Originally posted by davespanners
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
According to the report, Aidan "was climbing the cart and spitting at teachers. He also broke wood trim off the walls and was trying to stab
teachers with it." "I wanted to make something sharp if they came out because I was so mad at them," Aidan said. "I was going to try to whack them
with it." The report goes on to say Aidan, "was holding what looked like a sharpened one foot stick and he screamed, 'Get away from me you f---ers.'"
This sounds more like a demonic possession then a tantrum to me.
Sure the kid is small, but what if the cop had tried to restrain him in another way and ended up breaking his arm or wrist or something in the
process, at least the spray wears off and doesn't cause any permanent damage.
Finally somebody that understands it. I didn't really understand untill I worked on a project with some officers. I saw them taze a psych patient one
night. Afterwards I asked why they used a tazer. There were four officers on scene and they could have physically wrestled the guy in to submission. I
got a pretty good answer.
The officer said, "If all four of us go in and start yanking on his joints what happens? He ends up with a hyper extended joint, some broken bones, or
one of us gets a broken bone when everybody tumbles to the ground. This way he experiences enough pain to force compliance and it is over in thirty
seconds. The other way a lot of people risk permenant injury. It really is about the safety of everybody involved."
How horribly could the child have been injured if a 180lb man fell on him? What if the same man was yanking and twisting on his arms and joints?
Restraining a rampaging person that is mentally unstable is difficult regardless of size and age. I have seen it first hand. I have seen a 100lb 13
year old girl throw a IV pole through a dual pane tempered _ (That isn't supposed to be possible.)
The kid is eight. However, this kid was throwing chairs and wielding a long sharp stick. The probability that physical force would have resulted in
injury is high. A sharp stick to the throat, eye, or even inner thigh can be deadly. The difference in size increases the chances the cops would have
done serious injury if they went hands on.
Unfortunately they got there after things were out of hand. They had to deal with a situation that was past talking. The child was openly taunting
them and seeking a violent confrontation. They took the fastest and least damaging path to ending the fight.
People know I come down against cops as often as I back them. This time though I think the cops were right.
The reason that parents can't pepper spray their kids is pretty simple. They are usually there from the begining and are expected to handle the
problem before it escelates to the fourth or fith level of the use of force continuim. A parent can physically restrain their child and call for back
up if they think things will escelate. The parents have the opportunity to use physical presence, warnings, soft hands, and (in some areas) certain
strikes. If it goes beyond that they are expected to call the cops and should. Any situation not contained by then is heading to a bad ending. That
isn't something the family really needs to face for emotional as well as legal issues.
I'm currently texting with one of the police officers I have worked with. According to him "you can't spray your kid for not eating their carrots. In
cases of physical assault you have all the rights of any other citizen involved in a similar situation."
In other words, if you are attacked by your kid in a malicious fashion you have the right to respond with force. You have to react within the law for
your area. However, you do not have to roll over and take it like a defenseless puppy.
edit on 9-4-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason