Posted on 04/17/2012 7:22:38 AM PDT by Upstate NY Guy
Edited on 04/17/2012 8:23:20 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
IMHO, that is exactly what the parents are doing here. Everyone is enabling this young girl to keep it up by suggesting that the school was over the top to call the police, when they had already exhausted all of the reasonable measures that are usually successful.
Just like the Trayvon incident - AGE IS NOT A FACTOR! Destructive intent and capability are.
If a child is damaging property and injuring other people - I don’t care how old she is.
How in holy heck do you have ANY idea about the demeanor of the cops? They tried to talk to her before cuffing her, so your assumptions of their demeanor are simply hog-wash.
Finally - if your child is acting like that, it is PRECISELY because you AREN’T doing your job! Why should the child be turned over to you to not do your job some more?
Video Captures Police Handcuffing 5-Year-Old Girl
Ire aimed at handcuffed girl's mother (2005)
Mom, 5-year-old girl in video fires lawyer, moving out of state
Here's video of the 2005 incident (link below). You can see the office where the girl has gone ape. She is fairly calm at the first of it and then starts going berserk again and hitting at the school official. At the end of the video, police put handcuffs on her. I don't think the mother won the public relations war in this one because there was video, but I'm not entirely sure how it turned out. It would be interesting to know what this little girl is like 7 years later. It would be nice in this latest case if there was video too. When incidents like this happen school officials should tape it if they can to protect themselves. Obviously, they had had run-ins with this little girl from 2005 before, so they were prepared.
Police Handcuffing 5-year-old black girl (2005)
Here's why the police are called and why adminstrators and teachers can't do anything to the little sweeties:
How I Joined Teach for America — and Got Sued for $20 Million
This guy that wrote the above is/was a liberal BTW.
And this:
Kill Your Teacher: Corruption And Racism in Los Angeles City Schools
Excerpt:
Shifren tells of his referral of one student to the principal's office for discipline for stabbing another student in class with a pencil. The student soon returned to class with a taxpayer-paid community activist, designated as a "parent rep," who screamed at him in front of the class. "I'm tired of you kicking Black kids out of your class," she yelled. But Shifren points out that every student in his class was Black.
Me speaking again:
So Al and Jesse will be called looking to capitalize on it for their own interests and the parents will be looking to capitalize on it for their own interests. Instead, the parents should be trying to figure out why their daughter is out of control. Meanwhile, the little girl will learn that no one can tell her what to do and she can act anyway she pleases. She will be out walking amongst us one day as an out of control adult. You can see the videos on You Tube of these older ferals on trains and in fast food restaurants acting like wild beasts. And we are all supposed to tolerate it and say, "Thank you, may I have another."
I cannot find a reference to a “meeting room.” Even if your speculation is correct, the 2 “Interview Rooms” at the Milledgeville Police Department are quite different from cells: they are in a main hallway next to the Detective offices. Each contains a small table, a chair for the interviewee, and chair(s) for the interviewing officer(s). Yes, they are windowless, but do not lock from the outside. The same rooms are used to interview both suspects and witnesses.
I believe your analysis and conclusions are correct given the PC times we live in.
When I was going to elementary school, back in the late 50's and early 60's, they would call the principal if a kid was throwing a temper tantrum. The principal would grab the kid by the collar and march him down to his office. He had a small closet there and the kid was pushed inside and left alone until he calmed down or until his parents showed up. No harm and no foul.
I believe getting the cops involved is adding too much drama to the whole situation and this plays into the attention seeking goals of the unruly kid.
“This shows alot of what is wrong with our system. The teacher should have been able to smack her butt when she started the tantrum and not let it get to the point where she was ripping things off walls. Instead the police are called to cuff her. Crazy.”
Teachers aren’t allowed to touch students any more (”Bad touch!”), so the police (who *are* allowed to touch people) have to be summoned.
Woah! Calm down and get grip on yourself!
This is NOTHING like the Martin case—not a bit,unless you noticed she’s black. But race has nothing to do with it.
So let me ask you, who shout that age has nothing to do with it, where do we draw the line if it’s not six. Five? Four? Three? A toddler? How about a baby? Those little boogers could crawl around and bite someone’s ankles!!!
Now about the demeanor of the cops. My point was the cops shouldn’t have been called, rather the parents.
I think the majority of FReepers would agree with me that the parents should be the ones to handle their children; not the government.
The parents can and should be held responsible for damages caused by their children as well.
Bottom line, I simply disagree with you—now don’t get outraged, last time I checked that was allowed—that age isn’t a factor.
Let’s just agree to disagree, but man, don’t shout me down, K?
You missed my point entirely. I would have the parent remove the child. I didn’t say that would make the child behave, but it would keep her from trashing the school. Further, I would ask the parent ot have the kid evaluated before she could come back, or even expell her.
The government doesn’t need to be called out to fix every situation. Individuals should be held repsonsible; in this case, her parents.
According to School Superintendent Geneva Braziel, “the school attempted to contact several members of the
student’s family”, apparently without success: http://www.13wmaz.com/assetpool/documents/120417033522_Creekside%20Press%20Release.pdf
I was listening to a radio show yesterday after work. The host was talking about a case in the Sacramento, CA area where Law Enforcement went to a Middle School and collected buccal swabs from students - WITHOUT PARENT KNOWLEDGE. This happened just recently, and is in relationship with a homocide. Apparently, in California, Police can obtain DNA samples from children without notifying parents as long as the child agrees to providing the DNA.
