 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
What a shame! One thing is to be tough another to abuse children.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4475513.stm
Discussion is locked
... as in the case of my friend's son. Her behavior COULD be changed. I vote we send the Mom here. I agree, no amount of "therapy" that doesn't involve the parent will work. And for the VERY small portion of hyperactive kids, they should be tested for food allergies, given a proper diet, etc., and as a VERY last resort, medicated.
Evie 
On the surface it could look like too much, perhaps, but wake up calls can come too late. To me, it looks like that time is already close. No kid should be allowed to strike out at a teacher or school official without being corrected and correction, IMO, is far more effective when connected to the immediacy of the moment and the action taken without negotiation. Once a child reaches a level of maturity that allows for conflict resolution by other means than fear of punishment, they are better off and so are the ones who have to deal with them. Hopefully feeling the cuffs now will go a long way to prevent the need to use them later.
when she comes to school with a gun?
better wake up call now or would you rather wait?
...seem to be the overlooked villains in these scenarios.
They might benefit by a swift kick up the backside and never mind the handcuffs.
.... my child had "a" temper tantrum, then NO, it would not be ok to have police do the same thing.
IF ..... my child had several temper tantrums in school, I would expect the school to follow their procedures for such things, and, hopefully, with cooperation from everyone (including myself) we could get things under control.
IF ..... my child had constant temper tantrums in school, AND was being violent, AND the school had done all they could to get me to help them in assuming some control over the situation, AND I would not do anything to help, AND the school had run out of options, then YES, I believe I would agree with what this particular school did.
Of course one must realize that I am speaking from a POV that I would never allow this to happen to begin with. BUT, if I were that type of parent to allow my child to rule the household and get away with such incorrigible behavior, then I wouldn't be thinking the same way I do. 
.
I'd say the store manager has a right to ask the entire family to leave. Now, how likely do you think these parents will be to graciously accept the managers request for them to depart. My guess is the manager will attempt to do nothing as long as possible so as not to draw more attention and create a scene. He/she has every right to maintain peace in the store but is limited in what he can do. He must fear both media attention and lawyers...neither of which tend to be friendly and fair. Back atcha....
I hate shopping and having to put up with kids being little monsters! If the parents can't control them someone needs too!
summoned to determine if the child should be left with the parents. IOW, are the parents going to fulfill their responsibility of disciplining the kid?
Unfortunately, many stores do not act. Either the employees are fearful of losing their jobs, or they don't want to pass up the profits earned from the parents. I was in a camera store the other day with three kids acting up while the mother ignored them. The employees looked ticked, but said nothing. I had to walk over stuff scattered on the floor when I left.
If my child or grandchild did what that kid did, of course it would be all right for the police to scare and restrain him/her. They would also get a little extra motivational session with me after the police left.
It seems that the school did the appropriate protocol by calling the parent first and because she was unavailable for a period of time due to her reasons, again the school exercised another protocol to address an urgent issue that was beyond their control in order to ensure that everyone?s rights were protected including the safety of the concerned (school, teachers, students and the uncontrollable violence exhibited by the kid) by calling on the police which was the next best step. It appears to be a video taken which will serve as an important purpose for an argument to be weighed.
The police also seemed to exercised their protocols to handcuff what appears to be a victim to some and or a violent individual where restraining was required in order to safeguard the interest of any individuals around the scene from being harmed.
The child in the video seems to be exhibiting an abnormal behavior. The mother on the other hand seems to have a priority that was more important than her child. The lawyer seems to be defending her client on the basis "I'm hired to do a job", in which case, it does not really matter who?s right and wrong. Everyone seems to be doing something and some were not doing enough for someone or for themselves.
It appears that the child needs some psychological attention or help, in the same the token, I would think that the mother needed one for herself. I wonder if she ever sought helped for her own self on how to address her frustrations, that is if she recognized these feelings. Has she ever sought help for her child, that is if she ever at all sees it? Or are they both just one of the many examples of a "s-c-r-e-w-e-d up family in a given society?
Nevertheless, everyone will be investigated accordingly and all the nitty gritty history of a person?s life will be revealed from names, date of birth, education, profession, relationships, day to day activity, medical history, and other issues that may not even be relevant will be put into question and test in a litigation.
