Has our intelligence dropped to zero already?

[BigV]

wolf, OnyxCougar, thank you for you kind thoughts and words of encouragement.

Troubleshooter, you are urged to feel as chastened as is necessary. I will leave it up to your good judgement to determine the depth and breadth and duration.

[wolf]

OC's right about needing to restrain folks in a squad car. Even very cooperative, agreeable folks. I take a lot of handcuffs off voluntary patients.

What I'm trying to figure out is where they got a set of cuffs to fit the kid.

[Troubleshooter]

Unfortunately, my good judgement, based on personal experience at home with my own child and working an adolescent ward at a psychiatric facility, dictates that I feel no chastening. Sorry.

My friend has taken to carrying two sets of cuffs now, a small and a large. Before long he's going to end up with a case of them in his unit.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by wolf

OC's right about needing to restrain folks in a squad car. Even very cooperative, agreeable folks. I take a lot of handcuffs off voluntary patients.

What I'm trying to figure out is where they got a set of cuffs to fit the kid.

Plastic zip tie style cuffs. You're right regular steel cuffs didn't work.

Guess why? They're not designed to be used on children that small.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by BigV

Guess why? They're not designed to be used on children that small.

That's because children that age weren't as likely to behave like that in the past. Straw Man.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

That's because children that age weren't as likely to behave like that in the past.

Not true. Kids have been having tantrums since time immemorial. It's a part of growing up.

Are you saying that the cuffs didn't fit because they were designed in a time when kid's behaved better?

I contend that the behavior shown here is largely unchanged since "the past", and that instead, our standards of behavior have changed considerably. Furthermore, this case represents an enormous change in our reaction to that behavior and how it compares to our changed and changing standards.

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

Straw Man.

Not true. The cops didn't use steel cuffs because they didn't fit. They didn't fit, because they're designed to fit adult wrists. The kid's wrists were smaller than what the cuff designers intended to accommodate. No straw man. Just a really short, really easy to follow set of facts.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by BigV

Guess why? They're not designed to be used on children that small.

I'm well aware of that.

Most cuffs don't fit adult women, either, but cops certainly expect to arrest them.

[OnyxCougar]

OK Big, I just don't see where I'm alone in a special category of wrongness here.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

OK Big, I just don't see where I'm alone in a special category of wrongness here.

OC, I said that for a couple of reasons. I'm not going to bother formatting this reply with your "quotes". You're free to correct my memory. Not in any particular order...

1 -- Let's say the little girl does have special needs. That's no excuse for denying her special attention. Ausberger's or whatever doesn't like touching? Ok, not an expert in that area but that means there's some other way of rendering the help she needed. I said APPROPRIATE restraint. Ok, whatever's appropriate for her. I contend that handcuffs were not appropriate. Adequate? Yes, more than adequate, way more.

2 -- I've already addressed the fiction of not being allowed to touch a child. My disagreement with you is the deeper issue of hiding behind the rules as an excuse for not doing what needed to be done. Speaking for the teacher, you defended her actions by saying "THE RULES SAID" she couldn't touch the child. I am upset that the respect for the rules exceeded the compassion for the child.

3 -- I asked about personal responsibility. You indicated that the dominant forces happen from birth to 5 years old. Do you mean that by 5 years old that personal responsibility should be dominant? You were singing a different tune when the discussion was regarding your own child. You spoke at length about the responsibility resting on the shoulders of the adult when push came to shove. And yet you seem to give the adult in this case a pass because the little kid should have more personal responsibility, has issues, is having an epic tantrum, etc. That kind of double standard chaps my ass.

4 -- This video and this story struck a very different chord in you than it did in me. I was aghast at the image of the little girl being handcuffed by police. Your reaction was "Bravo to the teacher for courage in the line of fire. Give her a raise." Hey, it's a free country. You can think and say what you want. Maybe "wrong" is not exactly the right word here....But I struggle to find a better word, and I can find none. It is wrong to see this video and fail to be scandalized by the image of cops handcuffing a little girl.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by BigV

OC, I said that for a couple of reasons. I'm not going to bother formatting this reply with your "quotes". You're free to correct my memory. Not in any particular order...

1 -- Let's say the little girl does have special needs. That's no excuse for denying her special attention. Ausberger's or whatever doesn't like touching? Ok, not an expert in that area but that means there's some other way of rendering the help she needed. I said APPROPRIATE restraint. Ok, whatever's appropriate for her. I contend that handcuffs were not appropriate. Adequate? Yes, more than adequate, way more.

By the way, I use quotes because I post most often from work and it helps me focus when I'm in and out of window so often.

At no time was the teacher or VP denying her special attention. She was getting all the attention she could hope for, and it turns out, more than anyone bargained for.

