Outdated Handcuffs Used By Police

Figleaf · April 25, 2007

Continued...

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.

Actually, I asked before that and you didn't answer. Like this time.

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 ....

The training the police have is entirely inappropriate for calming and restraining overwrought children.

- Handcuffs don't tend to make mistakes. People do.

But as I've already pointed out, it is People who are putting the handcuff on her.

I've provided references to people that were injured during restraints. You've provided no evidence that people are regularly hurt using handcuffs.

It's not necessary since I've pointed out that restraint precedes handcuffing and so handcuffing suffers from all the same risks.

... 'children' below a certain age aren't even legally liable for their actions.

Then why arrest her, charge her, and take her for booking?

Will it make them more 'scared' of the cops? Maybe. It may also give them more respect.

True colors shining through, my music Teacher once sang.

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.

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. )

kimmy · April 25, 2007

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.

McDonalds' was just as careless. This woman required skin-grafts and 2 years of physical therapy because of McDonalds' carelessness.

McDonald's served coffee at 185 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit, compared to normal coffee (from any other establishment or commercial coffee machine) which is served at 150 to 160 degrees.

McDonald's had many complaints regarding their product, but continued to serve it at the near-boiling temperature anyway. As a matter of corporate standard. Why? Because they believed that the higher temperature brewing would draw more caffeine out of their coffee grinds. They believed that their higher-temperature process would create a superior "caffeine fix" that would make their coffee the favorite choice of morning consumers in need of a hit. ey put profit ahead of safety.

They deviated from industry standard practice with full knowledge that what they were doing was capable of causing injuries, and in fact already had done so prior to the woman receiving severe burns.

Liquid at 185 to 190 degrees can cause 3rd degree burns in just a few seconds, while liquid at 150 to 160 degrees takes much longer continuous exposure. If she had spilled some other establishment's coffee on herself, it is likely that she could have removed herself from the coffee-soaked seat and got the coffee-soaked clothing away from her skin before she was burned this badly.

To put it bluntly, she was not injured because she spilled coffee on herself. She was injured because she spilled McDonald's super-hot coffee on herself.

I have been told that the McDonalds coffee lawsuit is a classic product liability case that's studied by every engineering student in Canada.

-if you deviate from standard industry practices, you'd better be sure what you're doing is safe

-if you learn that your could (or has) caused harm, be proactive. Don't wait until somebody sues your ass to address the problem.

-k

segnosaur · April 25, 2007

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.

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.

It would hurt. But how about not charging at her crotch-first?

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.

Or ... did I mention hockey equipment? Yes, I think I did.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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?

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.

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.

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?

segnosaur · April 25, 2007

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.

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.

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 ....

The training the police have is entirely inappropriate for calming and restraining overwrought 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.

- Handcuffs don't tend to make mistakes. People do.

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.

I've provided references to people that were injured during restraints. You've provided no evidence that people are regularly hurt using handcuffs.

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?

... 'children' below a certain age aren't even legally liable for their actions.

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.)

Will it make them more 'scared' of the cops? Maybe. It may also give them more respect.

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"?

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.

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.

segnosaur · April 25, 2007

McDonalds' was just as careless. This woman required skin-grafts and 2 years of physical therapy because of McDonalds' carelessness.

No, the woman required skin grafts and physical therapy because of her OWN carelessness.

They deviated from industry standard practice...

Actually, no they didn't.

They serve coffee 'hot', but the termperature is in line with that of many other restaurants.

McDonald's served coffee at 185 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit, compared to normal coffee (from any other establishment or commercial coffee machine) which is served at 150 to 160 degrees.
...

Liquid at 185 to 190 degrees can cause 3rd degree burns in just a few seconds, while liquid at 150 to 160 degrees takes much longer continuous exposure.

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.

Figleaf · April 25, 2007

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.)

Before you go braying foolishly about what's pathetic, you should review post #35 wherein I asked if you are a teacher. You have now attempted to evade that question several times -- so I'll just assume you have something you're trying to hide.

So, once again... do you think teachers should be put at more risk than necessary when having to deal with disruptive children.

More than necessary? Of course not.

Handcuffs take less than 1 minute to put on...

:lol: Once the person is restrained maybe!

I've provided references to people that were injured during restraints. You've provided no evidence that people are regularly hurt using handcuffs.

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?

There is no point in citing such reports. As a simple matter of logic, handcuffing will require that the person first be restrained, and therefore handcuffing will have all the risks of restraining PLUS whatever risks the handcuffs themselves may bring.

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.)

I checked other sources. Prison planet is accurate in that regard. And you haven't answered the question -- why do you suppose they put her through all that police procedure if they have no laws to convict her under?

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.

I'm pretty sure that one incident per year can easily be handled by sensible and practical education professionals, if such a thing existed.

ScottSA · April 25, 2007

Haven't I seen a recipe for roast kid somewhere? Oh wait, that was...Morocco...goat...nevermind.

guyser · April 25, 2007

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

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.

Lets not forget, for $800 , McD's could have had this squashed.

Come on blueblood....still thinking she doesnt have a leg to stand on?

guyser · April 25, 2007

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.

Maybe in sit down restaurants. But at drive thru? Knowing the exposures they knew were inherent? Knowing full well the engineers could not make a top that met their own specs? Selling coffee at drive thru that McD's said was for home or office consumption even though their own market research said this was not correct? After the Shriners Burn Centre told McD' s their coffee was too hot? Even though your own coffee maker at home goes up to oh about 140F ?

Sorry but the facts as published hold up rather well. McD's was lucky to get off so easily, however if I were a shareholder, the CEO would have recde an earful from me.

blueblood · April 25, 2007

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

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.

Lets not forget, for $800 , McD's could have had this squashed.

Come on blueblood....still thinking she doesnt have a leg to stand on?

You are talking to a person who despises lawsuits and thinks they are gutless. She has one hell of a case for W-5 and/or the fifth estate, go on there and run McD's coffee and practices into the ground. We don't need to be wasting lawyer's and judge's time with this sort of nonsense, those judges can be used on the severely backlogged criminal trials.

Your trying to pull at my heartstrings and it just won't work, I have zero respect for the whole lawsuit game. You would probably love to have me as an insurance client, because you would have a guarantee your company won't get sued. I broke my arm helping my neighbour brand his calves, should I sue him because his calves are too wild? I was in a water dispute with another neighbour which involved him getting a court order making me expand a 56 acre pond into a 200 acre lake, I appealed and won. Did I turn around and sue him, no I opened her up and the neighbour had to put up with his field being a mess until the end of june.

guyser · April 25, 2007

You are talking to a person who despises lawsuits and thinks they are gutless. She has one hell of a case for W-5 and/or the fifth estate,

Of course that does not get her any redress. So IOW, wasted time.

We don't need to be wasting lawyer's and judge's time with this sort of nonsense, those judges can be used on the severely backlogged criminal trials.

There is time for both.

Your trying to pull at my heartstrings and it just won't work,

Actually, you dont have a heart. So I cant pull the strings of something that is not there.

I wont try and say anymore. You have said you cannot understand. Thats fine.

As for having you as a client, I would have no such enjoyment about lawsuits. You can be sued and I would have to pay. If you sue , then you are doing that on your own dollar. We wont help, but we pay if you are a defendant.

Figleaf · April 25, 2007

You are talking to a person who despises lawsuits and thinks they are gutless.

Yes, we are trying to show you that your feelings in that regard are not very practical. Lawsuits are the means that society provides for people to obtain redress for economic damage. What's to despise about that? Why is it 'gutless' to simply do what society provides for in such situations?

segnosaur · April 26, 2007

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.

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.)

After the Shriners Burn Centre told McD' s their coffee was too hot?

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.

Even though your own coffee maker at home goes up to oh about 140F ?

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.

Sorry but the facts as published hold up rather well. McD's was lucky to get off so easily,

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.

segnosaur · April 26, 2007

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

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.)

Lets not forget, for $800 , McD's could have had this squashed.

Actually no... It was originally McDs who offered a settlement of a few hundred,while the plaintif wanted $20,000.

ScottSA · April 26, 2007

Why yesterday I bought a milkshake at a drivethrough and much to my surprise, it was cold. But not just chilly cold, why it gave me brainfreeze. I'm going to sue. Damn Dairy Queen anyway. How dare they serve unreasonably cold milkshakes? I think lukewarm milkshakes would be far more responsible. What if the brainfreeze had made me stomp on the accerator in pain and mow down the busload of camera laden Japanese tourists crossing in front of me?

segnosaur · April 26, 2007

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.)

Before you go braying foolishly about what's pathetic, you should review post #35 wherein I asked if you are a teacher. You have now attempted to evade that question several times -- so I'll just assume you have something you're trying to hide.

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.)

So, once again... do you think teachers should be put at more risk than necessary when having to deal with disruptive children.

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.

Handcuffs take less than 1 minute to put on...

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.

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?

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 a simple matter of logic, handcuffing will require that the person first be restrained, and therefore handcuffing will have all the risks of restraining PLUS whatever risks the handcuffs themselves may bring.

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 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.)

I checked other sources. Prison planet is accurate in that regard. And you haven't answered the question -- why do you suppose they put her through all that police procedure if they have no laws to convict her under?

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".

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.

I'm pretty sure that one incident per year can easily be handled by sensible and practical education professionals, if such a thing existed.

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.

segnosaur · April 26, 2007

Why yesterday I bought a milkshake at a drivethrough and much to my surprise, it was cold. But not just chilly cold, why it gave me brainfreeze. I'm going to sue. Damn Dairy Queen anyway. How dare they serve unreasonably cold milkshakes? I think lukewarm milkshakes would be far more responsible. What if the brainfreeze had made me stomp on the accerator in pain and mow down the busload of camera laden Japanese tourists crossing in front of me?

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

Figleaf · April 26, 2007

- What do teachers do if they haven't yet put on their protective gear while the kid is trashing the classroom

Let's understand what we're each talking about ... by trashing, what level of damage and danger are you seeing?

- Will you have law reform to prevent people launching lawsuits against teachers and schools if restraints are used?

No, I would have public insurance indemnify teachers for bona fide efforts to do their best in any given situation.

I just don't want to see any get punched in the groin (like you seem to want to.)

Cheap.

So, once again... do you think teachers should be put at more risk than necessary when having to deal with disruptive children.

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.

That's not what it means to me.

If no handcuffs are used, the person must continue to be restrained physically. That's where the problem is.

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.

... you mean "I have no proof to support my claims, so I will resort to my already debunked common sense argument because".

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?

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.

My guess is that the whole situation is twisted and out of hand, that the so-called professionals lost control of the situation from early on that day, drove a cranky kid into a tantrum, treated her like an animal, and ended up acting childish and cruel in their own ways.

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".

If that's how it was, that's certainly what they should have said. But I find it telling what they did say.

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.

Yes, where that exception applies, I concede it.

ScottSA · April 26, 2007

Why yesterday I bought a milkshake at a drivethrough and much to my surprise, it was cold. But not just chilly cold, why it gave me brainfreeze. I'm going to sue. Damn Dairy Queen anyway. How dare they serve unreasonably cold milkshakes? I think lukewarm milkshakes would be far more responsible. What if the brainfreeze had made me stomp on the accerator in pain and mow down the busload of camera laden Japanese tourists crossing in front of me?

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

That's just scary. If that doesn't illustrate the dangers of nuisance lawsuits clogging the courts, what does?

ScottSA · April 26, 2007

Cheap...
[snip]

More than necessary? Of course not...

[snip]

Alright, I'll concede that in rare cases involving...

[mow]

I admit I haven't tendered any evidence...

[harvest by combine and baler]

My guess is that the whole situation is...[blah blah interminable blah...]

You did get the email about cutting down quotes? You must know that this swealian parsing out of every argument and subargument and addressing them even when you don't have any particular objection to them is pointless and that no one but you ever reads them, right? Just as a bit of advice, it would help us all if you would pick one main argument and address it rather than undertake a line item attack. Just a thought.