Florida School Security Officer Tasers 11-Year-Old Girl

California Supremes: Sex with kids is OK!


maybe some people in this thread should move to calif so they can fully carry on there very own wishes with children - since they think beating them is fine - how about ******g them as well.

reply to post by Harlequin



That is a HUGE jump from "Beating" kids to having sex with them. how exactly did you make that jump? Wanting to discipline your child (Don't give me that time out crap, it doesn't work) and to have sex with them are two very different things.

reply to post by Finn1916


no it isn`t - don`t give that amoral crap anytime soon - once you attack a child you are 1 tiny step away - anything else is pure and total ignorance.

case studies have allready proven this.

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by Finn1916

 

no it isn`t - don`t give that amoral crap anytime soon - once you attack a child you are 1 tiny step away - anything else is pure and total ignorance.

case studies have allready proven this.

So spanking your kid is one step away from having sex with them? I don't buy it, and fail to see your logic. post any case studies you have that show this if you could.

See, believeing that it is ok to discipline your child by belting their ass every now and then because they are a little brat that constantly gets in trouble and is causing harm to others, and wanting to have sex with them are too different things. how anyone can come up with the relation of the two is beyond me. molesting a child and spanking a child are two different things. sure, some perverts get off on spanking, and people in the S&M community get off on causing or receiving pain does not mean that people who discipline their children are sadists who want to sleep with said children.

And putting a post from a website that, just based on their ads and things they say are very obviously biased to wards being conservative does little to help your argument. Find an unbiased source, then we will talk.

[edit on 31-3-2008 by Finn1916]

Seem's like the world is coming apart at the seems more and more each day. This is what happens when you take away the ability to touch someone. Lawyers got out of hand, parents got out of hand, adults in authority are affraid to disapline and so you have a world where an 11 year old girl requires an assualt to stop her from doing wrong.

The wrong she exhibited is nothing new in the world of school as even back when I was a child, these types of acts were also common place and were talking 40 plus years ago.

So where do we turn to find the root of the cause? The girls action, while bad is as stated, not new for someone with a emotional disorder or even a physical/emotional disorder. But, what is bringing this on in our youth? That might really be the question to be talking about here?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Although the officer may have faired better if she had training, the fact of the matter is that she didn't. She used the first tool on her belt, personally I'd much rather be tased then hit by pepper spray or a billy club. I also think the officer acted appropiatly for the situation at hand; closed confined space equals no spray and a billy club would have been considered brutal. So I still stick to my original post that she did what she could to subdue the girl properly.

reply to post by Harlequin


Your post is a ludicris suggestion; by that means if I hit my dog I may be one step away from ******g it? Your post has no basis and you said that this type of behavior is proven that if you hit children your a child molester. I think that fact of that matter is that child molesters hit children so it would make it seem like a perfectly innocent person who subdues a young girl with force is a child molester? The girl received adequate punishment for the situation at hand; the officers tools were more then likely pepper spray, taser, and a billy club, I still think she used the proper tool for being in a confined space with so many other children around. She didn't single out this girl then decide to beat her; she was asked to assist with the situation and after being clubbed on by this "troubled" adolescent she struck back. Hopefully this girl learns a big lesson at a young age, never and I mean never strike a police officer; whether they are and actual cop or just security it will never end up well for you. The girl was unable to be talked out of the situation which many of her instructors tryed, may I also point to the other fact that she could have killed the student outside that she tryed to push into oncoming traffic. This girl deserved everything she received and as and fyi to you I'd be careful who you accuse of being a molester.

Originally posted by dgtempe
INDOCTRINATION*

That is the meaning of this word. New cases will continue on an almost daily basis until the kids and parents "get it"

I will never freaking get it. So help me God.

Agreed. The moment anyone at school so much as touches my child,
I will make sure THEY get it, if it's the last thing I do.

In my eyes, that is a declaration of war, and at that point I have no reservations.

Check this out.

www.wfaa.com...

Barbara Williams, a spokeswoman for the Texas Association of School Boards, said nothing in state education policy specifically addresses whether teachers should break up student fights. Officials with the Austin school district said they don't have a policy.

But Dale Kaiser, president of the National Education Association in Dallas, said a DISD policy would help teachers know what the district expects.

"As a professional and as an adult, you don't want to see any student beaten severely," he said. "It's our natural instinct to break up a fight."

"Every teacher needs to be trained on how to effectively subdue a student who is three times their size."

They are expecting us to handle the kids that may be 2 to 3 times bigger than us?

Did anyone read the article? It states that she was attacking the officer, who may have suffered a broken nose. Was it excessive? Maybe, but obviously the child needed to be restrained.

Originally posted by Sly62659
Did anyone read the article? It states that she was attacking the officer, who may have suffered a broken nose. Was it excessive? Maybe, but obviously the child needed to be restrained.

Did you read our posts?

Not many here are disputing that. We are discussing whether or not it was excessive, whether it was the proper method, not if she needed to be restrained or not.

Yes she needed to have been taken out of class. After she resisted, she needed to have been restrained.

Read some of the last couple pages for alot of good info.

Originally posted by deltaboy

"Every teacher needs to be trained on how to effectively subdue a student who is three times their size."

Yeah that's pretty absurd. They are teachers of education, not bouncers. Let them put their attention were their intentions are. That's just silly. If they did that would they get rid of the school officers altogether?

3 times? I am imagining my frail 6th grade teacher battling King Leonidas here. Hey...with the proper technique...

Originally posted by Lokey13

Although the officer may have faired better if she had training, the fact of the matter is that she didn't. She used the first tool on her belt,

That is my entire point...

She didn't have the training. She should have had the training.

Or maybe she did have the training but she chose to zap her as an easy way out.

My point is that someone should not be armed with a taser, and put in public schools with children as their security, without first knowing how to diffuse unarmed situations with unarmed grappling techniques.

This way when the situation arrises, they have the proper tools. Because the taser is not the proper tool for all situations.

Such as this one.

[edit on 083131p://31u53 by Lucid Lunacy]

Im not really sure what the problem is here...
the little brat should consider herself lucky... Seeing someone get tazed is very dramatic, and looks very painful, but in reality it is a VERY effective way of subdueing trouble makers...
Getting tazed does not "hurt"... it is only described as such for lack of a better vocabulary, i have been tazed. granted it is not fun but the sensation is merely the tenseing and cramping of and the muscles in the body... a negligable inconvienience compared to the alterative of being tackled and sat on, or shot. after only 2 minutes the only trace of being tazed is a memory of how pissed it made you... the only reason people freak out when someone is tazed is because it looks very intimidating to see someone crumple into a ball...

Originally posted by young_opinions

Getting tazed does not "hurt"... it is only described as such for lack of a better vocabulary, i have been tazed. granted it is not fun but the sensation is merely the tenseing and cramping of and the muscles in the body...

Perhaps. But maybe others disagree?

Here is a snip from wiki I posted earlier:

Police officers in at least five US states have filed lawsuits against TASER International claiming they suffered serious injuries after being shocked with the device during training classes

the only reason people freak out when someone is tazed is because it looks very intimidating to see someone crumple into a ball...

No. That's not the only reason.

But here is one:

A 2004 CBS News report described 70 deaths believed to be caused by the Taser, including 10 in August 2004 alone.[31] At that time Amnesty International has reported this number at 150 since June 2001

all teachers should be given tazer guns. did you ever see the movie stand and deliver? some 11 year old girls carry guns and beat up on others in east LA. times change, and 11 year old today is like a 17 year old yesterday.

I don't see any problem with this officer tazin' this girl. Emo or not, that's not the case.

Originally posted by jedimiller
times change, and 11 year old today is like a 17 year old yesterday.

Please.

Then 17 year olds today are like the 27 year olds of old...

This girl was unarmed... she wasn't strapping heat. That was an ackward analogy that simply doesn't fit this scenario.

I don't see any problem with this officer tazin' this girl. Emo or not, that's not the case.

The problem is; I could have diffused the situation by submitting her, without using the taser, and only using grappling technique. If I can do it, that means others can do it. Who should those others be? Officers that are armed with tasers and put in charge of school security. That's the problem.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

The problem is; I could have diffused the situation by submitting her, without using the taser, and only using grappling technique. If I can do it, that means others can do it. Who should those others be? Officers that are armed with tasers and put in charge of school security. That's the problem.

officers, security or not are not going to take you down using grappling techniques. 11 years old or 50 years old. that's why you have cops tazing and shooting people all over the place, because they are not going to take down the person by using judo or any other martial arts. that's the reason they carry weapons..so they don't have to do that. if he was to touch her, then he be a sex molestor.

Jedimiller,
if you had been following the thread, and my posts specifically, it should have been apparent I am not arguing what the cops can do according to procedure and policy. I am arguing what should have been done. If that means policies, procedures, and laws should change, then so be it. The taser was not the appropriate tool for this scenario; grappling was.

Tasers are risky. They have killed. They can cause cardiac and respiratory problems. No testing has been done on the tasers affects on children (naturally) so they know even less on what affects it could have on the still-developing body and brain of a kid. But we do know some on the affects it has on adults. The deaths aside, did you see my snipet on the police filing complaints on the serious injuries they obstained from tasers in training?

Plus as another member pointed out this 11 year old was really big....obese big. That means even more cardiac risk. Too much risk. Especially considering she could have been submitted safely purely by unarmed means.

Officer should have done that. If the Law says no. Then the Law should have done that.

when you attack someone or break the law. doesn't matter how old you are. there have been many cases where the attacker is 9 years old, 12 years old. etc. age means nothing when you are trying to attack someone else. do you understand what i'm saying? i've heard of people killing and they were only 10 years old. so age has no effect under these circumstances, the officer thought he had to do something and he did, and all he had was a tazer gun to protect himself. you just said she was a fat girl, even makes more sense, fat looking girls look older than they really are, so he probably thought she was 17.