Sigh.
CL
You wrote that The lawyer seems to be defending her client on the basis "I'm hired to do a job", but I need to ask if the lawyer is acting out of obligation or at his/her option to take or refuse the case. If taking this case was optional, was the decision based on it's merits as far as what was "just" or just what would pay.
I always appreciate the civil and intelllectual tone in your style. with me anyways
"The lawyer seems to be defending her client on the basis "I'm hired to do a job"
?I am hired to do the job? is a little neat sentence I often hear from the lawyers saying to most of the witness that he has been putting through a very emotional and distressful moments of extensive examination (a term mostly used in other type of cases) or questioning (a term used mostly for Family Law cases). Some of the witness cries, some gets very hostile. In some rare occasion, the witness fainted and one tried to jump off the window. And when this happens, the witness?s counsel usually tries to calm his client and often would say, ?It?s okay, he?s just doing his job? followed by telling his witness, ?Do you want to take a break?, or he would asked the other examining counsel, ?Can we take a break, my client needs a little time?. And after the examination, both lawyers would say, ?Hey! I am just doing my job? especially when both are feeling strongly about the case that they are representing where settlement is quite impossible.
According to the article,
A lawyer has threatened to sue police officers who handcuffed an allegedly uncontrollable five-year-old after she acted up at a Florida kindergarten.
A lawyer for the girl's mother said the episode was "incomprehensible".
He sure appears to be doing his job by building a case base upon what appears to be an ?Abuse?, using the video as one of his evidence. He will most likely even dig into the profiles of these officers to see whether there are any records of violation committed at any time during their community service (examining character and credibility). He will also probably try to build a case against the school or the teacher(s) in the manner in which they have handled the situation. He will call experts and witnesses to testify on behalf of his clients (if available). He will try his best and strongly insist to prove that there was an abuse. And why not? There?s money to win against the City and the School plus liability insurance if any (individually or the establishment in itself).
You asked,
but I need to ask if the lawyer is acting out of obligation or at his/her option to take or refuse the case. If taking this case was optional, was the decision based on it's merits as far as what was "just" or just what would pay
There will always be an ?Obligation? (personal and professional interests). A lawyer can refuse a case at anytime (he will find his reasons). He can also resign from a case at anytime (he will give his reasons in writing). The individual lawyers like any other professions ? there?s a purpose (achievements, reputations, recognitions, fees for the services base on excellence and experiences in the field) ~ whatever it takes to WIN.
Even the guilty ones would need a lawyer. So a client would most likely find a lawyer who is known and good at defending the crookedness to make it appear legitimately right. i.e. Saddam?s lawyers, M. Jackson, M. Stewart, O.J Simpson etc?
So to answer what is ?just? or ?just what would pay?, entirely depends on the predicament that I am in (as a client) wherein their service I will require. And if I am in the lawyer?s position, I have the option to accept or decline or resign from continuing to provide the service base on my beliefs and morals and how important are they to me after considering all the ?REASONS?.
CL
Mom raised her to be out of control and the public has to deal with her some way. The bleeding heart liberals say the schools can't paddle the kids, what do you want the public to do?
It's a wake up call for both mother and child, and it ain't the first time they have handcuffed a five year old. I saw the tape, and it was for the protection of all involved. Good job officers.
It's a shame you blame the officers for child abuse and it's the mother that did it.
at this sort of thing, but
Third, my supervisor and I deal with exactly this situation every day. (She and her assistant are experienced pros.) So ...
I start with the school system. I believe the girl was in regular classes; mine are not. Mine have been segregated in an orderly way, with parent/teacher/shrink conferences to set up individualized programs. Why wasn't this problem girl segregated earlier? Money's not an excuse: We're a poor rural district, but there are state and federal monies for this sort of thing. And expulsion- a last resort.
Per the reports (I wasn't there), the girl was quiet by the time the police arrived. At that point the police should have been sent away, and the girl should have been reasoned with: 'You know you were bad, right? So you know why you don't get recess for two days, right?' If that triggers another outburst, then see my previous paragraph- the girl needs more help.
