Outdated Handcuffs Used By Police

Guthrie · April 21, 2007

pathetic

kimmy · April 21, 2007

Wait until the Haliburtons start taking the cute kiddies off the street to be used in foreign brothels - they will do it right out in the open and guys like Segnosoaur will argue in favour of it.
3000 kids went missing in FL and were found in foreign brothels and dead.

Prostitution, including underaged prostitution and human trafficking of prostitutes, are spheres overwhelmingly controlled by gangs.

Pretty sure that all 3000 of those girls got where they got throw channels controlled by organized crime, and that none of them were taken out of their classrooms by police in front of witnesses to be put in brothels.

Gonzales has been implicated in allowing the jeuvenile halls to be used as brothels. The UN wars always have the sex trade going along with them, see "Boys Will Be Boys" a story by the BBC.

Yes, many men, including soldiers, use prostitutes.

Soldiers quite likely use prostitutes more than average, because when they are serving they are away from their wives or girlfriends or, generally speaking, other opportunities to socialize with women.

I have no doubt that prostitution springs up in areas where large numbers of soldiers are stationed.

That does not, however, make any claim as to who might be in control of these prostitution enterprises. It's almost certainly local gangs that are running the prostitutes that the soldiers frequent.

Anything goes for god, queen and empire I guess.

Wait, the Queen is the head pimp?

kimmy: Alex Jones will be linking to this article as proof that devil-worshiping politicians are abducting children for Luciferian sex-parties.

Lots of people from the FBI are comming out about that. Ted Gunderson isn't the only one.

Yeah? Who?

-k

kimmy · April 21, 2007

pathetic

Insightful. Can you elaborate?

-k

PolyNewbie · April 21, 2007

Pretty sure that all 3000 of those girls got where they got throw channels controlled by organized crime, and that none of them were taken out of their classrooms by police in front of witnesses to be put in brothels.

They were picked up by CPS (Child Protection Services) then CPS lost them.

That does not, however, make any claim as to who might be in control of these prostitution enterprises. It's almost certainly local gangs that are running the prostitutes that the soldiers frequent.

No. Boys Will Be Boys - UN Sex Slaves / BBC

kimmy · April 21, 2007

Pretty sure that all 3000 of those girls got where they got throw channels controlled by organized crime, and that none of them were taken out of their classrooms by police in front of witnesses to be put in brothels.

They were picked up by CPS (Child Protection Services) then CPS lost them.

Sure. Sure they were. :rolleyes:

That does not, however, make any claim as to who might be in control of these prostitution enterprises. It's almost certainly local gangs that are running the prostitutes that the soldiers frequent.

No. Boys Will Be Boys - UN Sex Slaves / BBC

While that article does indicate the customers are UN soldiers and workers, it says not a word to support your claim that the UN or the NWO or the Queen are the pimps. This is just more of your faulty logic.

-k

PolyNewbie · April 21, 2007

Here are multiple mainstream media (BBC, etc) links to the UN sex trade including transporation of kiddie prostitutes on UN ships. link

Guthrie · April 21, 2007

pathetic
Insightful. Can you elaborate?
-k

ok, when school goes from a nurturing learning environment to seeking legal advice and calling in the brute squad, it means our education system has become pathetic

PolyNewbie · April 21, 2007

I was really curious to see if these folks would actually argue to put 6 years olds in solitary confinement and in handcuffs.

It should be an illustration to the rest of us who see though the corporations and the presstitutes. We will never convince the neocon sycophant fascist that totures, war for empire and handcuffing little kids is bad. When Haliburton starts hiring the privatised police forves to pick up the cute kids off the street and send them to kiddie brothels there will be people on here arguing in favour of it - if we still have the internet and not internet 2 - which will require a license to add content to and high taxes to be paid.

segnosaur · April 22, 2007

How is a child being 'hugged' by a teacher wearing padding any better for the student than being handcuffed?

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?

Maybe you're an academic... if so you can do another of those wonderfully insightful studies -- call this one: "Hugs vs. Handcuffs: a survey of relative merits of pedogological techniques".

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Teachers are considered in loco parentis, I believe, respecting kids in their charge.

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...

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?

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.

Figleaf · April 22, 2007

How is a child being 'hugged' by a teacher wearing padding any better for the student than being handcuffed?

Jeez, I hope you're not a teacher.

Why,

'Cause of your seeming insensitivity to the relationships, obligations, expections, interests, relative capacities, and incentives at play in the situation.

are you?

Nope, are you?

Is there some reason that you would have better insight into this issue than I?

Of course there is.

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.

Despite your unsupported and questionable parenthesis, I don't think A and B are necessarily incompatible.

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?

No, I have a common sense rebutable presumption, so what proof do you have to convince me otherwise?

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.

