Check out this disturbing video of Officer cuffing 8 y child

Post Reply New Topic

One possible solution which ought to be easy to implement but probably won't be, is to make the police themselves experts in de-escalation. We are just acccepting it as a given that cops will only use the tools of taser/intimidate/cuff etc. because that's what cops do with adults. But what if there were a subdivision trained specifically to work with kids instead of just making it a "whoever is available" rotation the way it seems to be now.

Police have other specialty subdivisions. Why not one for this? If SPED teachers in special needs schools can be taught to de-escalate and use restraining holds safely, it should be possible to teach cops. They would still be cops in case there really was an active shooter in the school but they would also be able to respond to a kid who lost control in a better way than cuffing his upper arms and yelling at him. And the schools wouldn't have to deal with learning to do it themselves and all that entails.

From a local (Kentucky) newspaper today in response to the incident: "A northern KY school district says a Sheriff's deputy shown on video handcuffing an elementary student above the elbows was complying with its restraint policy. ...the finding came from an independent investigator hired by the district. ...In a letter to parents, Covington Independent Public Schools Superintendent Alvin Garrison said Sumner complied with the district's policies 'which are designed to ensure that students do not injure themselves or others.' "

Probly be like trying to teach bears to s**t in toilets.

"SPED"
I hadn't heard that term in a while. At the school where I went to 7th and 8th grade SPED was used to disparage special ed students.
They were called SPEDs.

I kinda figured that would be the outcome. Cops are gonna do what cops do.

Then the kid's parents should sue the sh*t out of the school district.

I think that is what is happening, the incident happened about a year ago and now the sheriff and the school are being sued. And because of that they, the A CLU, put the video out there.

yup, and policy makes it right

If a kid is so violent that he has to be handcuffed to keep himself from harming others, why isn't he in psychiatric care? Why do we let these kids run around harming others? Then we get outraged when we see one of them handcuffed and we automatically ASSume it's an innocent child instead of a Chuckie. It's sad how schools have to resort to the police because parents won't hospitalize their violent kids so they have to protect others and I think this is the only way to get the kid help. But it can be traumatizing for the kid. But really this is school, not a mental place so no kid should have to be restrained to ensure they won't harm others. If it has to be that way, the kid should be locked up for the safety of others. I think there needs to be laws about this.

I think if more parents started to sue other parents when their kids intentionally harm others and they have a history of violence, more of them might start locking their kids away or keeping their violent kids away to avoid a lawsuit if their kid harms someone. I know I would sue if that happened with mine and only way I wouldn't sue is if lawyers told me I had a slim chance of winning or if it was going to cost me more than the medical bill to win. If it was some innocent kid playing and my son broke his arm let's say and it was an accident and there was no violence, and no fighting and no anger, then no sue. Accidents happen. I broke a girl's arm once by mistake from playing on the jungle gym and she fell off and landed on the ground and got taken to the office. The next day she had on a cast. I was too young to really understand what I did, I only knew she hurt her arm and she got it casted. So I had no remorse.

But sometimes policy changes when this kind of thing gets widely seen and discussed:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/08/ ... nter-probe

What I don't get is how embarrassing the poor kid is supposed to help with this type of behavior.

I don't think it's about helping the kid.

It's just about:

Are you under the impression that parents can just get their kids inpatient psychiatric care if it is needed? Hahahaha (although not actually funny). No.

A little story (there are thousands more just like it)

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/lowell/parents-advised-to-abandon-children-in-order-to-secure-mental/article_d8073da8-2609-5bf8-ba2f-1157dce11b66.html

The point of the story is that some parents are intentionally abandoning their children by refusing to pick them up from school or other secure government building even though this will get them child neglect charges. Why? Because it will also get their child inpatient psychiatric care. Children who are wards of the state get inpatient psychiatric care as needed. Not a ward of the state? Then it all depends on what your insurance covers (not that, most likely) or what you can afford out of pocket (you can't).




And you want to add a lawsuit against the parents on top of that.

Thanks for sharing that. It's one of the more depressing things I have read recently, but something everyone needs to know. "safety net" What a joke.