There are several moves- verbal and physical- to apply to a violent student. If the school doesn't have people trained in these moves by the 21st century, then it's time for a change in Superintendent. (Trained people come under a sort of Good Sam law. They're immune from prosecution and civil suits if a child is hurt under proper restraint.)
Finally, a word from our Sponsor:
?But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves ... self-assuming, haughty, ...disobedient to parents, unthankful ... having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, ... without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness ...? (2Ti 3:1-4)
Regards, Doug in New Mexico
could have been a re-trigger. A prepared school would not have needed them at that point, so send them back, with thanks.
Unprepared? Get a new Superintendent!
Parents? Of course! But they aren't in the loop at this point, although maybe someone should send mark over there later to 'reason' with them on child rearing. They might "fall down a lot," but- hey, no gain w/o pain.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico
kid and her parents. Everyone else, as far as I could tell, was simply doing their job. As I said, it's interesting although I don't know what it means or where it comes from.
in a major store. Finally the kid got on a rocking horse and proceeded to ride it destructively around the toy area. The mother was in tears,the store employees were
besides themselves. Finally they called the police who sent Officer Reilly to the store. he was an imposing whited haired man famous for his low voice and gently attitude.
He saw what was going on and went over to the kid and whispered something in his ear. The kid suddenly stopped rocking and ranting,got off the horse and ran over to his mom crying his eyes out.
Everyone was amazed. Finally the store manager called Reilly aside...
"What did you say to him?"
"I said",Reilly answered with the smile of an angel,"Get off the dam horse or I will break both of your effing legs."
"I said",Reilly answered with the smile of an angel,"Get off the dam horse or I will break both of your effing legs." ~~ gearup
...against the officer.
"Verbal threat is a no no".
CL
case. They didn't attempt to scare the kid. They simply took control.
Good story though.
...but from what I saw, it appeared that the little girl started to chill right at about the moment the police arrived. The audio was hard to pick up so I couldn't tell whether the teacher said something like "The police are here" to her just before the cops entered the room. However, the girl WAS calm and sitting still in the presence of the police officers (scared straight maybe, realizing that she wasn't calling the shots anymore). It looked to me that, at least at that moment, the cuffs weren't necessary. The cops may have been able to manage with just being there, their presence intimidating enough, until the little girl's mother showed up.
I also haven't read all the posts in this thread but I'd like to comment on how amazed I was at the restraint of the teacher, only resorting to physically restraining the little girl when she became a danger to herself or someone else (e.g. when she started jumping up on the table). A generation ago that little girl might have found herself pinned to the floor until help arrived.
My understanding is that this little girl has a history of similar outbursts, which would suggest to me that the mother should be looking for a family therapist, not a lawyer.
... but what will happen is that the taxpayer foots the bill for the settlement draining funds that might otherwise go to help such troubled children (or training for teachers in dealing with this type of thing) and into the pocket of the Mom and her attorney. What do you think the chances are of a significant amount of that money actually going to help this little girl who CLEARLY needs it? She's already in a new school.
Evie
these children. It will do enormous damage to the community as responsible parents abandon this helpless, dysfunctional system that has no power to establish and maintain order.
Your comment about the change of demeanor is a good one, but the pros I work with recommend further: Send the cops away at that point, which helps get the teacher back on the "good side" of the kid.
And now a word from our Sponsor: Proverbs says abuse is always bad, but don't spare the rod.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico
This apparently isn't the girl's first incident. Seems the momentary calm might have been to elicit just that response -- little girl remains in control. Nope, not a good idea. What about all the other kids in the class? This girl needs to be given special attention in a special setting -- and her mother needs lessons in parenting. In my day, such a child is held off going to Kindergarten for another year.
Evie
All your other comments are for end of day, after the media have gone. Example: 2 day suspension for conferences & eval.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico
... far more of the almost half hour tape than we did, complete with more audio. Seems like the "pros" used all their psychobabble "techniques" when they probably should have just called the cops off the bat.
The aftermath is teaching her and kids everywhere a bad lesson 
Evie
that way.
Acutally it works, because it starts with words and body language and observation but includes restraining holds. That's one thing we agreed on here- we didn't see any indication that was done or done effectively.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic