Outdated Handcuffs Used By Police

[guyser]

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?

And anyone can file suit in Canada. Blame a system?

What was wrong with suing McDonalds? She was 100% right to do so.

[PolyNewbie]

I took a very small sip from a Burger King coffee around that time - a very small sip and it burned me. I didn't sue but I did think the temperature of their coffee was irresponsible and could imagine how someone might take a boggir sip and seriously burn themselves.

[blueblood]

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?

And anyone can file suit in Canada. Blame a system?

What was wrong with suing McDonalds? She was 100% right to do so.

Lawsuits; the definition of the lack of class, honor, and courage in modern society. That ranks right up there with being a tattle tale in school. Teacher teacher... We are becoming a society of ninnies, it's getting to a point where we can't do anything and are slipping into anarchy.

The McDonalds hot coffee; it's in a styrofoam cup for f*** sakes I'm sure when you held the cup that it was hot that might have been your first clue it was too hot to drink. Why in God's name should people pay for others stupidity and weaknesses?

Then there's slander, that's even better, "judge judge he made fun of me on t.v. and i'm too stupid to do anything about it."

That teacher should have grabbed the kid and chucked him outside and call the principal. But no we live in a society of ninnies so he's allowed to put kids and the teacher at risk so he can be allowed to vent. That type of stupidity that some lefties have concerning this is dangerous to the security of our country.

Good grief when I used to be in school if kids were caught shooting spit balls, the teacher would whip a chalk brush at the kid's mouth then the class would laugh at him, needless to say he quit shooting spit balls. But now thanks to our ninny society the kid can shoot spitballs without fear of consequence.

[Figleaf]

Lawsuits; the definition of the lack of class, honor, and courage in modern society.

What solution do you propose to cases where one person's conduct costs another person their resources, health, comfort, or opportunities?

Then there's slander, that's even better, "judge judge he made fun of me on t.v. and i'm too stupid to do anything about it."

Do what about it? Beat him up? Do you really think people should be allowed to defame eachother without consequence?

[ScottSA]

Lawsuits; the definition of the lack of class, honor, and courage in modern society.

What solution do you propose to cases where one person's conduct costs another person their resources, health, comfort, or opportunities?

Then there's slander, that's even better, "judge judge he made fun of me on t.v. and i'm too stupid to do anything about it."

Do what about it? Beat him up? Do you really think people should be allowed to defame eachother without consequence?

Why did I know you'd be the one to defend tattling lawsuits?

[Guthrie]

in the USA over 90% of lawsuits are one business suing another business -- so the courts are actually filled up with the whining ninny capitalists clawing at each others throats

[Figleaf]

Why did I know you'd be the one to defend tattling lawsuits?

Why did I know you'd have no shred of valid discussion to contribute on the matter?

[Guthrie]

sez Blueblood:

... That teacher should have grabbed the kid and chucked him outside and call the principal. But no ...

actually, 'But YES' -- having read the original article, I happen to have learned that the teacher DID chuck the little girl outside and call the principal -- so, your point is actually, pointless

[blueblood]

Lawsuits; the definition of the lack of class, honor, and courage in modern society.

What solution do you propose to cases where one person's conduct costs another person their resources, health, comfort, or opportunities?

Then there's slander, that's even better, "judge judge he made fun of me on t.v. and i'm too stupid to do anything about it."

Do what about it? Beat him up? Do you really think people should be allowed to defame eachother without consequence?

First part: It's called I screwed up, chalk one up to experience and move on. Probly won't make that mistake again. Maybe get the guy back to get even.

2nd part: You could beat hm up, or you could defame him back. People should be allowed to defame other people, it's called freedom of speech. If you don't want to be defamed, I suggest that person not do anything to deserve it.

This demonstrates a polarizing difference between liberals and conservatives. Small c conservatives can do things for themselves and can solve their own problems, small l liberals need government/judges to do things for them and solve their problems.

[Figleaf]

First part: It's called I screwed up, chalk one up to experience and move on. Probly won't make that mistake again. Maybe get the guy back to get even.

Hmmmm. So, instead of lawsuits for harms inflicted between citizens, you advocate vigilantism. Good luck with that.

[guyser]

Lawsuits; the definition of the lack of class, honor, and courage in modern society. That ranks right up there with being a tattle tale in school. Teacher teacher... We are becoming a society of ninnies, it's getting to a point where we can't do anything and are slipping into anarchy.

The McDonalds hot coffee; it's in a styrofoam cup for f*** sakes I'm sure when you held the cup that it was hot that might have been your first clue it was too hot to drink. Why in God's name should people pay for others stupidity and weaknesses?

Unfortunately if you knew about the McDonalds lawsuit, you yourself would be advocating a large settlement on behalf of the plaintiff.

[blueblood]

Lawsuits; the definition of the lack of class, honor, and courage in modern society. That ranks right up there with being a tattle tale in school. Teacher teacher... We are becoming a society of ninnies, it's getting to a point where we can't do anything and are slipping into anarchy.

The McDonalds hot coffee; it's in a styrofoam cup for f*** sakes I'm sure when you held the cup that it was hot that might have been your first clue it was too hot to drink. Why in God's name should people pay for others stupidity and weaknesses?

Unfortunately if you knew about the McDonalds lawsuit, you yourself would be advocating a large settlement on behalf of the plaintiff.

Googled it, from what i see, she should have been more careful with the coffee.

I remember taking shop class in junior high and burning my hands from welding, should I be suing the school board for that, there were no release forms to be signed as well. No I won't sue the school, I burnt myself and realized hmm metal that was welded gets hot and I shouldn't be handling it right away. Just like the McD's case, the coffee is hot, maybe I should be careful.

[Guthrie]

burning your hands from welding is something full of warnings and precautionary measures -- one must go out of their way to be dumb enough to burn oneself in junior high school shop -

buying a cup of coffee from a drive-thru window should not require the safety lectures given in junior high school shop welding class

[ScottSA]

burning your hands from welding is something full of warnings and precautionary measures -- one must go out of their way to be dumb enough to burn oneself in junior high school shop -

buying a cup of coffee from a drive-thru window should not require the safety lectures given in junior high school shop welding class

No, they should require the assumption that if someone has the mental capacity to actually order something, they also have the mental capacity to know that coffee is hot. Do you know anyone who lacks that degree of mental acuity? Well, aside from the guy in the mirror every morning...

[guyser]

Googled it, from what i see, she should have been more careful with the coffee.

IF or Because...

McDonalds Corp knew the coffee was too hot ( and they did-they were warned by own staff)...

McDonalds kept its coffee 20 degrees hotter than industry norm,...

McDonalds in internal memos knew that they were creating a hazard of third degree burns (the worst)....

McDonalds had paid out over a half million dollars in damages for too hot coffee previously....

McDonalds had 700 reports of scalding coffee burns.....

McDonalds had refused payment of $800 to the injured 81yr old women who had never sued anyone...

The woman , in the end, got under $480,000 from a $2.7M verdict.

She should have received twice the original amount .

[guyser]

No, they should require the assumption that if someone has the mental capacity to actually order something, they also have the mental capacity to know that coffee is hot. Do you know anyone who lacks that degree of mental acuity?

Yes...McDonalds Corp.

You really should know about this before posting.

[ScottSA]

No, they should require the assumption that if someone has the mental capacity to actually order something, they also have the mental capacity to know that coffee is hot. Do you know anyone who lacks that degree of mental acuity?

Yes...McDonalds Corp.

You really should know about this before posting.

Uhuh. I'm afraid you didn't quite get my point. You really should try before posting. Perhaps it eluded you?

[guyser]

Uhuh. I'm afraid you didn't quite get my point. You really should try before posting. Perhaps it eluded you?

Care to indulge me? I would be interested in knowing your point.

[blueblood]

Uhuh. I'm afraid you didn't quite get my point. You really should try before posting. Perhaps it eluded you?

Care to indulge me? I would be interested in knowing your point.

The point is if your buying something that is hot, it is your responsibility to be careful, which is why I'm a lot more careful when I weld now.

Accidents happen, people shouldn't have to be paying for a freak occurence.

McDonalds maybe should be not having their coffee so hot, but we shouldn't be tying up court with useless litigation like that, those lawyers and judges have much more important cases to worry about than chasing around after nonsense like this. That's why we have W-5 and the fifth estate, plead your case on a show like that and let them slam McD's on TV, which in turn hurts the company.

McD's shouldn't have to pay for this person's carelessness.

[segnosaur]

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?

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.

[segnosaur]

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

[segnosaur]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

Are you a teacher?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'?

[segnosaur]

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.

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.

*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.

Ummmm.... no. Training and support is totally irrelevant of teachers are prevented from physically touching the students.

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

First, I haven't seen that policy...

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.

... and quite the contrary the little girl had been taken out of the room and put in isolation.

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.

Second, how IS IT policy to threaten a child with a felony arrest??

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.

If you can't figure out what kind of physical contact is appropriate with a child...

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.

... 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.

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?

[kimmy]

Well, Ms Cattrall,

Sexay!

the root of the problem is education has been devalued in the name of spreading death.

Is that right out of a Michael Moore "stock response" leaflet?

It's all because Dubya put the US in an unjust war!

Seriously, though. Segnosaur addressed all of your comments very nicely, so rather than duplicate the effort, so "what he said."

-k

[Figleaf]

Ok, THAT is really disturbing.

Don't let your imagination run away with you.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF A KINDERGARDEN KID PUNCHED YOU IN THE GENITALS?

Please, stop the shouting, I'm not a schoolchild to be browbeaten. It would hurt. But how about not charging at her crotch-first? Or ... did I mention hockey equipment? Yes, I think I did.

Anyway, have you read the article? What seems clear to me is that the teachers (and police) all reacted with shocking stupidity. Why did they keep provoking the child? If she wants to hide under a table, why not let her for a while. What happened here is that the supposed professional adults lost perspective just as badly as the six year old.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF A KINDERGARDEN KID STOMPED ON YOUR FOOT? Why don't you try it?

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.

Once again, try letting one of them kick you in the groin a few times and see how it is.

????? But why on earth would you let her do that?

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.

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.