I'm looking forward to seeing your evidence for this.

Teachers are considered in loco parentis, I believe, respecting kids in their charge.

Being considered temporary guardians for children in their charge does not give them carte blanche authority to do anything they wish to the students,

Obviously not, but your strawman argument is rather obvious. it doesn't take 'carte blanche' to hug an emotionally overcome child.

nor does it protect them from the threat of lawsuits.

No, the school board should cover them from lawsuits, or some kind of professional insurance, provided they act responsibly.

In fact, I did a very quick web search, and found various teacher guidelines that point out some of the restrictions...

Kudos to you. Many posters wouldn't make such effort.

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

Well, those are somewhat informative. But I don't think the first one applies to this situation ... hugs are not hostile or aggressive, and mild, breif restraint is not corporal punishment.

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...

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.

How nice. I prefer to hear about 1,000,000,000 where children were hugged and calmed down that 1 student who in an attempted police takedown manages to squirm away, grab weapons, slaughter dozens of cops, eat their brains, and escape to Brazil, since we're in the realm of making up scenarios.

segnosaur · April 22, 2007

Didn't they used to have school nurses for this sort of thing. ?

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.

segnosaur · April 22, 2007

but when did schools forget how to take care of 6 year olds --- do I have to repeat that last part

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.

segnosaur · April 22, 2007

Wait until the Haliburtons start taking the cute kiddies off the street to be used in foreign brothels - they will do it right out in the open and guys like Segnosoaur will argue in favour of it.

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?

segnosaur · April 22, 2007

'Cause of your seeming insensitivity to the relationships, obligations, expections, interests, relative capacities, and incentives at play in the situation.

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.

Is there some reason that you would have better insight into this issue than I?

Of course there is.

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).

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.

Despite your unsupported and questionable parenthesis,

I don't see why my punctuation style should be an issue here.

I don't think A and B are necessarily incompatible.

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?

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?

No, I have a common sense rebutable presumption, so what proof do you have to convince me otherwise?

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?

Being considered temporary guardians for children in their charge does not give them carte blanche authority to do anything they wish to the students,

Obviously not, but your strawman argument is rather obvious. it doesn't take 'carte blanche' to hug an emotionally overcome child.

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.

nor does it protect them from the threat of lawsuits.
No, the school board should cover them from lawsuits, or some kind of professional insurance, provided they act responsibly.

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.

In fact, I did a very quick web search, and found various teacher guidelines that point out some of the restrictions...

Kudos to you. Many posters wouldn't make such effort.

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.)

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)

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...

Well, those are somewhat informative. But I don't think the first one applies to this situation ... hugs are not hostile or aggressive, and mild, breif restraint is not corporal punishment.

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.

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.

How nice. I prefer to hear about 1,000,000,000 where children were hugged and calmed down that 1 student who in an attempted police takedown manages to squirm away, grab weapons, slaughter dozens of cops, eat their brains, and escape to Brazil, since we're in the realm of making up scenarios.

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?)

PolyNewbie · April 22, 2007

but when did schools forget how to take care of 6 year olds --- do I have to repeat that last part

Thats what I am thinking - can't afford school nurses and have all the wars I guess.

I think I would have called the parents rather than the cops. If the parents were not home I would have called the hospital.

segnosaur · April 22, 2007

but when did schools forget how to take care of 6 year olds --- do I have to repeat that last part

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.

I think I would have called the parents rather than the cops. If the parents were not home I would have called the hospital.

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?)

Guthrie · April 22, 2007

but when did schools forget how to take care of 6 year olds --- do I have to repeat that last part

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. I say, when your plan to, "handle a disruptive/destructive student in that situation," is to check your legal situation and call the cops with the handcuffs, then OUR education system has become pathetically dysfunctional. None of the children in that classroom can possibly be getting what they need. Go home

segnosaur · April 22, 2007

but when did schools forget how to take care of 6 year olds --- do I have to repeat that last part

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 say, when your plan to, "handle a disruptive/destructive student in that situation," is to check your legal situation and call the cops with the handcuffs, then OUR education system has become pathetically dysfunctional.

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?

None of the children in that classroom can possibly be getting what they need.

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'.

Go home

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.

Guthrie · April 22, 2007

No, none of my post was directed at you or any one person. My post was directed at the situation and the argument and state of education in America, which is pathetically dysfunctional.

The concern I was trying to focus on, is the children. I want children, in schools, to be given a safe, nurturing environment where they can learn --- when teachers are bringing in cops and handcuffs then the school system has FAILED

as for solutions, it is really quite simple -- move education up on the national priority list - put it a notch ahead of new more efficient machines of death - and then, we can return to that time when education meant something

Figleaf · April 22, 2007

The fact that you do not agree with my opinions on the matter does not mean that I am insensitive to relationships, obligations, etc.

True. What makes you appear insensitve etc. is what your opinions are, not whether I agree with them.

I don't think A and B are necessarily incompatible.

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?

You got it.

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.

Oh my god! I didn't realize that's what we're talking about. Golly, a potentially destructive child! Imagine. How fearsome.

I'm currently taking a martial arts class, so I know a little about self defence and how to 'control' someone.

:lol: Why am I reminded of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer is doing judo with children?

Your way (a 'hug') would be risking injury to the teacher.

Ummm ... did I mention the hockey gear? Yes, yes, I did.

Do you have something against the teaching profession that you think they should be put at more risk than necessary?

Are you a teacher?

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?

No, I have a common sense rebutable presumption, so what proof do you have to convince me otherwise?

Ah, the claim of 'common sense'... the last refuge of people who lack evidence to support their positions.

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.

Anyway, whether the child is handcuffed or hugged, there will be a point where she is being manually/physically restrained. Therefore, both methods suffer equally from the risks of harm to the child.

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?

Reductionism. You have to factor in my police taxes too, and social costs of criminalizing children.

kimmy · April 22, 2007

Insightful. Can you elaborate?
ok, when school goes from a nurturing learning environment to seeking legal advice and calling in the brute squad, it means our education system has become pathetic

I look at it differently. To me, what it says is that when the legal system has people so afraid of a lawsuit that they're unable to do their jobs, it's the legal system that's become pathetic.

Stegnosaur posted a whole bunch of school board code-of-conduct regulations explaining at length why teacher's won't, and can't, get physical with children. All this conjecture about whether teachers could have just put on some armor and physically restrained the kid completely miss the point, because their rules tell them they *can't*.

Why do they have those rules? To protect the schoolboard from lawsuits.

It might be easy for you to sit there like an idiot and say "blah blah blah I don't care if they're getting sued or not, the Right Thing was for the teachers to handle it and the Wrong Thing was to call the cops." I doubt you'd be so cavalier about it if it was *you* who was in the position of putting your job on the line and exposing yourself to a massive lawsuit to do "the Right Thing".

Likewise, I doubt that you'd be as cavalier about the school board rules if your kid's school couldn't buy new books and had to close band class and art class and cancel field trips and merge classes, all because the school board spent half of its budget settling a lawsuit with some parent who sued the school because a teacher used physical force to restrain a student.

-k

kimmy · April 22, 2007

Here are multiple mainstream media (BBC, etc) links to the UN sex trade including transporation of kiddie prostitutes on UN ships. link

No, I'm not going to Alex Jones' shitty site to look for links to support your claim.

*You* go look through his shitty site for links to support your claim, and when you've found something you think supports your ridiculous claims, come present it to me.

-k

Guthrie · April 22, 2007

... cavalier about the school board rules ...

I am on the opposite side of cavalier about rules that allow 6 year old kids to be handcuffed - that is exactly the point.

My concern is the children. Your concern is the law and the fear of lawsuits -

I don't care what you think is the problem, the fact that our children are being mistreated in this unconscionable manner, is beyond any excuse.

So the problem isn't the legal system. The problem is children are being handcuffed. Anyone who thinks it is ok for children to be handcuffed are part of the problem.

kimmy · April 22, 2007

So the problem isn't the legal system. The problem is children are being handcuffed.

So what is the *root* of the problem?

*Why* was this child handcuffed?

*Why* does the school policy prohibit teachers from physically restraining students?

Why don't you think on that for a few hours, Arlo? Then when you think you've come up with an answer, go back and think about it for a few more hours until you come up with a good answer. Then get back to me and let me know what you've come up with.

-k

Guthrie · April 23, 2007

So the problem isn't the legal system. The problem is children are being handcuffed.

So what is the *root* of the problem?

*Why* was this child handcuffed?

*Why* does the school policy prohibit teachers from physically restraining students?

Why don't you think on that for a few hours, Arlo? Then when you think you've come up with an answer, go back and think about it for a few more hours until you come up with a good answer. Then get back to me and let me know what you've come up with.

-k

Why don't you think on that for a few hours, Arlo?...

"So what is the *root* of the problem?"

Well, Ms Cattrall, the root of the problem is education has been devalued in the name of spreading death.

*Why* was this child handcuffed?

The child was handcuffed because the people who run the schools in Florida lack the training and support necessary to deal with children.

*Why* does the school policy prohibit teachers from physically restraining students?

First, I haven't seen that policy and quite the contrary the little girl had been taken out of the room and put in isolation. Second, how IS IT policy to threaten a child with a felony arrest?? If you can't figure out what kind of physical contact is appropriate with a child, you need to find another calling - let somebody do the job who has the skills with children which succeed when others fail; and that latter group of people, they need to be paid a decent wage and given decent benefits.