Police pepper spray 8 year old

[BiscuitTrouser]

I was exhaggerating for effect but heres the idea

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/042310-teacher-fired-after-slap-boxing-video

The student consented to this, the student was PLAYING with the teacher. Imagine if he didnt... it would be even worse. This man is now unemployed. Possibly with a family. Thats the real effect these things have on people.

I'm going to assume you see how those two things are completely unrelated, correct?

Not at all, the point i was making is you touch a kid, FOR ANY REASON. You are fucked. Royally. Career? Dead. They are NOT going to hire a dude whos reason for quiting his last job was "incident involving child being hit". It screws you over for life.

 

[bdcjacko]

I'm starting to wonder what people think pepper spray is for if they think the police "fail" at doing their jobs by using it. It just seems like shift the goal posts every time the police do something. Ugh...

 

[Exosus]

I was exhaggerating for effect but heres the idea

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/042310-teacher-fired-after-slap-boxing-video

The student consented to this, the student was PLAYING with the teacher. Imagine if he didnt... it would be even worse. This man is now unemployed. Possibly with a family. Thats the real effect these things have on people.

I'm going to assume you see how those two things are completely unrelated, correct?

Not at all, the point i was making is you touch a kid, FOR ANY REASON. You are fucked. Royally. Career? Dead. They are NOT going to hire a dude whos reason for quiting his last job was "incident involving child being hit". It screws you over for life.

One of those is a teacher playing a game with a student. The other is a police officer restraining a student trying to stab people. The similarities are all but non-existent. I could present you with a case where police returned fire during a drug raid and were cleared and it would be every bit as applicable.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

I was exhaggerating for effect but heres the idea

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/042310-teacher-fired-after-slap-boxing-video

The student consented to this, the student was PLAYING with the teacher. Imagine if he didnt... it would be even worse. This man is now unemployed. Possibly with a family. Thats the real effect these things have on people.

I'm going to assume you see how those two things are completely unrelated, correct?

Not at all, the point i was making is you touch a kid, FOR ANY REASON. You are fucked. Royally. Career? Dead. They are NOT going to hire a dude whos reason for quiting his last job was "incident involving child being hit". It screws you over for life.

One of those is a teacher playing a game with a student. The other is a police officer restraining a student trying to stab people. The similarities are all but non-existent. I could present you with a case where police returned fire during a drug raid and were cleared and it would be every bit as applicable.

You are argueing that the police should have just tackled him right?

The comparison here is pretty existant.

Let me spell it out for you.

Point A: "TEACHER HITS CHILD, TOTALLY CONSENTUAL, AS A GAME AND LOSES HIS JOB

and youre trying to say

Point B: ADULT SHOULD RESTRAIN CHILD, AGAINST CHILDS WILL, POSSIBLY HURTING THEM, WHY NOT?"

Exmplanation A:To which i show you point A and state "This is the fate of people who touch kids for any reason, i mean hey maybe it was ok to tackle that kid, imagine if you are in that situation. Youve heard those news reports like the ones in POINT A and think, is it REALLY worth the risk, i might lose my job and my income"

POINT A is an example of what the teachers probably thought of when they hid.

They:
1. DIDNT WANT TO GET HURT
2. DIDNT WANT TO TOUCH THE CHILD FOR BECAUSE OF POINT A AND EXPLANATION A ABOVE

And as such hid in a closet and called police, who ALSO ran through reasons 1 and 2. Thus the event occured. Helpfull?

 

[Arluza]

k, from the OP video, i'll say they were justified.

 

[Exosus]

I was exhaggerating for effect but heres the idea

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/042310-teacher-fired-after-slap-boxing-video

The student consented to this, the student was PLAYING with the teacher. Imagine if he didnt... it would be even worse. This man is now unemployed. Possibly with a family. Thats the real effect these things have on people.

I'm going to assume you see how those two things are completely unrelated, correct?

Not at all, the point i was making is you touch a kid, FOR ANY REASON. You are fucked. Royally. Career? Dead. They are NOT going to hire a dude whos reason for quiting his last job was "incident involving child being hit". It screws you over for life.

One of those is a teacher playing a game with a student. The other is a police officer restraining a student trying to stab people. The similarities are all but non-existent. I could present you with a case where police returned fire during a drug raid and were cleared and it would be every bit as applicable.

You are argueing that the police should have just tackled him right?

The comparison here is pretty existant.

Let me spell it out for you.

Point A: "TEACHER HITS CHILD, TOTALLY CONSENTUAL, AS A GAME AND LOSES HIS JOB

and youre trying to say

Point B: ADULT SHOULD RESTRAIN CHILD, AGAINST CHILDS WILL, POSSIBLY HURTING THEM, WHY NOT?"

Exmplanation A:To which i show you point A and state "This is the fate of people who touch kids for any reason, i mean hey maybe it was ok to tackle that kid, imagine if you are in that situation. Youve heard those news reports like the ones in POINT A and think, is it REALLY worth the risk, i might lose my job and my income"

POINT A is an example of what the teachers probably thought of when they hid.

They:
1. DIDNT WANT TO GET HURT
2. DIDNT WANT TO TOUCH THE CHILD FOR BECAUSE OF POINT A AND EXPLANATION A ABOVE

And as such hid in a closet and called police, who ALSO ran through reasons 1 and 2. Thus the event occured. Helpfull?

I don't give a fuck what the teachers thought. I'm not even touching on them, because they are irrelevant to my world view. They hid, whatever, don't care. Not talking about them, never was.

I'm talking about the police. They didn't simply let the kid get bored, they sprayed him in the eyes with pepper spray. They took physical action against him. We're simply debating whether that was the correct physical action.

 

[Esseff]

I'm wondering why these cops felt the 8 yr old child couldn't have been taken down by physical force alone? For Christ's sake, you should be wearing stab resistant vests. If you think using pepper spray is superior to being physically restrained, go shoot some citrus in your eyes.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

SNIP

The police

They:
1. DIDNT WANT TO GET HURT
2. DIDNT WANT TO TOUCH THE CHILD FOR BECAUSE OF POINT A AND EXPLANATION A ABOVE
3. DIDNT WANT TO WAIT FOR A KID TO GET BORED OF HITTING EITHER THEM OR A TEACHER WITH A STICK

 

[PAGEToap44]

Oh he wants to become a marine when he grows up does he? Wow, you know he'd be perfect, what a charming and level-headed young man...
/sarcasm

He deserved the pepper spray. 'nuff said.

 

[Exosus]

SNIP

The police

They:
1. DIDNT WANT TO GET HURT
2. DIDNT WANT TO TOUCH THE CHILD FOR BECAUSE OF POINT A AND EXPLANATION A ABOVE
3. DIDNT WANT TO WAIT FOR A KID TO GET BORED OF HITTING EITHER THEM OR A TEACHER WITH A STICK

Ok but I already refuted explanation a above several times. Until you actually come up with a successful replacement for explanation a, you need to stop talking.

 

[Ara69]

A gun has a further range, they should have gone for that instead

 

[Skratt]

Justified, let's hope he learned no to swing goddamn sticks at people.

Just watched the video, his mother is a crap excuse for a parent. Someone should be taught accountability

Not fully aware of his actions my ass.

I love that excuse. I really think people grow up and become retarded to not think an 8-year old was not fully aware of what he was trying to do.

Totally justified.

 

[AnAngryMoose]

I think that the pepper spray was completely justified. He was threatening to kill people and even admitted that he wanted to use something sharp to "whack them with it". Granted, the kid seems really nice and my heart really does go out to the little guy, but no matter how nice a person is, but if their threatening to kill people, pepper spray is justified. He does seem like a nice kid though. It was a bit heart-wrenching when he was talking about how he wants to go into the Marines and how he thinks that there's a chance that he might not be able to live that dream if his problems get in the way. It's sorta sad to seem him like this.

Although, when he was talking about how he allegedly put the stick down before he got sprayed his body language seems, to me, as if he's lying. I'm willing to bet money that his mam told him to say that to garner sympathy.

 

[James Thory]

Justified, let's hope he learned no to swing goddamn sticks at people.

Just watched the video, his mother is a crap excuse for a parent. Someone should be taught accountability

Not fully aware of his actions my ass.

Agreed
When i first saw the title i thought what the hell! but now I have no sympathy for him and his mum seems to just make excuses for him. He's already seemed to recover and maybe he'll think twice before acting out again.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

SNIP

The police

They:
1. DIDNT WANT TO GET HURT
2. DIDNT WANT TO TOUCH THE CHILD FOR BECAUSE OF POINT A AND EXPLANATION A ABOVE
3. DIDNT WANT TO WAIT FOR A KID TO GET BORED OF HITTING EITHER THEM OR A TEACHER WITH A STICK

Ok but I already refuted explanation a above several times. Until you actually come up with a successful replacement for explanation a, you need to stop talking.

ALl i read was "that example isnt allowed because i say so". Whats wrong with my example. I stated very clearly the one MAJOR similarity that makes it a valid point to put forward. Its both about the concequences of physically IN ANY WAY restraining or hitting a child. Tell me why:

A: The policeman WOULDNT be scared of a lawsuit/loss of job.
B: My example doesnt show that touching a kid in ANY SHAPE OR FORM CAN lead to a loss of a job.
C: The policeman wouldnt want to defuse this incident as fast as possible.

 

[Exosus]

SNIP

The police

They:
1. DIDNT WANT TO GET HURT
2. DIDNT WANT TO TOUCH THE CHILD FOR BECAUSE OF POINT A AND EXPLANATION A ABOVE
3. DIDNT WANT TO WAIT FOR A KID TO GET BORED OF HITTING EITHER THEM OR A TEACHER WITH A STICK

Ok but I already refuted explanation a above several times. Until you actually come up with a successful replacement for explanation a, you need to stop talking.

ALl i read was "that example isnt allowed because i say so". Whats wrong with my example. I stated very clearly the one MAJOR similarity that makes it a valid point to put forward. Its both about the concequences of physically IN ANY WAY restraining or hitting a child. Tell me why:

A: The policeman WOULDNT be scared of a lawsuit/loss of job.
B: My example doesnt show that touching a kid in ANY SHAPE OR FORM CAN lead to a loss of a job.
C: The policeman wouldnt want to defuse this incident as fast as possible.

A: They are police officers - their entire job is to restrain people. They did it to kids at my (American) school on more than one occasion without so much as an inquiry, and those were situations not involving weapons.
B: The example you gave was of a teacher. I could show you an example of a ice-cream shop owner getting in trouble for touching children too, but that wouldn't be relevant either because neither of them have jobs which involve restraining people.
C: Defusing the incident as fast as possible is a process of restraining the child, not pepper spraying him necessitating an extended booking process due to the use of specialized deterrents

 

[Zorg Machine]

wait, wait, wait...the teachers ran away and hid in a cupboard...from an 8-year old? If he wasn't armed with a knife or worse I don't see why the teachers couldn't handle it.

Also, I don't buy that the cops had no other option than to pepper spray him. They could have taked him down and only used the pepper spray if the kid charged them.

 

[Grimlock Fett]

Would she have preferred they had shot him? This kids not gonna end well! Shame!

 

[Skratt]

I'm wondering why these cops felt the 8 yr old child couldn't have been taken down by physical force alone? For Christ's sake, you should be wearing stab resistant vests. If you think using pepper spray is superior to being physically restrained, go shoot some citrus in your eyes.

Physical force would have hurt the 8-year old. What were they supposed to do, kick the stick away and punch him in the head? Grab and wrestle him to the ground? Pepper spray just stopped him.

I've been pepper sprayed, it's not fun, but physical restraining an 8-year old would have been worse.

 

[Razhem]

1. They pepper sprayed him twice. Why twice.

2. Why does EVERYONE seem to forget they have this thing called physical bodies? Jesus Christ, you're probably an upwards of 5 9 man who is presumably quite strong compared to an 8 year old, figure your shit out.

Seriously, my reaction as a teacher would be to call other school staff to help, not the fucking police.

Lets put it this way, cop grabs the kid, he goes into a tantrum and starts flailing and kicking EVERYWHERE, he has to immobilize the kid to avoid taking more kicks to the nads, but here comes the kicker, if he does a wrong takedown he could wound that kid and could wound him hard, god forbid by accident he dislocates an arm or breaks a rib. Not saying a spray to the face is the nicest move, but I rather go that route than fucking up and landing on the kid with full cop weight. There's also the biiiig problem of cops being trained to takedown bigger targets, unless they get kids voluntary or midget Monday to practice smaller frame takedwon training, I just don't expect them to actually have training to immobilize a kid without having a trained muscle reaction that may be ok on a 16 year old, but could be outright damaging for an 8 year old.