Appropriate restraint for a child that is kicking and hitting is not close physical contact. In fact, in the CNN broadcast last night, the lawyer for the parents stated that it's the police he's most upset with, and he feels the teachers were "shadowing and hovering" around her in a way that was "not conducive to calm"ing the child down. (Those are direct quotations.)

So here, you're screaming for physical restraint on the part of the teacher, but the lawyer is saying he's thinking of pressing charges because they were too close to her!! Obviously the lawyer thinks she should have been left in an empty room to destroy it. *shrug* Bottom line is, the LAWYER didn't want them to touch her, and that's exactly the point I was trying to make.

I want to also say that I am 100% for the use of hug as a method of restraint, but again, for the millionth time, legal bullshit prevents me (and anyone else) from doing so. Your school's policy is different than Jaieesha's school, and it's different from mine here in Podunk, NC. It's also different in my kids schools in every school they've been to, since 1996, in Las Vegas. No touching is hardly an isolated policy.

2 -- I've already addressed the fiction of not being allowed to touch a child. My disagreement with you is the deeper issue of hiding behind the rules as an excuse for not doing what needed to be done. Speaking for the teacher, you defended her actions by saying "THE RULES SAID" she couldn't touch the child. I am upset that the respect for the rules exceeded the compassion for the child.

The child was not in physical danger, until she jumped up on the table, when the VP physically removed her from the table. Then she wasn't in danger then. This school has a no-touching policy, and the VP followed policy. As a teacher, the child's shit fit (not physical danger, but shit fit) does not, and will never, trump my source of income for my family. In other words, I will not get fired over restraining this little brat. School policy is not to touch, she's not in physical danger. Done deal.

3 -- I asked about personal responsibility. You indicated that the dominant forces happen from birth to 5 years old. Do you mean that by 5 years old that personal responsibility should be dominant?

No, that's not what I mean. Dominant forces in a childs life are birth to 5. Meaning, if you haven't put the correct foundation in, it's MUCH harder to add it later. If by 5 you haven't shown by example, taught with love and discipline, the basics of personal responsiblity and respectable behavior, chances are, they're not going to get it without a serious learning experience. That is not to say that all 5 year olds take personal responsiblity, but it IS to say that the seeds have to be planted BY age 5 and then nurtured and grown into adolescence and young adult hood.

You were singing a different tune when the discussion was regarding your own child. You spoke at length about the responsibility resting on the shoulders of the adult when push came to shove. And yet you seem to give the adult in this case a pass because the little kid should have more personal responsibility, has issues, is having an epic tantrum, etc.

No, I wasn't singing any other tune. I agree that the adults in the situation were ultimately responsible for what happened, and that starts with Jaieesha's parents, NUMBER 1. Jaieesha KNEW that she was wrong. She KNEW she was pissing the VP off, and she was flat out playing games with the VP. Willfully. This behavior is not ALL Jaieesha's fault, by ANY means, mostly I blame her parents. But there *IS* a measure of personal responsibility that she needs to take. Let's use your 5 year old as an example.

LittleV is having a *really* bad day. He manages to clear out the classroom, and then gets sent to the principles office. At this point, LittleV *knows* beyond a shadow of a doubt he's in deep shit. He knows that when you are called, his ass in the ringer for sure. At this point, if at no other, he should take personal responsibility and calm down, and that's it. It's over. You come, pick him up, do whatever you do, and it doesn't happen again.

Jaisheesa isn't like LittleV. Jaieesha got the the VP's office, and at that point (and any normal child's point) INSTEAD OF TAKING PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY or, instead of being afraid of punishment, or whatever, she continued, because she KNEW she was wrong and didn't care.

That's the difference, Big.

That kind of double standard chaps my ass.

It's not a double standard, so there's some vaseline.

4 -- This video and this story struck a very different chord in you than it did in me. I was aghast at the image of the little girl being handcuffed by police. Your reaction was "Bravo to the teacher for courage in the line of fire. Give her a raise."

I don't see the big nasty police throwing her down on the floor, putting their knees in her back, and manhandling her. I see them restraining an out of control little girl, so she can be safely transported to CPS or wherever, since her parents haven't come to retrieve her in over 45 minutes.

Hey, it's a free country. You can think and say what you want. Maybe "wrong" is not exactly the right word here....But I struggle to find a better word, and I can find none. It is wrong to see this video and fail to be scandalized by the image of cops handcuffing a little girl.

I AM scandalized. I'm scandalized that our country has come to the point that schools HAVE to have this policy or something like it to keep from being sued. I'm scandalized that parents don't give a shit about their kids that they don't give them the loving care and discipline (also called loving limits) that they need.

I'm scandalized that instead of the PARENTS being handcuffed for not doing THEIR job, (1) teaching Jaieesha proper behavior and (2) coming to pick her up when she's out of control, the FUCKED UP PARENTS are suing the cops for restraining their child, because the school can't, because of policies put in place because of parents like them!!!

Why aren't you pissed about that?????

Why aren't you pissed at the parents, Big???? They are the ROOT CAUSE of this whole situation. The PARENTS failed at not just one juncture, but TWO. And you're pissed at the teacher?????

Fuck THAT.

[Catwoman]

Teachers are in a unique position. They have full responsibility of the child during class time, essentially assuming the role of parent. However, while they are equally as responsible as the parent during this time, they do not have the same freedom of judgement or action that a parent has. It's like putting J-Lo naked in a snake tank, and asking her to do the same job as Steve Irwin with a 12 bore. Not all that fair.

Parents will (generally) know the best method of discipline for their child. Some chidren respond best to calming hugs or explanation. Others respond better to physical input - ie stronger restraining or spanking. Some don't need anything at all. The teacher will need to respond accurately to the situation and use her judgement to administer the appropriate discpline. This is hard enough without restrictions on spanking and physical contact.

The teacher in the video responded appalingly to the situation, for these reasons:

- She did not have the ability or insight to judge the situation. You can tell by the way she follows the child around, hangs about, and doesn't really do anything. She doesn't speak to her, not properly, and clearly doesn't have a clue what to do. I don't blame her for this; someone like her should never have been put in a position of authority. Good teachers 'sense' children, they are instinctive in their approach to tantrums or problems and have the ability to sooth, usually without any physical contact. You need to have natural authority, and be competent yourself if you expect the same rationality from your students, especially young children.

- She was restricted in what she could actually do by not being about to touch/restrain

In this sense that she was restricted, yes she technically did her job right, did what she was supposed to, what was acceptable. But she didn't go any further than this, just panicked, lost control and called for someone else. You don't need anyone else! One adult should be enough. Every kid plays up, she's not special needs nor is she any different to anyone else. It is fear and misinterpretation that caused this dilemma.

This is how I would have handled it, from the classroom:

1. Turned the video camera off, or at least put it down and pretended I'd turned it off. The girl is quite aware of its presence and looks into the lens a couple of times, clearly playing up to it.

2. Ignored her for a bit, to see if it's attention she's after or if she's just eaten too many sweets. Obviously you don't want the classroom destroyed so you'll have to intervene if she carries on. I'd simply take her by the hand, say 'come on, we're going' and move to another environment. I still wouldn't see a need to involve anyone else at this point. We move to maybe another classroom, or outside, just take her away from where she feels comfortable and where the outbreak started.

3. Try to engage her in conversation. Say 'have you been eating too many sweets today?' or 'Where's mummy today then' and just talk. This should hopefully settle her down.

4. If none of the above is achieved and she's punching and rattling like a catherine wheel, I would have failed and shouldn't be a teacher, and I'd hand my notice in.

It should never get to the stage of violence. It is possible to control it before it happens, but you do need incredible perception and people/child skills, which not many people have. If it does come to the point of a child throwing punches etc, restrain the overacting little brat! Teach them, don't pander to them.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Catwoman

Teachers are in a unique position. They have full responsibility of the child during class time, essentially assuming the role of parent. --snip-- Not all that fair.--snip--

Yep.

Originally Posted by Catwoman

The teacher in the video responded appalingly to the situation--snip--

Double yep.

Originally Posted by Catwoman

--snip -- In this sense that she was restricted, yes she technically did her job right, did what she was supposed to, what was acceptable.

Following the letter of the law and not the spirit. Weak.

Originally Posted by Catwoman

--snip--It should never get to the stage of violence. It is possible to control it before it happens, but you do need incredible perception and people/child skills, which not many people have. If it does come to the point of a child throwing punches etc, restrain the overacting little brat! Teach them, don't pander to them.

Well put. I agree with you Catwoman.

[Happy Monkey]

I've got a book of sayings by Balthazar Gracian, who lived in the early 1600s. One of the quotes is, in effect, "Kids these days are out of control."

[wolf]

It is when you try to lead to the conclusion that they shouldn't do it or shouldn't need to do it because of the size of the cuffs.

And incidentally, those cable ties ... great for large scene control problems, lousy for regular usage. They have to be cut off.

I won't approach one of my clients with a pair of scissors to cut off a wristband on discharge, I'm sure as shit not doing so before admission (and medication) to cut off a cable tie.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by wolf

I won't approach one of my clients with a pair of scissors to cut off a wristband on discharge, I'm sure as shit not doing so before admission (and medication) to cut off a cable tie.

You need these:


and this: