segnosaur

And if they didn't have a school nurse, would that change your opinion on the situation? (After all, the school and police had to work with the resources available.) Why exactly do you think a school nurse would be better at restraining a disruptive and destructive child? (Unless of course they could pump the kid full of valium). And even if they did have a school nurse, they may not be working full time.

Jeez, I hope you're not a teacher. Why, are you? Is there some reason that you would have better insight into this issue than I? You used the term 'hug'... by that, you could either mean A) a 'friendly' hug meant to be friendly and reassure the kid (which would likely be totally ineffective in this circumstance), or a way to physically restrain the kid. Assuming that you were referring to the teacher physically restraining a kid, do YOU have proof that such restraining techniques DON'T lead to either a greater physical risk to the child, or more psychological harm? Don't you think maybe the police have better things to do than protect teachers from six-year olds? Actually, probably not... when a teacher is in school, they are likely 'working' (teaching kids, etc) the entire day. Cops, on the other hand, do not spend the entire day aprehending criminals. There is time when they are on patrol (or participating in other non-critical activities) when they can deal with issues like this. I don't thnk they'd have to change their rules. Then you'd be thinking wrong. I've talked with teachers. (Admittedly, none from Florida, but some from other states). There ARE very strict rules against physical contact with students, lest they get accused of abuse, or pedophilia. Being considered temporary guardians for children in their charge does not give them carte blanche authority to do anything they wish to the students, nor does it protect them from the threat of lawsuits. In fact, I did a very quick web search, and found various teacher guidelines that point out some of the restrictions... For example: Avoid ... any kind of CORPORAL punishment - NEVER TOUCH A STUDENT IN A HOSTILE OR AGGRESSIVE MANNER! (and some would consider physically restraining a student as 'agressive', and its certainly more restricive than the rules the parents have to live under) From: http://www.stjohns.k12.fl.us/jobs/handbook.html#management Or how about this one: 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... So, in other words, the kid can destroy anything they want, cause as much trouble as they want, but teachers can't 'hug' them to stop them from wrecking the place (only to stop immediate harm to others). From: http://www.scituate.k12.ma.us/Physical_Restraint_Policy.pdf So, I've provided 2 examples (I can probably find more) where teachers are advised and/or prevented from physically interacting with a kid to prevent at least some types of damage. I don't know what the rules were for the classroom where this particular incident occured, but its certainly reasonable to assume they had similar restrictions... Yes, I can ... about the same, or less, as might result from a police takedown. But a police takedown is likely to result in less physical injury to the student (after all, police are trained to deal with people, even children, who are non-cooperative). Personally, I'd rather read about 10 students who were taken away (safely) in handcuffs, than 1 student who, while being 'hugged' to restrain them, manage to squirm away, hit their head, and get a concussion. There is a problem here when police need to be called in, but your 'solution' is no real solution at all. If you want to blame anyone, blame the American Legal system which allows lawsuits to be filed over pretty much anything (remember the 'hot McDonald's coffee incident?) Blame parents, who's willingness to sue has lead to such restrictive rules about teacher/student contact in the first place. Blame the school system (and the funding thereof) which limits the facilities (staff and other resources) to deal with such disruptions. But until you can come up with something more convincing and practical than "just hug the kid", I'm going to continue to assume that the actions of those involved were the best of a bad set of options.

I have no idea if you're serious, but I'm going to assume you were... How is a child being 'hugged' by a teacher wearing padding any better for the student than being handcuffed? If anything, it would probably be more terrifying for them... you're still restraining them, but the student has even less mobility than they would if they were handcuffed. Not to mention the fact that they may end up terrified of the TEACHERS at the school, people they'd be seeing every day. And of course there is also the more practical problem: Many schools are probably understaffed; do you really want to waste the time of a teacher while they 'hug' a disruptive student instead of having them doing what they're paid to do, namely teach? And yes, putting on hockey gear (or at least protective gear of some sort) would prevent injury to teachers, etc. who had to restrain the kid. But as I stated before, that is only part of the problem. (Heck, I'm sure an adult can physically restrain a child even without hockey gear on.) You also have to consider potential risk to the child herself. Not to mention that you'd have to get school boards to change their rules to allow teachers to use physical force to restrain a child. Could you imagine the lawsuit that would have result if some kid were bruised or somehow injured while being 'hugged' by some teacher in protective gear? Could you imagine the headlines, "kindergarden student injured by armoured goon teacher"? If you were a teacher, would you potentially risk your job trying to hold a squirming kid, knowing that you can find yourself the subject of a lawsuit by the parents if that kid manages to squirm away and bump their head, or break a nail while hitting your 'armour'? How do you prevent schools and teachers from being sued by parents of children who are injured while being 'hugged', even if its not the teacher's fault? Would you be in favour of some sort of blanket amnesty for all teachers who have to restrain kids, to prevent them from being sued?

Ah yes, the 'big bad government' wants to arrest children. Trouble is, as usual such 'claims' usually ignore a lot of facts. Has anyone ever considered: - Any child throwing such a tantrum can injure themselves or others. They can also destroy school property... simply allowing them to continue would not be a good idea - While I'm sure that any teacher there would have the physical ability to control a child, they may be prevented from doing so by the rules of the school. At the very least, the risk of a lawsuit from over-zealous parents might deter any teacher from trying to stop the kid's negative actions. Police are better trained in restraining people. - Although handcuffs seem cruel, if the student is intent on continuing a destructive tantrum, then SOME way of preventing damage or harm to others is needed. Using physical force may actually put everyone at more risk, both to the police or teacher (one accidental punch to the groin anyone?), or to the child themselves (especially if the child manages to squirm/run away). Last thing anyone (including the teachers) need is some lawsuit because the child they tried to grab to prevent them from throwning a chair ended up with a bruise. So, while handcuffs aren't perfect, they may be safer than the alternatives. While I don't have a perfect solution to a situation like this, I look at the police involvement as being the best of a bunch of bad alternatives. This is why I detest people like Jones and the entire 'conspricy theory' movement. When there IS an incident that may need a solution, they divert attention away from possible solutions with their bizare claims and insinuations. There MAY have been a better way to handle the situation (if resources were available)... lets try to find those ways. If anyone has a way to stop a potentially disruptive child WITHOUT touching them yourself, I'd like to hear it. Here's a suggestion... just in case someone thinks a 6 year old kid can never harm an adult... I suggest you go find a kindergarden student and allow them to punch and/or kick you in the genitals as hard as they can. While nobody was seriously harmed during THIS incident, if I were a teacher, I'd want to be teaching, not avoiding being punched where it might actually hurt. Maybe because there is absolutely zero point in being 'outraged' at a child of six throwing a rang. You might as well be upset that dogs don't scoop their own poop. It would certainly be reasonable for the parents in the school to be 'outraged' that such a child was allowed to risk the health and well being of their own kids during her little temper tantrum. Yes, the kid is too young to be legally responsible for her actions; that does not mean that she should be allowed to continue those actions. First of all, the child would have had plenty of time to 'calm down'... The article stated that they waited 20 minutes before they called the police. You would also have to assume that it would have taken at least a few minutes to try to contact the parents, and even after the police were contacted, it would take a while for them to respond (unless of course the school was right next to a donut shop.) So, I figure the kid probably had over half an hour to 'calm down'. That's a half hour that some teacher was not available to instruct her class because she had to watch some student throw a temper tantrum. That's a half hour that either the student could wreck school property, or risk injuring themselves or others. Oh, and just out of curiosity, how long would you have waited? And what would you have done to prevent the child from damaging property while waiting for her to 'calm down'? Or would you have allowed her to destroy anything she wished? Keep in mind that the 'article' that suggests that police have 'zero sensitivity' appeared on a web site run by a 'conspricy theorist' who finds it convenient to portray police, etc. as tools of an evil empire looking to enslave the population. Do you really think you're going to get an unbiased description of events from such a source? Also keep in mind that many police procedures are actually designed to prevent harm to both the police themselves, AND the person being arrested. Handcuffs seem cruel, but an individual subdued with them is less likely to injure themselves in the police car on the way to the station.

Ah yes, the charter... one of the biggest examples of overinflated hype ever seen in Canada. Frankly, I think the charter was a big waste of time, for several reasons: - Even without the charter, it wasn't like Canadians lacked basic freedoms. We lived perfectly well for decades under the rights and responsibilities layed out through precident and tradition. - There ARE several glaring problems with the charter with regards to protecting our freedom. For example: * No enshrined property rights * A 'notwithstanding' clause which allows many of our basic rights to be overridden * I can also point to some court cases (such as the Little Sister's book store) which demonstrate how poor the protection for freedom of speech is - Personally, as an athiest, I don't really like the fact that our constitution/charter recognizes the 'supreme god' (even if Canadian society does have a strong non-theocratic history) I know a lot of Canadians think the charter is a source of 'pride'; I wonder how many would change their opinions if they actually knew what was was IN the charter

First of all, keep in mind that if you read through the article you posted, it says: But there was no discussion then of flying the plane to the United States to smash it into a building there. Furthermore, there is no indication that the french intelligence agency knew WHEN or WHERE such hijackings would occur. (And I do wonder how many warnings the U.S. gets like this on a regular basis.) There certainly doesn't seem to be enough to identify a course of action, and short of shutting down all air travel indefinitely there isn't much that COULD be done. Secondly, keep in mind that the Bush administration had only been in power a short length of time, AND they would have inherited various bueracracys from previous administrations, which would restrict information flow within the intelligence communities. This certainly doesn't mean that the Bush administration has been perfect (or even competent) in handling 'terrorism'... I think information exchange between various agencies is still poor, their 'friendship' with Saudi Arabia may be counter-productive, and some anti-terrorism efforts are misplaced; however, assuming that they would have known enough to stop the hijackings is probably unfair and inaccurate. Lets critticize them for things they've actually done wrong (of which there are many).