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

[KeepTalking]

Since Kentucky law allows such restraints only in extreme cases, you are factually incorrect.

Are you suggesting that schools need a 'timeout room"? how would that work.. unattended kids bashing their heads into walls... put them in a rubber room? Issue a guard to protect them from themselves in the room - and if they are assaulted then what? a room within that room?

Actually, I know of elementary schools which do use rooms to isolate kids who are put of control. But without the use of police officers.

there is little to know about the incident, based on the facts released. This conversation is mostly hypothetical, based loosely on the reported scenario... at least that is how I see this.

My responses are based on viewing the linked videotape as well as a passing familiarity with child development, child rearing and school settings.

You likely have more experience in rearing and school settings than I, I admit. However the law you refer too applies to "disabled children". the CLAIM that the child is "disabled" due to attention deficit, or has post traumatic stress syndrome, is HIGHLY questionable, to be kind. Complete bullshit, to be honest.
If the school is not equipped with a room specially designed to protect the comfort and safety of an 'out of control' child, then handcuffs will just have to do, in my opinion.

Laughing Dog posted a link to the Kentucky law on page 5 or 6 of this discussion, and it makes no mention of disabilities. It is illegal to use physical restraint in public schools for punishment or discipline, here is the link again, pay particular attention to section 3:
704 KAR 7:160. Use of physical restraint and seclusion in public schools.

 

[Malintent]

Since Kentucky law allows such restraints only in extreme cases, you are factually incorrect.

Are you suggesting that schools need a 'timeout room"? how would that work.. unattended kids bashing their heads into walls... put them in a rubber room? Issue a guard to protect them from themselves in the room - and if they are assaulted then what? a room within that room?

Actually, I know of elementary schools which do use rooms to isolate kids who are put of control. But without the use of police officers.

there is little to know about the incident, based on the facts released. This conversation is mostly hypothetical, based loosely on the reported scenario... at least that is how I see this.

My responses are based on viewing the linked videotape as well as a passing familiarity with child development, child rearing and school settings.

You likely have more experience in rearing and school settings than I, I admit. However the law you refer too applies to "disabled children". the CLAIM that the child is "disabled" due to attention deficit, or has post traumatic stress syndrome, is HIGHLY questionable, to be kind. Complete bullshit, to be honest.

Are you making that claim based on the language of federal law? If so, can you be specific as to why it is "bullshit"? Or are you simply expressing your opinion as to what ought to be considered "disabled"?

If the school is not equipped with a room specially designed to protect the comfort and safety of an 'out of control' child, then handcuffs will just have to do, in my opinion.

Fortunately for the children of Kentucky, your opinion is not shared by its legislature.

It is my opinion as to what should be considered "disabled". Is anyone that is not "normal", "disabled". "normal" is a theoretical state. No one is "normal". So, "disabled" has to be something else. Are gay people "disabled" because they are far enough form "normal". Do they get special provisions of law? They do not. Heck, they barely get fair treatment as it is. Another story. I can't tell you definitively what "disabled" should be... I can say that "tantrum-prone" is not, though. And the claim that it is, is what I call "bullshit".

my opinion appears to be shared by the Legislature. Disabled people get special provisions around the law that says that children can be restrained in certain ways under certain circumstances. The question, as far as I can tell, is regarding the disabled status of the child in question.

 

[Malintent]

Since Kentucky law allows such restraints only in extreme cases, you are factually incorrect.

Are you suggesting that schools need a 'timeout room"? how would that work.. unattended kids bashing their heads into walls... put them in a rubber room? Issue a guard to protect them from themselves in the room - and if they are assaulted then what? a room within that room?

Actually, I know of elementary schools which do use rooms to isolate kids who are put of control. But without the use of police officers.

there is little to know about the incident, based on the facts released. This conversation is mostly hypothetical, based loosely on the reported scenario... at least that is how I see this.

My responses are based on viewing the linked videotape as well as a passing familiarity with child development, child rearing and school settings.

You likely have more experience in rearing and school settings than I, I admit. However the law you refer too applies to "disabled children". the CLAIM that the child is "disabled" due to attention deficit, or has post traumatic stress syndrome, is HIGHLY questionable, to be kind. Complete bullshit, to be honest.
If the school is not equipped with a room specially designed to protect the comfort and safety of an 'out of control' child, then handcuffs will just have to do, in my opinion.

Laughing Dog posted a link to the Kentucky law on page 5 or 6 of this discussion, and it makes no mention of disabilities. It is illegal to use physical restraint in public schools for punishment or discipline, here is the link again, pay particular attention to section 3:
704 KAR 7:160. Use of physical restraint and seclusion in public schools.

It was neither for punishment nor discipline. It was for the protection of the child, as he was (allegedly) throwing punches at police officers. Not restraining him would allow for the child to hurt himself. What if the kid grabbed at the cop's gun? He would have (rightly) gotten smashed for that. To protect self and others is permissible.

 

[KeepTalking]

Since Kentucky law allows such restraints only in extreme cases, you are factually incorrect.

Are you suggesting that schools need a 'timeout room"? how would that work.. unattended kids bashing their heads into walls... put them in a rubber room? Issue a guard to protect them from themselves in the room - and if they are assaulted then what? a room within that room?

Actually, I know of elementary schools which do use rooms to isolate kids who are put of control. But without the use of police officers.

there is little to know about the incident, based on the facts released. This conversation is mostly hypothetical, based loosely on the reported scenario... at least that is how I see this.

My responses are based on viewing the linked videotape as well as a passing familiarity with child development, child rearing and school settings.

You likely have more experience in rearing and school settings than I, I admit. However the law you refer too applies to "disabled children". the CLAIM that the child is "disabled" due to attention deficit, or has post traumatic stress syndrome, is HIGHLY questionable, to be kind. Complete bullshit, to be honest.
If the school is not equipped with a room specially designed to protect the comfort and safety of an 'out of control' child, then handcuffs will just have to do, in my opinion.

Laughing Dog posted a link to the Kentucky law on page 5 or 6 of this discussion, and it makes no mention of disabilities. It is illegal to use physical restraint in public schools for punishment or discipline, here is the link again, pay particular attention to section 3:
704 KAR 7:160. Use of physical restraint and seclusion in public schools.

It was neither for punishment nor discipline. It was for the protection of the child, as he was (allegedly) throwing punches at police officers. Not restraining him would allow for the child to hurt himself. What if the kid grabbed at the cop's gun? He would have (rightly) gotten smashed for that. To protect self and others is permissible.

If it were for the protection of the child, then the officer would not have made the removal of the handcuffs contingent upon an apology by the child. That makes it a matter of discipline or punishment, and thus illegal in the case of any child in a public school.

Likely the lawyer honed in on the disability portion of law, as it makes any physical restraint illegal if "that physical restraint is contraindicated based on the student’s disability". While it may be argued that ADHD it not a disability, or not a disability that would contraindicate physical restraint, PTSD certainly can be both given certain circumstances as to why the child was suffering from PTSD. We will likely never know what those circumstances are, but that does not matter to me, as I think this fits under the more broad category of not physically restraining any child by mechanical means for the purpose of discipline or punishment in a public school.

 

[laughing dog]

It is my opinion as to what should be considered "disabled"....

Well, that opinion is moot to the actual discussion.

my opinion appears to be shared by the Legislature. Disabled people get special provisions around the law that says that children can be restrained in certain ways under certain circumstances. The question, as far as I can tell, is regarding the disabled status of the child in question.

If you are familiar with the interpretation of the law, a child with this orders can be identified as learning disabled which qualifies the child as disabled under the law.

- - - Updated - - -

It was neither for punishment nor discipline. It was for the protection of the child, as he was (allegedly) throwing punches at police officers. Not restraining him would allow for the child to hurt himself. What if the kid grabbed at the cop's gun? He would have (rightly) gotten smashed for that. To protect self and others is permissible.

The child was already subdued and was not a danger to anyone. The officer had the child restrained without cuffs and the child was not crying about pain. Your response is completely inconsistent with the observable video evidence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Laughing Dog posted a link to the Kentucky law on page 5 or 6 of this discussion, and it makes no mention of disabilities. It is illegal to use physical restraint in public schools for punishment or discipline, here is the link again, pay particular attention to section 3:
704 KAR 7:160. Use of physical restraint and seclusion in public schools.

So?

This was about stopping his actions, not about punishment or discipline. Thus the law is irrelevant.

 

[laughing dog]

So?

This was about stopping his actions, not about punishment or discipline.

His actions were stopped prior to the handcuffing, so your response is irrelevant.

 

[KeepTalking]

Laughing Dog posted a link to the Kentucky law on page 5 or 6 of this discussion, and it makes no mention of disabilities. It is illegal to use physical restraint in public schools for punishment or discipline, here is the link again, pay particular attention to section 3:
704 KAR 7:160. Use of physical restraint and seclusion in public schools.

So?

This was about stopping his actions, not about punishment or discipline. Thus the law is irrelevant.

See my previous response to Malintent.

 

[Malintent]

Since Kentucky law allows such restraints only in extreme cases, you are factually incorrect.

Are you suggesting that schools need a 'timeout room"? how would that work.. unattended kids bashing their heads into walls... put them in a rubber room? Issue a guard to protect them from themselves in the room - and if they are assaulted then what? a room within that room?

Actually, I know of elementary schools which do use rooms to isolate kids who are put of control. But without the use of police officers.

there is little to know about the incident, based on the facts released. This conversation is mostly hypothetical, based loosely on the reported scenario... at least that is how I see this.

My responses are based on viewing the linked videotape as well as a passing familiarity with child development, child rearing and school settings.

You likely have more experience in rearing and school settings than I, I admit. However the law you refer too applies to "disabled children". the CLAIM that the child is "disabled" due to attention deficit, or has post traumatic stress syndrome, is HIGHLY questionable, to be kind. Complete bullshit, to be honest.
If the school is not equipped with a room specially designed to protect the comfort and safety of an 'out of control' child, then handcuffs will just have to do, in my opinion.

Laughing Dog posted a link to the Kentucky law on page 5 or 6 of this discussion, and it makes no mention of disabilities. It is illegal to use physical restraint in public schools for punishment or discipline, here is the link again, pay particular attention to section 3:
704 KAR 7:160. Use of physical restraint and seclusion in public schools.

It was neither for punishment nor discipline. It was for the protection of the child, as he was (allegedly) throwing punches at police officers. Not restraining him would allow for the child to hurt himself. What if the kid grabbed at the cop's gun? He would have (rightly) gotten smashed for that. To protect self and others is permissible.

If it were for the protection of the child, then the officer would not have made the removal of the handcuffs contingent upon an apology by the child. That makes it a matter of discipline or punishment, and thus illegal in the case of any child in a public school.

I might argue that the apology from the child would have been the indicator that the cop was looking for to determine if the child had sufficiently calmed down enough to be trusted to not hurt himself or others. I 'might'.. I would want to see some training material that suggested this tactic. There are many questions cops are taught to ask for purposes other than what is apparent by the question itself.

"Do you know your 'ABC's" is not meant as a test to see your education level. It is s test to see if you are sober enough to follow instructions. the correct response is "yes, I know my ABC's". Not, "A,B,C,D...", not, "do you want me to recite.... blah blah blah". "say your sorry" can be responded to many ways. The nature of the response is more important than the meaning of the question.

Likely the lawyer honed in on the disability portion of law, as it makes any physical restraint illegal if "that physical restraint is contraindicated based on the student’s disability". While it may be argued that ADHD it not a disability, or not a disability that would contraindicate physical restraint, PTSD certainly can be both given certain circumstances as to why the child was suffering from PTSD. We will likely never know what those circumstances are, but that does not matter to me, as I think this fits under the more broad category of not physically restraining any child by mechanical means for the purpose of discipline or punishment in a public school.

I agree. We disagree as to the possibility of this falling under 'to protect self and others'.

 

[ksen]

(potential) parents of the year itt