This is completely wrong IMHO. I'm telling my children to tell their children to JUST SAY NO!
In Principle I agree with you. However, 15 years of working in public schools has demonstrated that there are situations in which calling the parents of the child in question is as worthless as ____ on a boar hog. There have been a handful of occassions in which the only way to obtain a response from parents has been to have the Youth Service Police Officer be involved. In all cases I've been invovled with where we've had to call in the Youth Officer no arrest was made, and the parents (with only one exception) then become more involved in their child's behavior problems.
AGE IS NOT A FACTOR - there, I shouted it again. Did you get so caught up in the caps that you failed to notice what I said was a factor? The ability and intent to do harm.
And this is where - yes - the two cases are alike. People were making a big deal about Trayvon’s age, just like you are doing here. Trayvon’s age is immaterial to the facts - if he was the aggressor, his age doesn’t matter. If he was not the aggressor, his age still doesn’t matter.
In this case - if she was endangering property, herself and others, her age doesn’t matter. You have no clue what was going on, and since the mother was called repeatedly, without response, your whole rant about police and government holds no water. You have taken your position independent of any facts - no differently than the screaming mobs in the Trayvon case, or the current supporters of Obama.
Clue yourself in:
The girl was out of control
Mom did not answer the phone or respond to messages
Police were called
Police tried to calm the girl
She would not be calmed.
Police took her into custody.
You stupidly say the parents should handle it - but the parents were not available to handle it (Yet you still rant - parents, parents, parents), and as I said earlier, Mom wasn’t doing her job in the first place, so you expect her to do her job now? That is insane!
Back to the age thing - suppose you were killed by a 10 year old, would you be less dead than if you were killed by a 21 year old or a 1 year old?
Again - read carefully - what matters is ability and intent. The presumption is that the younger the child, the less able they are to inflict harm - but, as the story shows, a six year old is able to inflict injury, so she must be approached as a human being willing and able to inflict bodily harm —— NOT with the presumption that her age makes her harmless.
Suppose a 6 month old elephant was escaped, obviously agitated, and doing damage to property, headed to a playground where children were playing - would you rush out screaming that the elephant was only 6 months old, so nobody should call animal control or the cops?
The girl was out of control, her mom could not be contacted, the cops were called - what is your problem?
Finally - let me answer your question about where we draw the line. We draw the line where no damage is being done to other people or their property, and age, color, sex, or any of that other garbage have NOTHING to do with that line.
Excellent post.
Moi? That works BOTH ways. You stupidly bring up Martin, who was a far older than six... Nananana-boo!
See, you can call me stupid, and I can call you stupid. I don't think it's true in either case. However, I still disagree with you.
Disagreeing with you doesn't necessarily make the other person stupid. That's a six year old's argument. ;-) And I'll still contend that age does matter. We don't let adults have sex with minors because they simply cannot comprehend consent.
Now that's a little stark, argument wise, but it shows the law acknowleges that the younger the mind, the more likely it will not understand.
Now that I do know, however, that the parents couldn't be found, I do see the need to call the cops. That was not in the original story, however. Now, did they apprehend the child, or arrest? The original story was arrest, implying criminal charges, and yes, I still contend that's wrong. I thought about it, too. I'm sure we still disagree, but that still doesn't make me--or you--stupid.
Well, certain things do indicate stupidity - ignoring rational arguments is one of them.
I bring up Martin because, LIKE THIS CASE, people were making a big deal about age.
Sure (speaking to a six year old) age matters in certain things. Age does not matter when injury and destruction is taking place. What matters then is the capacity and the intent to destroy and injure. BUT - like a three year old, you refuse to argue, address or concede the point...you are too busy arguing points that I have not made, which IS stupidity. I have addressed every point you have attempted to make - you keep coming back with an “Is not!” equivilant.
Bringing up sex with minors in this case is pure sophistry, whether intended (dishonest) or not (stupid). In such cases, the child is the one preyed upon and being damaged, not the other way ‘round. My point has always been, capacity to damage (in sexual case, the minor is being damaged) and intent to inflict damage (does not apply here either). Using your tactics I could easily say - age does not matter, because everyone needs air, food and water regardless of age! That argument would have no bearing on the foundation of my position (capacity and intent - maybe if I repeat it enough you will catch on - your arguments so far prove that you haven’t yet; so how can you address or even disagree with an argument you don’t understand?) - neither does your argument. So let me try once more...in cases such as this, AGE IS NOT A FACTOR, the ability of the person (whatever age) do do harm to themselves, others or property, is what is relevant IN CASES LIKE THIS, when deciding how to deal with the situation.
At least - once you UNDERSTOOD the situation - you backed off your condemnation of bringiing in the police (we often leap to poor conclusions when we jump in ignorance). Once you UNDESTAND my argument, you will likely change on this one too. But I despair of your likelyhood of understanding my sophisticated argument, you are too focused on the fact that 6 year olds are different fromm 20 year olds.
Thank you for your words of support. It is a frustration to me that some people think age trumps destructive capability and intent. I suppose it’s OK if they assume that nobody under the age of ## can do serious or deadly harm to them - but it is NOT ok for them to condemn others for protecting themselves from the little hellions.
Well, I’d say your sheer brilliance has won the day and you’ve exposed and humiliated me for the absolutely dishonest worm and idiot I am!
Thanks for really setting me straight.
You are welcome.
In your sarcasm you have unintentionally stumbled upon the truth!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.