessary or set definite time limit? - Will you have law reform to prevent people launching lawsuits against teachers and schools if restraints are used? And to answer the question... no, I'm not a teacher. I was a college professor once, but that was a long time ago. I just don't want to see any get punched in the groin (like you seem to want to.) More than necessary? Of course not. So, that means never having to approach a child from the front in a friendly 'hug'; you always approach from the back, and use whatever force is necessary, unless of course they've put on armour. Its either that, or you continue the no-touch policy and find some other way to deal with the destruction. Once the person is restrained maybe! And once the person is restrained and the handcuffs are applied, the person can be released. If no handcuffs are used, the person must continue to be restrained physically. That's where the problem is. There is no point in citing such reports. By that, I assume you mean "I have no proof to support my claims, so I will resort to my already debunked common sense argument because". In the examples I provided, the children were injured by restraints that were NOT done as part of handcuffing. You should be able to provide at least SOME evidence that handcuffs are dangerous. You have not. Your claim of 'logic' falls flat in the face of real evidence. As I've said before, the person is only restrained for a short time while the handcuffs are applied, THEN THEY ARE RELEASED. Without the handcuffs, the physical restraint (with all the additional risks) must continue for however long the kid acts out (which can be many minutes). And also, as I mentioned before, handcuffs are going to be applied by police, who have experience in dealing with uncooperative people. If you allow teachers to restrain students, many will not have the training on how to properly use those restraints, and even fewer will have the chance to actually use them in real life situations. I really have no idea, and it has me confused. My guess (and it is that, a guess) is that they wanted to do a 'scared straight' with the kid, although that does sound heavy handed. I really think the police in question handled the public relations very badly. They should have said exactly what I said.... "Didn't want to do it, but because of the rules, it was the best option out of a bunch of bad options". Except for the fact that you yourself said that the rules need to be changed to allow those 'sensible professionals' to actually do something to deal with the situation.

I know I know.....how stupid of her to sue, you know with Third Degree burns and all. Surgery.....over a week in the hospital. The issue is not how badly she was injured. Nobody is suggesting she is 'faking' her injuries. The issue is how much responsibility McDonalds should take for something that (1) most people are smart enough not to do i.e. open a cup of coffee sitting in their lap, (2) that most people should logically be aware of the risks. Most people are aware that coffee=hot=risky. and (3) most people would know how to handle the product in order to limit the risks (such as not holding the coffee between your legs when opening it.) Actually no... It was originally McDs who offered a settlement of a few hundred,while the plaintif wanted $20,000.

Maybe in sit down restaurants. But at drive thru? Yes, at drive throughs. In one of the references I pointed to had tests done by lawyers for the plaintif where they went to other drivethroughs (at places like Wendy's) and found coffee at similar temperatures. And why should it matter if its a sit down or drivethrough? You can also spill your coffee on you while at a sit-down restaurant. But unlike a drive-through, you're more likely to drink the coffee right away. (That is, after all, the point to a sit-down place.) Anyone can claim that McDs makes coffee too hot. The fact that people still like to drink it (and most do so without burns) shows that perhaps its NOT too hot. So people like something that may be a risk for them. Perhaps the Shriners should worry about fixing the demand by convincing people that coffee shouldn't taste good and avoid it alltogether. Actually, that may have been true of older coffee makers, but newer, high-end coffee makers can go up to 200 degrees, even higher than McDonalds. Actually, no they weren't.... McDonald's has had similar lawsuits thrown out of court. As to why this one was successful... maybe their lawyers were just having a really bad day.

Normally I'd say that's totally irrelevant. Chertoff was only one of several people who worked on the article for Popular mechanics. Not all of them were related to Michael Chertoff, and more importantly, all of the information in its articles can be double-checked with other mainstream sources. When you make the claim that B. Chertoff is lying, you are implying HUNDREDS of people are also lying. Howver, this is more than just irrelevant.... it is also totally wrong. Benjamin Chertoff and Michel Chertoff are not related (unless of course you want to consider them 'related' because of them both being mammals.) Normally, I don't like to stick to mainstream sources for references. (I'll let the conspiricy theorists stick to using non-experts like Jones for 'proof'.) However, since YOU have provided absolutely no proof that the 2 Chertoff's ARE related, I thought it would be safe to provide THIS reference (which actually comes from Chertoff himself): Here's the story, as best as I know: I'm not related to Michael Chertoff, at least in any way I can figure out. We might be distant relatives, 15 times removed, but then again, so might you and I. Bottom line is I've never met him, never communicated with him, and nobody I know in my family has ever met or communicated with him. From: http://www.911myths.com/html/benjamin_chertoff.html From the looks of things, the claim that they are cousins came from a statement from B. Chertoff's mom saying they "might" be related. That's because you may never know if someone is a distant cousin several times removed. But nobody (not Scholars for 911, not Alex Jones, nobody) has ever shown any actual proof they are directly related. Its one of those myths which stems from conspricy theorist taking things out of context. Probably the reason nobody wants to bother with Scholars for 9/11 Truth is because few (none last time I checked) are actually experts in structural engineering. You don't invite automechanics to talk at medical conventions. You don't invite farmers to talk at astronomy conventions, and you don't invite experts in humanities and social science (as many of the S911 group are) to discuss structural engineering. If the S911 have something important to say, let them publish their findings in peer reviewed journals dealinig with engineering (not just peer-reviewed by each other). Until they can actually come up with something accurate enough to be accepted by referees at such journals their work should be considered suspect. You know, the whole 'scohlars for 911 truth' remind me a lot of the folks who believe in creationism. They too like to point to a small group of 'scholars' who dispute evolution, even though those scholars usually have no background in biological research. Later in your post, you repeated a lot of the 'myths' that conspricy theorists like to cling to. I'm sure these have probably been debunked on this forum before, but the threads covering 9/11 are fairly long and I haven't had a chance to wade though them yet. I know its probably a fool's errand, but I figure I may as well debunk this garbage, in case anyone else has wondered about how this stuff is explained. Simple... firemen knew the building would collapse hours ahead of when it did. They knew because they could see signs of strutural failure. Go back and listen to what the news reports actually say. When you hear the CNN reports, they tend to say that WTC7 "is collapsing", indicating an event in progress. Given the way support beams were shifting and sagging at the time, saying that the building "is collapsing" is accurate (even if you don't see the building falling at that time.) (see: http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...gz/hayden.html) Simple... The building did not have 'mimimal damage'; it had a HUGE areas ripped out, almost a dozen stories high. See: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%...pse%20Final.pdf (page 17) Or consider this quote from one of the firemen on duty that day: you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors... From: http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html Where exactly are you getting the idea that the temperature was "over 2500"? Likely another red herring on the part of the conspricy theorists. If you're assuming that that's the temperature needed to melt steel.. well guess what? No "molten metal" was ever tested, and there WERE other metals at the site (such as Aluminum from the airplane) which DO melt at much lower temperatures. There WERE hot spots underground for a long time after 9/11... that is totally expected. Debris will act as an insulator, and some fires will continue to smoulder and add heat even in a low oxygen environment. Readings from the site suggested temperatures in the rage of 800 degrees C, around the point which Aluminum melts. (See: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html for information on thermal readings.) Not one of those 'eyewitnesses' actually SAW a bomb. Any time I hear of any of these 'eyewitnesses', its always from someone who HEARD something, or they were reporting what they heard 2nd hand. Guess what? In a fire, people here things... walls collapsing, batteries in UPS systems exploding, etc. Not every report of an 'explosion' means that there was a bomb involved. Of course, if 'eyewitness' testimony is so important to you, why don't you accept the eyewitness testimony of the firemen who saw evidence of structural failure in WTC7 long before it fell? First of all, the use of the word 'pull' meant 'pull the firemen away' from WTC7. Firemen at the site have used similar terminolgy. Secondly, you yourself said that it would take 'weeks' of preparation to do... why did not one worker in all those 47 floors actually notice anything in that time. And what type of explosives do you think can withstand being subject to fire for hours ahead of time before they are detonated? Lastly, why would Silverstien demolish his own buildings when the amount of insurance he had would be less than what he needed to replace the buildings? And in fact, at one point he was only going to take out $1.5 billion in insurance, and only increased the coverage when his creditors demanded it. (Not the act of someone who knows what's going to happen...) See: http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html Red herring... the building wasn't pulverized 'into dust'. Here are some pictures showing plenty of non-pulverized debris: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2194525.stm http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/12000/12100/12190/image187.gif By the way, why exactly do you think that the building being 'pulverized' into dust proves explosives were used? When they use controlled demolition, they DON'T try to pulverize the entire building; they just take out key supports and let it fall in on itself. Why is that suprising? Each support beam had a maximum length of 38 feet to begin with. (See: http://www.civil.columbia.edu/ce4210/FEMA_...fs/403_apb.pdf). The beams were 'overlapped' by a few feet... why wouldn't they fail at the weakest point (the point of overlap)? There are around a billion muslims in the world, and many of them are Arabic. Don't you think that its at least possible that the claims of 'living hijackers' can be due to confusion over 2 or more people having the same name? Oh, and what exactly do yo uthink that says about the 'consspiricy'? Why have only some alive? Wouldn't such a masterful conspricy be able to 'clean up' all the loose ends, or at least create clean identities for the hijackers? Simple physics... the amount of force required to stop something that's falling is much greater than the amount of force required to keep it stationary. Here's a suggestion... take a rock, and balance it on your head... it should sit there without causing you too much pain. Now, take that same rock, and get someone to drop it on your head from 2 meters above. Chances are it will break your skull. Why? Because the force required to decelerate the rock to 0 (i.e. when it hits your skull) will be higher than it can handle, eve if it can handle a 'resting' rock. First of all, these were not 'minimal fires'. WTC7 had uncontrolled fire on at least 6 floors (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf page 20). And while WTC1&2 only had fires buring on floors near the impact area, its estimated that those fires reached temperatures above 1000 degrees, more than hot enough to weaken steal by at least 50%. (See: http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Cha...20V%20Fire.pdf) Secondly, you DO realize that all of those buildings, in addition to the fire, ALSO had structural damage (either from the airline impacts or from the other towers collapsing.) Lastly, its always amazing when a conspricy theorist points out how 'unique' the WTC collapses were, without stopping to consider what THEIR conspricy would mean: - Never before have buildings higher than 100 stories been destroyed by controlled demolition. Yet conspricy theorists want us to believe that's what happened - Never before have buildings that were to be 'demolished' been subject to fires for an hour or hours beforehand. (I wonder what they would have used for explosives?) Yet conspricy theorists want us to believe that's what happened - Never before have buildings been destroyed 'top down' by controlled demolition. Yet conspricy theorists want us to believe that's what happened - Never before have buildings shown signs of collapse before the 'detonation' to bring them down. Yet conspricy theorists want us to believe that's what happened

No, the woman required skin grafts and physical therapy because of her OWN carelessness. Actually, no they didn't. They serve coffee 'hot', but the termperature is in line with that of many other restaurants. A few problems with your statements... The "industry standard" may actually be 160 to 185, and Starbucks recommends 175-185 degrees. (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1085626349093) The time it takes to cause burns seems to increase exponentially with temperature. In a similar case in Britian, it was thought that even for coffee served at much lower temperatures (150 degrees), the time it takes to cause "full thickness" burn (basically causing the same injuries) would also only have taken a couple of seconds. (http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j1118/Bogle_v_McDonalds.htm) So, even if McDonalds HAD lowered the temperature of their coffee it would not have made a difference in her burns. McDonald's coffee was not necessarily being served significantly hotter than that from other restaurants. The plaintiff's own laywer tested coffee from various restaurants and found that McDonald's coffee had 9 of the 12 temperature readings. But that means that at least a quarter of the hottest coffee measurements came from restaurants other than McDonalds!!!! (http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm) Lots of restaurants serve coffee almost as or even hotter than McDonalds. McDonalds coffee is not extreme in the temperature it is served at. So much for your argument athat 'any other establishment' serves coffee cooler than McDonald's.

Actually, I asked before that and you didn't answer. Like this time. Actually, no you didn't ask that.... what you said (way back on page 1) was that you "hoped I wasn't a teacher". Last time I checked, that wasn't a question. (Boy, now THAT was particularly pathetic... you can't even bother referring to what you yourself wrote.) So, once again... do you think teachers should be put at more risk than necessary when having to deal with disruptive children. Assuming you're being sarcastic... Some police actually do take special training on dealing with kids. Even if they don't, they STILL know more about restraint techniques than your average teacher. But as I've already pointed out, it is People who are putting the handcuff on her. Handcuffs take less than 1 minute to put on... a disruptive child can continue in that state for a lot longer than that amount of time. It's not necessary since I've pointed out that restraint precedes handcuffing and so handcuffing suffers from all the same risks. Actually, it IS necessary if you want to be believed... you seem to think handcuffing carries similar risk; I've pointed out several injuries caused by restraints... if handcuffing DID result in a significant amount of injury, you'd expect to see at least a few news reports of children injured by handcuffs. So, where are the reports? Then why arrest her, charge her, and take her for booking? I have no idea whether they actually charged her. (Remember, the original article was on the 'prison planet' web site, which isn't exactly an accurate news source.) True colors shining through, my music Teacher once sang. Believe it or not, respect IS important. Do you really think the classrom setting will work if kids think "I can cause problems and nothing will happen"? You need to take into account the basics of capacity planning and service supply. Each ridiculous cranky-child call adds to the overall police level required. (Unless you're suggesting that we have too many police for the demand. ) As I pointed out... these types of calls are very rare. I've heard of 2 cases in the U.S. in the past 3 years. That's less than 1 case a year. Certainly not a great epidemic of kids being hauled away in cuffs. I'm pretty sure that 1 incident per year can easily be handled by all of the U.S. police forces without hiring extra cops.

Please, stop the shouting, I'm not a schoolchild to be browbeaten. No, but you do seem to be rather dense in dealing with the issues at hand. But hey, to your credit, later on you DID acknowledge there may be a problem with the rules. So, even though it took about 5 pages of posts, we have a breakthrough. You're dealing with a kid who is disruptive and possibly flailing away. You don't have to approach them 'crotch first' in order to risk being hurt. Any face to face positioning (assuming you were keeping the arms available in a 'hug' position) is going to leave the person vulnerable. That's why I said the kid has to be approached from behind. Yes, you did mention hockey equipment. Of course, I pointed out several problems with that particular suggestion (which you seem to have ignored). Now, it took you about 5 pages of posts to acknowlege there may be a problem with the rules... will it take another 5 to acknowledge there is a problem with having the teachers wear protective gear? Yes, the kid hid. Should the cops have left then? What makes you think the kid wouldn't have started acting up again (as has happened in similar cases when the kid has calmed down, only to start up again later)? And hey, you were the one that suggested the cost of policing was high... nothing like keeping a few cops waiting at school for the kid to come out. Of course, I find it ironic that you would accuse them of stupidity considering that you yourself didn't really clue in to the fact that there may be problems wiht the rules until about 5 pages had been made in this thread. You say that like you think I haven't had that happen! Hello! I went to kindergarden. When I was in kindergarden kids often stomped, tripped, pinched, or smacked eachother. But here's some important information for you to fold into your analysis -- kindergarden kids are small and weak. The fact that they are 'weak' does not mean that they cannot do damage to an adult. The fact that an adult CAN overpower a child doesn't mean the child can't do damage when an adult isn't fighting back (such as when they're trying to 'hug' the child.) ????? But why on earth would you let her do that? Because, you're busy trying to 'hug' them so your hands aren't protecting yourself, and the kid is flailing away, because golly gee, they may not WANT to be hugged. And because you don't have time to go put on your protective armour, because the kid has just started to wreck stuff. Yes, some of the rules you've cited might have that effect. In those cases it is the rules rather than the individuals that appear to be at fault. Ah ha! We have a break through! You actually admit that there's a problem with your 'hugs' solution in the real world. So, now, here's some other questions: What would you do if your little 'hugs' didn't do the job and the kid continued to try to destroy things? (For example, if the kid's problems were caused by some undiagnosed illness.) Would you let the teacher continue the 'hug' as long as necessary? Set a time limit after which the police would finally be called? What would you do if a parent decided to sue over the incident, either because the child got some sort of minor injury, or the parent decided they didn't want their kids touched? Would you change the law to have the teachers and school receive immunity? Do you really think its a good idea to just 'hug' children when the cause of their disruptive behavior is caused in part by emotional problems stemming from sexual abuse?

Did it ever occure to you that a student may be disruptive and/or destructive because of things that happened OUTSIDE of school? Some children may have undiagnosed medical conditions. Some may have been victims of abuse. Heck, some may even have had really cr*ppy parents. All those conditions may cause a child to act out, and none of those conditions will be alleviated by putting more money or resources into education. Ummmm.... no. Training and support is totally irrelevant of teachers are prevented from physically touching the students. Then you must be an incredibly lazy reader. In post 34 (page 3) of this thread I posted a reference (Including a link!) which involves a federal guideline which states: Physical restraint may not be used...as a response to property destruction, disruption of school order, a student's refusal to comply with a school rule or staff directive.. Go back and read it. Really... I could understand if this thread were more than a dozen pages that someone might want to skip a few. But we're only at 5 pages, AND that particular regulation had been referenced many times before. There should be no excuse for not seeing and/or knowing about that policy. You should be ashamed of yourself for making such a stupid remark. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. So, basically a child can decide to trash the classroom, and as long as no other student was threatened they could destroy anything they want, and the teachers couldn't intervene at all. If you want to claim that making education a higher priority is the answer, you still have to explain how all that training will help if the rules say they still can't actually intervene. Yes, the child can be (or was) taken out of the class. Likely done to eliminate risk to other students. But that does not mean that the room she was brought to ALSO didn't have stuff in it to break. Being 'isolated' does not necessarily mean being put in an empty room with no windows, no furniture, no books, etc. Just so you know, not all cases where police detain people need be considered 'felony arrest'. In some cases police will 'arrest' people if they appear to be a threat to themselvses or others. Of course, there's also the fact that young children may not be legally liable for their actions. You're under the mistaken assumption that the type of physical contact which is appropriate with a child in that situation is the type of physical contact which is actually allowed. In this case the rules may be out of tune with what would actually be best. Once again... how do you get over the fact that the rules specifically prevent teachers from touching a student who's trying to wreck stuff? What good are decent wages if you get fired for doing what makes sense?

First of all, the operative word above is 'appear' insensitive. Secondly, you should modify that statement to say 'appear insensitive TO FIGLEAF'. I've made it very clearn that I didn't like the fact that children were lead away in handcuffs, but I haven't seen a realistic alternative, either as a short term solution (i.e. what the teachers could have done in that particular incident) or as a long term solution (to prevent similar incidents in the future.) I am well aware of the issues involved (the obligations, expectations, etc.) It just that I'm basing my opinion on reality... such as the reality that teachers are limited in their ability to touch students, while you seem to be basing your opinions on non-reality. Ok, THAT is really disturbing. Do you really think that kids are incapable of causing harm to an adult? DO YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF A KINDERGARDEN KID PUNCHED YOU IN THE GENITALS? DO YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF A KINDERGARDEN KID STOMPED ON YOUR FOOT? Why don't you try it? Sorry, the argument that some kindergarden kid is so frail that they can never harm an adult is such a retarded notion. There is a risk. Perhaps you should let some children kick you and punch you a few times so you can figure that out. Once again, try letting one of them kick you in the groin a few times and see how it is. Of course, this argument SHOULD have ended a while ago... I've already shown how the rules prevent teachers from touching students anyways, and you haven't said anything about what you'd do to change the rules. Because, I'm providing honest, WELL RESEARCHED and logical arguments, and actually demanding real answers, and you are resorting to a fairly land answer that can't be done in reality because the rules are against it. Again, its a non-solution because school rules prevent it. Oh, and by the way, lets assume we all did live in fairy land where 'hugging' was allowed? How long do you think it would take for them to put on their protective gear? 5 minutes? 10 minutes? And should the kid be allowed to destroy anything they want in the mean time? Or do you think the teachers should always wear there gear? You know, issues like that really make me question whether you honestly put any thought into your answers or you're just acting as a troll. I asked first... do you think teachers should be put at more risk than necessary. I'm not about to answer your question until you start dealing with mine. In this case it's the first refuge, as I haven't tendered any evidence that has been refuted yet. I'm not sure I'll bother. Actually, you haven't tendered ANY evidence yet, refuted or not. I, on the other hand, have provided plenty of evidence. The only time you've ever tried to provide anything that even resembled evidence was when you claimed that teachers were considered "in loco parentis", a claim that I debunked when I posted real evidence showing that the did NOT have the same abilities as parents to control students in their charge. Except that: - Handcuffing will likely be done by police, who actually have training to deal with uncooperative individuals - Handcuffs don't feel pain; people do. Therefore, anyone using physical force to restrain a child (so that the teacher themselves won't be harmed) may require much more contact to ensure the person doing the restraining isn't accidentaly hit - Handcuffs don't tend to make mistakes. People do. I've provided references to people that were injured during restraints. You've provided no evidence that people are regularly hurt using handcuffs. First of all, the children will not be 'criminalized'... they will not have a record, and 'children' below a certain age aren't even legally liable for their actions. Will it make them more 'scared' of the cops? Maybe. It may also give them more respect. Secondly, police responding to such actions would not necessarily cost anything extra. As I said before, police regularly do lots of non-critical work (patrols, etc), so that sending them to respond to such an event will not add ADDITIONAL costs. Even if cost WAS a factor, the average salary of a cop in the U.S. is around $56k. (See: http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/related/51345.php) Even if they had 2 cops involved in each episode, and each episode took at least half a day to handle, we're talking about $300-500 per incident (of which there are probably less than 1 per year.) Wonder how much a lawsuit will cost if some kid gets injured, or complains about sexual abuse over being 'touched' by a teacher while being 'hugged'?

That there are problems with education is not in dispute, although calling it 'pathetically dysfunctional' isn't exactly an accurate statement. Remember, when we're deling with situations like this, we're not dealing with the way the majority of students are treated. (Most will never be hauled away in handcuffs.) We're not even talking about a significant minority. We're talking about a very tiny minority of children here. There are millions of school children in the U.S., and I've only ever seen a small handfull of these 'children handcuffed' cases. You do realize that kids can become out of control for reasons outside the school's control? You can have the best staff, the best training, the best resources, but if a kid arrives at school with severe emotional problems, or some sort of undiagnosed medical condition that causes him to become destructive, they WILL need a way to handle it. Your 'solution' is nothing but a lot of hot air. Sure, move 'education' to a higher priority... but WHAT EXACTLY DOES THAT MEAN? If you mean more money, then where does that money go? Better training? Will that make a difference if the teachers still aren't allowed to touch students to prevent them from wrecking the place? So come on... instead of empty rhetoric (i.e. "move education up on the priority list"), tell us what you think needs to be done.

And anyone can file suit in Canada. Blame a system? Yes, you're right... you CAN file lawsuits in Canada over a lot of things. But, there are differences in the way civil courts work in the US vs. Canada. For example, in the U.S. lawyers can work cases on a 'Contingent fee' basis (i.e. they don't get paid unless they win. They may take certain cases because they feel the risk is offset by a potential of a very large payoff as a percentage of the setlement.) In most provinces in Canada, the lawyers must charge an hourly fee if they DON'T win. What this means is that in Canada you will have less cases of people launching frivoulous lawsuits (even those that have a low chance at winning) because they don't want to be on the hook for thousands of dollars in legal fees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency_fee#Canada There may be other differences (such as limits on settlements in Canada that they don't have in the U.S.... I'd have to do some checking on that however.) However, the difference in contingency fees would be more than enough to explain a higher rate of lawsuits in the US.

As I've pointed out... the issue is not how to take care of 6 year olds (in fact, I'm sure that pretty much any teacher can restrain a 6 year old). The issue is how to restrain a 6 year old so that: a) the risk of harming the child is lessened, the risk to people and property is lessened, and c) the risk of lawsuits is lessened. So, how would YOU handle a disruptive/destructive student in that situation? Easy to say "what happened was wrong", but there have been remarkably few practical suggestions on how the situation could have been handled better. Outside of your interaction with the child, those are YOUR issues, not the childs. Actually, those are more than just MY issues. They're the issues that the teachers, and the school boards have to deal with. Lawsuits are very real. Restrictions on the way teachers can touch students are very real. You seem to be ignoring that fact. I have never denied that a problem exists. What I still haven't heard from YOU (or anyone else) is a better way to handle a destructive child when the rules prevent teachers from touching the kid. If you think you have all the answers, then why don't you deal with that issue? There are millions of children in elementary schools across the U.S. and Canada. Given that number of students, there will ALWAYS be a few 'problem' children. You can still get cases like this even if >99% of children are 'getting what they need'. Is that directed at me? Why exactly do you think I should 'go home'? You've contributed no solutions to this problem (either the immediate case as discussed in the opening post, or exact solutions to prevent similar problems in the future). All you've done is say "Education system... BAD" like some primitive caveman incapable of forming a coherent thought. So, once again... what would YOU have done if you were a teacher in that class, and you were prevented from touching a destructive student? And what do you think needs to be done in the future? Eliminate the rules that limit student/teacher contact? Legal reform to prevent lawsuits should a disruptive student be injured by a less than perfectly trained teacher trying to stop their destruction? Or maybe you think ever parent should have to take out insurance, so that if the kid does start destroying stuff (and the teachers can't touch them to stop them) they can at least pay for the damage? Come on.. you think you have the answers... lets hear them.

Thats what I am thinking - can't afford school nurses and have all the wars I guess. If you want to blame the problem on a lack of resources at school, then fine... but the teachers at the school and the police had to work with what they had at the time. And once again, what makes you think a nurse will be any better at dealing with a destructive child than teachers? Are nurses necessarily trained in hand-to-hand combat? Do you think they should be able to pump the kid full of drugs to calm them down? As expected, you seem to be ignoring that question. First of all, they DID try to call the parents, but couldn't contact them. (I have already referred to an article which showed that they did. (By the way, how exactly do you expect to be taken seriously when you can't even bother reading up on the situation, EVEN WHEN YOU'VE BEEN GIVEN A DIRECT REFERENCE?) Second, what exactly do you think the hospital would do? Should they drag the kid there in an ambulance? How do you think they'd keep the kid from trashing the ambulance? Tie her down to the stretcher? And why is that considered a better use of resources (considering the fact that hospitals are often overcrowded as it is?)

While you're right in that the scope of the Bill of Rights was limited, it wasn't necessarily a bad document... it covered the basic freedoms that we need (speech, assembly, religion, equality), plus the right to property, something our current consititution lacks. Secondly, the 1960s Bill of Rights wasn't the only protection for our civil liberties.... as I stated before, many of our 'rights' were protected by traditions and precidents established from the British and Canadian systems. It wasn't perfect, but then, the constitution certainly isn't perfect either. Except for the right to property, and except for the right to free speech (as noted by various gag laws and the Little Sister's book store case, as examples), or any of the other rights they want to take away via the notwithstanding clause. You may not think the above 'rights' are worth defending, and that's fine... I however DO think they're significant.

The fact that you do not agree with my opinions on the matter does not mean that I am insensitive to relationships, obligations, etc. I just feel that your "just hug them" argument is naive and impractical in situations like the one described. Then what exactly are your qualifications? (Since you claimed that there were no rules against physical restraint of students, then you are likely not a teacher yourself.) And obviously its not your ability to provide evidence supporting your position (as you've provided none). I don't see why my punctuation style should be an issue here. Wait a second.... Are you really suggesting that the type of 'hug' you would give to a nice friendly child is the same type of hug you'd give to a kid who was trying to pull hair, kick, and do all sorts of other things? One of them will require more force, and will be a lot more dangerous for both the hugger and hugee. I'll let you guess which one. We're not just dealing with a kid who's upset and/or crying. We're dealing with a kid who's potentially destructive. And it was you that suggested that the teachers wear protective pads... how many parents think its necessary to put on shin guards, jock straps, and helmets before hugging their kids? And if you really think the type of hug to give to such a student is the same as you'd give your own kid, please tell me you're not a parent. I'm currently taking a martial arts class, so I know a little about self defence and how to 'control' someone. If I had to deal with a kid who was kicking and punching wildly (as this kid would be), I would certainly not approach from the front to give them a 'hug'... that's a sure way to get punched in the groin. (Maybe you have no use for your gonads, but I do have a use for mine.) Not to mention the chance of being kicked in the shins, or having them bite you. In a situation like that, you approach from the back so that you can hopefully control the arms without being hit. You'd probably also want to try to get the kid down and/or seated, so that you don't end up getting any broken toes if they decide to jump on your foot. Your way (a 'hug') would be risking injury to the teacher. Do you have something against the teaching profession that you think they should be put at more risk than necessary? Ah, the claim of 'common sense'... the last refuge of people who lack evidence to support their positions. By the way, at the end of this article, I've provided references to several injuries caused by the use of restraints. Now, where is your references to injuries caused by the use of handcuffs on kids? Again, the assumption that a short 'hug' (non-forceful) can be effective and safe against a kid who is destructive and uncooperative. The kid from the original article was acting up for more than 20 minutes. Yes, I'm sure the school board WOULD provide some protection for them. Assuming they didn't get for touching a kid in the first place. And if you were a parent who had kids in that school, would you really want to see your school taxes go up to cover the cost of insurance/and or lawsuits just because someone elses kid wouldn't calm down? Oh, and unfortunately, "acting responsibly" is no guarantee of protection either... sadly, lawsuits don't have to be based on compentency or reality. Well, I made a specific claim... I thought I should support it. You, on the other hand, have not privided any support for your claims (either that handcuffs are more dangerous and/or damaging than physically restraining a student, or that teachers are ALLOWED to physically restrain students.) First of all, you seem to forget that the child in question had been 'active' for at least 20 minutes, probably a lot longer. I doubt very much whether a 'brief' hug would have done it. And if nothing else, it shows how teachers ARE more restricted in what they can do compared to parents. Secondly, even if you discount the first example, the second reference (which makes reference to FEDERAL law) more than proves my point... the rules limit the type of action a teacher may take. Your 'hugs' solution is a non-starter, since even if the teachers wanted to (and even if by some miracle it would work), they can't. The problem is, there are actually cases where students have been injured through the use of restraint techniques. Please indicate to me all the students who have managed to disarm policemen and slaughter dozens of cops when being handcuffed by police officers. For example: A case of a 7 year old killed while being restrained: http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=...id=157660&rfi=6 Or how about: ...eight youths had broken bones at the camp between October 2003 and March 2006, including four broken arms and two broken elbows. At least four of the injuries occurred during restraints. From: http://www.caica.org/NEWS%20New%20claims%2...%2010-14-06.htm Ok, neither of these examples were exactly the scenario I predicted (and there is a very strong possibility that the restraint holds used were not done properly or even lawfully.). However, it DOES go to show that physical restraint CAN cause harm. So, where is your 'proof' that people are regularly injured by handcuffs? Now, I'm sure you're going to use the argument that they just need a 'short' non-forcefull hug... which of course ignores the fact that in the first case the kid had to be restrained for roughly 20 minutes (think you can hold a hug for that long?)

How can anyone make the moronic jump in logic to go from "it was the best of a bad set of options" to assuming I would support child prostitution? In fact, how can anyone who's got at least a little sanity equate the 2 actions at all? Here's a suggestion... instead of sitting there taking potshots at me for pointing out the flaws in your original post, why don't YOU actually provide a description of what YOU would have done in that same situation, given the fact that teachers are hampered by their ability to physically restrain students by both rules and the threat of lawsuits. Or, are your opinions so vacuous that the only arguments you can offer are insults and illogical rants?

As I've pointed out... the issue is not how to take care of 6 year olds (in fact, I'm sure that pretty much any teacher can restrain a 6 year old). The issue is how to restrain a 6 year old so that: a) the risk of harming the child is lessened, the risk to people and property is lessened, and c) the risk of lawsuits is lessened. So, how would YOU handle a disruptive/destructive student in that situation? Easy to say "what happened was wrong", but there have been remarkably few practical suggestions on how the situation could have been handled better.