Kentucky sheriff's department sued over handcuffing of eight-year-old boy

[ksen]

He did the right thing.

You mean other than breaking Kentucky law.

 

[laughing dog]

Much ado about nothing.

ADHD does not excuse violence toward others.

That's the reason the school called the police in the first place. The school was concerned with the kids' violence toward others.

There is no mention in the linked article that was the reason. In fact, the reason stated in the linked article is that the police were called when the boy tried to leave the office. Do you have another link with more information or are you pulling this out of the air?

What's the cop supposed to do with a violent child who won't behave? Tase the kid? Let him run wild?

Your question assumes facts not in evidence.

My mom - who worked in a grade school - saw kids attack teachers, trying to scratch out their eyes or kick them in the groin. Nice.

So a police officer in Kentucky gets to violate Ky state law and common sense because of your mom?

He did the right thing.

You can have no idea, since you do not know the facts. Clearly, you have no clue how to deal with children if you think he did the right thing.

Just saw an interview where a 'counselor' or someone is now explaining how the kid is having trouble sleeping and 'suffering' from this incident.

It's shocking that she doesn't think ADHD is why the kid having trouble sleeping since that IS a trait of ADHD sufferers.

Since you don't know the child, you can have no idea whether he is having more trouble sleeping than usual or not. In other words, you are literally posting out of your ass on this.

As for the kid being afraid...maybe it's the first time he's ever been held accountable for his actions and suddenly he doesn't get his way anymore...yeah, that could scare him.

Or maybe he is really traumatized from this unprofessional and illegal behavior.

Stuff and nonsense.

Yup, that is a polite and succinct description of your post.

 

[fast]

"He was taken to the vice-principal’s office and after the boy tried to get away from the office the police officer was called."

Can we safely assume that the boy failed to get away from the office after trying to get away from the office? I think the answer is yes. Why in the world would the boy's failed attempt to get away from the office lead to the police officer being called? Must the answer be explicitly written in an article, or can we deduce a reasonable explanation given the other available information in the article and video?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So no adult should ever try to restrain a kid acting violently, unless the kid has a deadly weapon? IF the kid is being aggressive, swinging, throwing things (including expensive equiptment), the teachers and administrators should just back off and run awa if they can't calm him down with "Gee, Jimmy, its not nice to hit."? Handcuffs are not "extreme", they are actually a far safer way to restrain someone than other methods.

Psych hospitals probably have better restrains--but cops don't normally carry them around. Handcuffs are what he had so it's what he used.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm going to go ahead and posit that people who think handcuffing a kid is any more extreme than how most parents restrain their kids who are hitting are irrational ideologues incapable of reason. And I'm going to go ahead and posit that anyone claiming that kids never need to be physically restrained know nothing about kids (they may have them, but that means nothing as to knowing about them).

Try having someone restrain you by holding your arms at your side, and then by holding your arms behind you so that your elbows are nearly touching. I guarantee you one of these positions is more painful than the other, and is also unnecessary when an adult is restraining an 8 year old child.

And what happens when you're holding the kids arms and he resorts to stomping on your feet?

- - - Updated - - -

Which mean the handcuffs were unnecessary at that point, so the rest of that response is moot. Unless you are implying that handcuffing a child is appropriate punishment for swinging at a police officer.

Earth to laughing dog: It's not about punishment. It's about stopping the behavior. Kid takes a swing, the cop cuffs him so he can't do it again.

 

[Toni]

Try having someone restrain you by holding your arms at your side, and then by holding your arms behind you so that your elbows are nearly touching. I guarantee you one of these positions is more painful than the other, and is also unnecessary when an adult is restraining an 8 year old child.

And what happens when you're holding the kids arms and he resorts to stomping on your feet?

A 53 lb 8 year old is not hard to out maneuver, without tasers or handcuffs.

Which mean the handcuffs were unnecessary at that point, so the rest of that response is moot. Unless you are implying that handcuffing a child is appropriate punishment for swinging at a police officer.

Earth to laughing dog: It's not about punishment. It's about stopping the behavior. Kid takes a swing, the cop cuffs him so he can't do it again.

OK, it's not an appropriate way to stop the behavior.

 

[laughing dog]

And what happens when you're holding the kids arms and he resorts to stomping on your feet?

You move your feet. Certainly cuffing the child's arms won't stop stomping of feet.

Earth to laughing dog: It's not about punishment. It's about stopping the behavior. Kid takes a swing, the cop cuffs him so he can't do it again.

Look at the video. Given the large size imbalance, the police officer had no trouble stopping any swinging behavior since he had the boy's arms firmly behind his back. So the cuffing was unnecessary. And clearly the police officer was not worried about being hit since he told the child that if he apologized, the officer would uncuff him.

The cuffing was unnecessary. And, as it turns out, a violation of Ky law.

 

[RavenSky]

My 5 foot, 100 lb daughter works daily with special needs children, some of whom occasionally act out violently. I hear the stories of how her team handles these situations, and it has never included handcuffs nor straight-jackets.

If my 5 foot, 100 lb daughter can gently restrain a violent child, including avoiding/stopping kicking feet, without escalating the situation with the use of handcuffs - then that cop could too. He was either very poorly trained or just didn't care.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Try having someone restrain you by holding your arms at your side, and then by holding your arms behind you so that your elbows are nearly touching. I guarantee you one of these positions is more painful than the other, and is also unnecessary when an adult is restraining an 8 year old child.

And what happens when you're holding the kids arms and he resorts to stomping on your feet?

Ice the bastard! Seriously LP, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Kentucky state law requires that handcuffs only be used in the most extreme of cases, which to me is the kid is trying to kill someone and has whatever is needed to do so. Anything short of that is typical overuse of force by the police that you always condone.

Which mean the handcuffs were unnecessary at that point, so the rest of that response is moot. Unless you are implying that handcuffing a child is appropriate punishment for swinging at a police officer.

Earth to laughing dog: It's not about punishment. It's about stopping the behavior. Kid takes a swing, the cop cuffs him so he can't do it again.

It is about punishment, but putting a kid who has certain behavioral problems in handcuffs can escalate the situation. You simply have no appreciation for human to human interaction and psychology.

 

[KeepTalking]

Try having someone restrain you by holding your arms at your side, and then by holding your arms behind you so that your elbows are nearly touching. I guarantee you one of these positions is more painful than the other, and is also unnecessary when an adult is restraining an 8 year old child.

And what happens when you're holding the kids arms and he resorts to stomping on your feet?

You laugh because you are a cop wearing combat boots, or other solidly made uniform footwear, likely with a steel toe.

 

[Frikki]

So no adult should ever try to restrain a kid acting violently, unless the kid has a deadly weapon? IF the kid is being aggressive, swinging, throwing things (including expensive equiptment), the teachers and administrators should just back off and run awa if they can't calm him down with "Gee, Jimmy, its not nice to hit."? Handcuffs are not "extreme", they are actually a far safer way to restrain someone than other methods.

Psych hospitals probably have better restrains--but cops don't normally carry them around. Handcuffs are what he had so it's what he used.

Only a coward and a weakling would think it reasonable to cuff an 8 year old.

- - - Updated - - -

And what happens when you're holding the kids arms and he resorts to stomping on your feet?

What kind of a pussy is worried about a little kid stomping on his feet. Has you life been this sheltered?

 

[ronburgundy]

I'm going to go ahead and posit that people who think handcuffing a kid is any more extreme than how most parents restrain their kids who are hitting are irrational ideologues incapable of reason. And I'm going to go ahead and posit that anyone claiming that kids never need to be physically restrained know nothing about kids (they may have them, but that means nothing as to knowing about them).

Try having someone restrain you by holding your arms at your side, and then by holding your arms behind you so that your elbows are nearly touching. I guarantee you one of these positions is more painful than the other, and is also unnecessary when an adult is restraining an 8 year old child.

Try applying a millisecond of honest rational thought to the chasm of difference between then the flexibility of an 8 year old and an adult. Their arms can get into that position without any pain. The cuffs restrain the child without having a adult constantly having to fight against and counter the struggling movements of the child. The risk of the adult squeezing the wrists too applying to much counter force create the opportunity for more pain and more actual damage than the cuffs do.

 

[ronburgundy]

Psych hospitals probably have better restrains--but cops don't normally carry them around. Handcuffs are what he had so it's what he used.

Only a coward and a weakling would think it reasonable to cuff an 8 year old.

Only a coward would refuse to do what is safest course of action, including for the violent child, just because he was afraid of being called a weakling by idiots.

 

[ksen]

And again, against kentucky law

 

[KeepTalking]

Try having someone restrain you by holding your arms at your side, and then by holding your arms behind you so that your elbows are nearly touching. I guarantee you one of these positions is more painful than the other, and is also unnecessary when an adult is restraining an 8 year old child.

Try applying a millisecond of honest rational thought to the chasm of difference between then the flexibility of an 8 year old and an adult. Their arms can get into that position without any pain. The cuffs restrain the child without having a adult constantly having to fight against and counter the struggling movements of the child. The risk of the adult squeezing the wrists too applying to much counter force create the opportunity for more pain and more actual damage than the cuffs do.

I applied more than a millisecond, thank you very much. The kid was obviously in pain. Holding his arms straight down at his sides, as most parents would do in such a situation, would not have caused any pain. So, next time, heed your own fucking advice.

 

[laughing dog]

Try having someone restrain you by holding your arms at your side, and then by holding your arms behind you so that your elbows are nearly touching. I guarantee you one of these positions is more painful than the other, and is also unnecessary when an adult is restraining an 8 year old child.

Try applying a millisecond of honest rational thought to the chasm of difference between then the flexibility of an 8 year old and an adult. Their arms can get into that position without any pain. The cuffs restrain the child without having a adult constantly having to fight against and counter the struggling movements of the child. The risk of the adult squeezing the wrists too applying to much counter force create the opportunity for more pain and more actual damage than the cuffs do.

Special needs educators are trained to deal with this type of behavior and they don't use cuffs. Anyone applying a nanosecond of honest rational thought indicates your posts reflect a kneejerk bootlicking defense of police "authority".

 

[ronburgundy]

You move your feet. Certainly cuffing the child's arms won't stop stomping of feet.

Earth to laughing dog: It's not about punishment. It's about stopping the behavior. Kid takes a swing, the cop cuffs him so he can't do it again.

Look at the video. Given the large size imbalance, the police officer had no trouble stopping any swinging behavior since he had the boy's arms firmly behind his back.

IOW, your admit that the cuffs have no bearing on what was sensible to do. You seem to have no problem with the cop putting holding the kids arms behind his back to stop violent behavior (that could easily hurt the kid himself, it is not about harm to the cop). You just get hysterical when the same type of restraint uses cuffs in place of the officers hands.

And clearly the police officer was not worried about being hit since he told the child that if he apologized, the officer would uncuff him.

You keep repeating the lie that this was only about the officer protecting himself. It is more about restraining the kid to protect the kid. A kid swinging and kicking can hurt himself. Also, it was not about an apology but about the kids actions and behavior.
"If you want the handcuffs off, you're going to have to behave and ask me nicely," he said. "And if you're behaving, I'll take them off, but as long as you're acting up, you're not going to get them off."

IF the kid can calm down enough to ask nicely to have the cuffs removed, then it signals his physical aggression is subsided.

The cuffing was unnecessary.

IF restraining the kid was necessary, then cuffing can be among the safer ways of doing what was necessary.

And, as it turns out, a violation of Ky law.

First, it is not at all clear that he violated KY law. You are blindly believing lawyers paid to lie. Can you link to the actual statute wording that says no police officer is ever allowed to handcuff any child, even when they are a violent threat to themselves and others? Without this, his actions were not illegal.
Given how much the lawyers are playing the bullshit "disability" card, it is likely that they know that the KY law does not really prohibit handcuffing kids. So they are going to try and make it a ADA case and argue that "disabled" kids in particular cannot be cuffed. It is unlikely that this is even true, and probably only applies to cuffing as a form of punishment, which this was not. It was harm prevention. Also, if their is a law that gives extra prohibitions on cuffing "disabled" kids that is absurd, especially when the the "disability" is partly defined by aggressive behavior and being less likely to respond well to verbal instructions and non-contact methods of calming a kid down.

If my 5 foot, 100 lb daughter can gently restrain a violent child, including avoiding/stopping kicking feet, without escalating the situation with the use of handcuffs - then that cop could too. He was either very poorly trained or just didn't care.

And you don't have any evidence that your daughters' methods of restraint are any safer. And it is certain that some of those kids cry and pretend that the way they are being restrained hurts when it doesn't, because that is what kids do. Also, the cop was called because teachers and school officials who normally deal with this and like your sister are successful could not calm this kid down, meaning this was an atypical situation.

 

[ronburgundy]

Try applying a millisecond of honest rational thought to the chasm of difference between then the flexibility of an 8 year old and an adult. Their arms can get into that position without any pain. The cuffs restrain the child without having a adult constantly having to fight against and counter the struggling movements of the child. The risk of the adult squeezing the wrists too applying to much counter force create the opportunity for more pain and more actual damage than the cuffs do.

Special needs educators are trained to deal with this type of behavior and they don't use cuffs. Any

You have zero evidence that artificial restraints are never used by special needs educators, or that they never are forced to pawn off instances they cannot handle onto other people who sometimes use such restraints. This cop was called in only after such educators where unable to deal with this kid. Also, cops are better trained to deal with violent behavior, and they do use cuffs. You have no evidence, other than your blind knee-jerk emotions, to conclude that this cops use of cuffs was any more harmful or dangerous than methods used in similar atypical situations where standards approaches to calm the kid down have already failed.

 

[ronburgundy]

Try applying a millisecond of honest rational thought to the chasm of difference between then the flexibility of an 8 year old and an adult. Their arms can get into that position without any pain. The cuffs restrain the child without having a adult constantly having to fight against and counter the struggling movements of the child. The risk of the adult squeezing the wrists too applying to much counter force create the opportunity for more pain and more actual damage than the cuffs do.

I applied more than a millisecond, thank you very much. The kid was obviously in pain.

Clearly you did not, or you wouldn't claim that every kid who says "Ow that hurts" is actually suffering real physical pain. Every kid everywhere fakes injury and pain to get their way, and his cries sounded just like that and not like someone actually hurting. As soon as he realized that his fake claims of "Ow, that hurts" weren't going to work, he stopped. Sobbing is not a reaction to physical pain, and he would have been sobbing no matter how he was restrained because he was emotionally wound up.

Holding his arms straight down at his sides, as most parents would do in such a situation, would not have caused any pain.

First, there are likely plenty of instances where parents attempt such restraint and an injury results if the kid continues to fight and struggle. Second, kids cry and claim it hurts all the time when parents use such restraint methods. Since such reactions have nothing to do with any actual pain and injury, parents ignore it.

 

[laughing dog]

IOW, your admit that the cuffs have no bearing on what was sensible to do.

And yet you continue defend their use in this instance. Wow.

. You seem to have no problem with the cop putting holding the kids arms behind his back to stop violent behavior (that could easily hurt the kid himself, it is not about harm to the cop).

One can usually deal with a small child (like the 8 year old) without hurting him or her. Special need educators do it all the time without cuffs.

You just get hysterical when the same type of restraint uses cuffs in place of the officers hands.

The cuffs were unnecessary. Even the cop tacitly admitted when he said he would remove them if the kid apologized.

You keep repeating the lie that this was only about the officer protecting himself. It is more about restraining the kid to protect the kid. A kid swinging and kicking can hurt himself. Also, it was not about an apology but about the kids actions and behavior.
"If you want the handcuffs off, you're going to have to behave and ask me nicely," he said. "And if you're behaving, I'll take them off, but as long as you're acting up, you're not going to get them off."

Interestingly, you omit what the officer just prior to that which was "You can do what we ask you to or you can suffer the consequences". Sounds more like punishment that anything else. Add in the fact that the kid was not acting up at the time, and your analysis is rebutted. The child was not struggling and was crying in pain because of the cuffs. Only a sadist would claim the cuffs were necessary and appropriate in that case.

IF the kid can calm down enough to ask nicely to have the cuffs removed, then it signals his physical aggression is subsided.

Not any more or less than other signals which any normal adult with experience with children can see in that video.

IF restraining the kid was necessary, then cuffing can be among the safer ways of doing what was necessary.

While it has the capacity to do so that does not mean it is warranted in every circumstance.

First, it is not at all clear that he violated KY law. You are blindly believing lawyers paid to lie. Can you link to the actual statute wording that says no police officer is ever allowed to handcuff any child, even when they are a violent threat to themselves and others? Without this, his actions were not illegal.

Here it is http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/704/007/160.htm In particular

Section 3. (1) Physical restraint shall not be used in a public school or educational program:

(a) As punishment or discipline;

(b) To force compliance or to retaliate;

Given how much the lawyers are playing the bullshit "disability" card, it is likely that they know that the KY law does not really prohibit handcuffing kids. So they are going to try and make it a ADA case and argue that "disabled" kids in particular cannot be cuffed. It is unlikely that this is even true, and probably only applies to cuffing as a form of punishment, which this was not. It was harm prevention. Also, if their is a law that gives extra prohibitions on cuffing "disabled" kids that is absurd, especially when the the "disability" is partly defined by aggressive behavior and being less likely to respond well to verbal instructions and non-contact methods of calming a kid down.

Your view of the "absurdity" of the law is irrelevant to the issue of whether the police officer's actions were legal or not. Regardless of your ill-informed views about ACLU lawyers and their competence, my guess is that they are better informed about the relevant Federal and Ky law than you are.