Kindergartner Charged With Felony

[brien]

If a school can't control a 6 year old student without calling the police, they should close their doors.

[DEEJ85]

well the Dog is only put down because it is a threat. the dog isn't being held responsible for its actions.

[Praxius]

Quote by: DEEJ85 well the Dog is only put down because it is a threat. the dog isn't being held responsible for its actions.

True, but in that case, the owner is held liable.... if the owner is not available, then animal control is called to take care of them. Same thing for this.... if the child was being a shit disturber, and wouldn't calm down, and the parents were not able to be reached, then animal control was called, ie: the 5-O... but unlike animal control where they would put the animal down, the police just detained the child..... could have been worse if she was wearing a colar.

[DEEJ85]

well if the child is that disruptive yes, the parents should be contacted. Perhaps they could place her in a room where she can be supervised but contained. Do you really need to call the cops on an unarmed child? It seems like overkill to me. I could understand an older child such as 10 being arrested, but six?

There are methods of dealing with children that are unruly or attempting to escape. There are methods to restrain or detain these children from escaping or harming others without yourself being sued. I spent a couple months working at a children's camp. I will admit there were times where whatever training or experience I had wasn't enough to deal with a situation. But there were employees above me that knew exactly what to do. The police were never contacted because of these children. we have a fair number of children who would try to run away.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Praxius Granted, but I think all of this is based on the only supplied information.... we don't know if this has occured before, twice, three times, two years in a row, nobody here knows. If she acted out only the one times, then yeah, I could see this being a bit extreme, but if the kid was prone to doing this over and over again, then I feel what was done, was correct.

To what point and purpose? I know you think that a 6-year-old should understand that breaking the rules leads to punishment, and I agree. But why would you think that being arrested by a strange police officer, handcuffed and put into a strange car, would make sense to a six-year-old? Why would you think that this child would immediately think, "Gee, I must have broken a rule, and now this is my just punishment. I won't be doing that again!" Isn't it possible the child might be thinking that the policeman was going to take her away and shoot her with his big gun? If she is simply scared and confused, she is learning nothing. And if the value of this is not in teaching her right and wrong, then it can only be in protecting the general public from a dangerous first grader, and that I simply don't accept.

Quote by: Praxius Ah, so you say you understood it all because you were 15, yet you exempt this kid because they're 6..... 15 is still underage and deemed that you still wouldn't know the full extent of your actions, much like this kid, but you claimed at that age, you did.... much as when I said at my early years, I did.... so we're both examples proving the latter.

So you see no difference between the mental capabilities of a 15-year-old and a 6-year-old? I see a difference. I think my example, in which I explicitly stated that my "crime" committed at the age of six did not lead to my arrest, proves that, while 18 may be too old to be the inviolable bright line for the ability to understand crime and punishment, 6 is most definitely too young.

Quote by: Praxius Well I remember in grade 11, a girl in class passed in a project half a day late and so she got a zero on the project.... she flipped ape shit and started yelling, screaming, and threatening the teacher in front of the whole class. Eventually some people were laughing and she started to freak on them, saying she was gonna kill them all and making quite the scene. The principal was called down and even then she wouldn't stop.... they eventually called the police and hauled her ass away, screaming and shouting all the way....... being a witness to the incident, they did everything appropreatly, regardless of her age.

Once again, I see quite a difference between a 17-year-old and a six-year-old.

Quote by: Praxius Case in point, some situations are different from the norm, much like this one is. For most situations what was done by calling the police may have been extreme, but with the experience I went through in the past and how they explained it, I feel it was justified.

Based on my experiences with children, I feel it was unjustified.

Quote by: Praxius But she wasn't arrested for a temper tantrum.... she was arrested for disturbing the peace and resisting arrest..... something that happens to a lot of people.

I'm not faulting the police officer, though I think he should have treated the principal like the idiot she was. I'm faulting the school administration for calling the police when no crime had been committed. According to that story, they called the cops because the girl was sitting in the principal's office and she wouldn't stop screaming. Unless she was hurting herself, and it says nothing about that, there is no danger to anyone there, which means there was no reason to call the cops. It was the school's responsibility to deal with her temper tantrum.

Quote by: Praxius Check your laws and see. As the police said they followed their books.....

Still not faulting the police officer. He was put in an untenable situation. I would have chosen to go the other way and walked out of the building, but that's me. His choice was no better or worse than mine.

Quote by: Praxius Once again, the entire story about past experiences are not included in this story, so it's a bit hard to come to that conclusion. As I said, some.... ie: within reason as you said. Quite the silly comment.... how can you say something like that, when you just said your own father called the state on you?

Because I see a difference between 6 and 15, and between temper tantrums and crime. You did not make the distinction clear in saying that you see no problem wityh parents calling the police on their own children, which means you apparently think the police are there to raise people's kids for them. I disagree, and I think people who don't want to raise their own children, or don't know how to, shouldn't have children.

Quote by: Praxius Sounds like poor parenting to me, and the school did what they needed to do for the peace of the school, and the teachings of the other students. Yes they have to look out for the well being of the students as gaurdians, but that means as a collective. If one of the collective is causing the rest problems then you solve the problem. You say the child commited no crime.... if the kid didn't, then there wouldn't have been charges to lay now would there? and please read up on the above link I supplied.

The child committed no crime that required the call to the police. Whether or not the child committed the crimes she was arrested for, I leave to you and iclaudius to figure out. I will note, however, that iclaudius has the law on his(her?) side, since our laws state that children cannot be charged with felonies unless it can be proven that the child understands the laws, and your only counterargument has been "Kids should know what's bad to do. I did." Hardly a good legal precedent.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: brien If a school can't control a 6 year old student without calling the police, they should close their doors.

Hear, hear.

[Slevin57]

Quote by: fushigi Story. Hey, if the kid's out of control, and you can't contact the parents, what else are you supposed to do in our litigious society today? It's not like you can defend yourself without being accused of child abuse.

Well with a little credit to the Justice System... Under the Juvenile Courts Act of 1899.. Everyone from 0 - 17 is subject to the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court system, however no child under age 11 can be committed to a jail/prison/correctional facility in the US.

[Duke1985]

Quote by: brien If a school can't control a 6 year old student without calling the police, they should close their doors.

Agreed.
I've thought about this jury that will convict a 6 year, if the child is charged with a felony it will be off her recored in 7 years, making her around 13, so it wouldn't even be that horrible seeing as it won't have a chance to effect her (assuming her parents don't try and throw her in a private school of some ritzy nature, it won't hurt her in the job market area).

I still find this whole case to be insane, but I feel a bit better for this kid.

[iclaudius]

Quote by: Praxius I agree with you on that.... much like I am for revising the laws for marijuana, but until then, it's law, and I and you have to suck it up until it is changed. Please don't get me wrong.... I hardly doubt this would ever make it long in the courts before it is dismissed, and the kid won't get a conviction.... nobody will throw a kid into prison. This is very much like way back in the day when parents used to get the police to stick their kids in jail for 24 hours to "Scare them straight" so to speak..... they stick the kid through some of the process, but not all of it... to give them a feel of what's in store for them.

You should not charge someone with a felony unless you plan on giving them the consequences. It is unjust and stupid. The justice system is not there to do your job as a parent for you... it's there to deal out punishment for CRIMES. I ask you, who has been wronged here? Did the kid kill anyone? Was she caught smuggling drugs? No, she did what she assumed would get her her way without fully comprehending why what she was doing was wrong. Once again, I ask you how someone can be held to a law they simply do not understand. Unless this sentence is intended to put her in jail or a hospital, it is a waste of our tax dollars to pursue.

Oh and your link you provided to "Appeal to authority" has no relation or defense to the laws.... There is nothing in that link stating any defense from my link of the laws where ignorance is not an excuse..... perhaps you could point it out for me, but I just read something that had nothing to do with what was being talked about.

An appeal to authority: "Well Albert Einstein says this, and he's a GENIUS, so it must be true." Since I never used legality to make my assertions, it has no bearing on this case. You are saying, "Well, the law says this, and clearly the law is right because it's the law." If you are not saying this, then I have to ask why you even brought it up, since at that point, legality would be both non-applicative (since I'm debating MORALITY and not LEGALITY) and non-helpful to your case. I don't care whether or not it's legal to prosecute a 6-year-old for felony resisting arrest... it is simply wrong for the reasons I've stated. If you actually want to debate those reasons, I'm ready any time. You don't get a free pass by throwing the penal code at me, though, because I have no reason to assume that the laws should not be changed. Prove to me that they are morally correct.

Show me this in law, not by your opinion.

I did show you this in the law. A grown man with the IQ of a 6-year-old would, again, never be prosecuted for felony resisting arrest. If he were, it would be laughed out of the court or he would be hospitalized, depending. Besides that, legality has no bearing on this argument. Again: the law could be wrong. Heck, you even admitted that the laws could be wrong. Whether or not we have to stick to them is irrelevant, because I was never debating what the law said... I've always been debating what's morally right. I have no reason to adhere to the parameters of legality. I have said all this repeatedly now... it's your job to show me where I'm wrong, and where it is legal AND right. Remember: the ignorance rule simply does not apply when we are talking about people who do not understand morality.

You're just making excuses now. A 6 year old knows what rules are, whether they apply directly to them or not.... what you're saying is that they don't understand what a stop sign is, when they should have bedtime, why they shouldn't hit other kids, why they shouldn't steal things.... if they can understand the rules about these things, then why can't they accept the simple fact "Hey, this is illegal, if you do it, you goto jail.?"

Hey Prax, try rebutting my argument with actual logic now. Stuff like "You're just making excuses now" is taking us nowhere. Once again, I'm not debating whether or not the kid knows what the rules are... I'm saying that if the kid does not understand morality, she cannot be held fully accountable for her actions. If you want to continue this discussion, I want you to go back and address that post claim by claim, because this magical wave of your hand dismissal thing is not cutting it.

It's not hard to teach your kids this.... you don't have to explain to them the whole history of the law, where it originated, the first cases in court about it, and all the consiquences..... there's no need to at that age..... all you gotta say is... Don't do this or you goto jail..... it's not that complicated. Kids see prison on TV and in their games all the time..... frig nobody's that sheltered, nor should they be.

And once again, you've completely disregarded the meat of the issue. Whether or not the child "knew" it was wrong, she didn't know why. Actually, let's get something else out of the way: she didn't know it was wrong. If she doesn't understand the concept of morality, she clearly didn't know that what she was doing was wrong. Maybe she had a vague understanding of bad consequences following, but that's not the same thing as knowing it's wrong. Remember my little story?

Uh huh.... but at least something is done to resolve the problem. It doesn't matter how old they are, what their mentality is, if they commited a crime, they are arrested and charged.... it is then up to the courst to determine if they should be prosecuted or sent for mental rehibilitation. You're twisting your laws and how they are applied. If someone with a mental condition is going around shooting people because the green smoke faries are telling them to, the police are not just gonna sit by and shrug, saying "Well they're mentally challenged, so we can't do anything." ^ Of course they're gonna take them down regardless.... be that by taser, shooting, whatever..... They uphold the peace and let the courts sort them all out..... much like what happened in this situation.

No, but they're not going to charge them with felony resisting arrest, either. And that's my point. If she goes around shooting people just because, the court will probably hospitalize her. There, they've reacted to a genuine threat. But if she simply resists arrest... what? Will they hospitalize her then, too? Or will they simply throw her in juvy? Or will they give her probation. Doesn't matter; they're all punishments for something she doesn't even understand. Their aimed intention is to punish, not to teach. They are not a teaching tool. They are too harsh for a teaching tool.

[fushigi]

Quote by: brien If a school can't control a 6 year old student without calling the police, they should close their doors.

How would you have dealt with the situation? Would you have used force to restrain the child?

[Duke1985]

My mom is in special ed, there's a hold that, as far as I know, is still legal. Its called a basket lock, you get the kid in your lap, cross their arms around chest so they can't fail about, and lock your legs around their waist or legs so they can't kick about. They can't bite since the only thing they can reach is their own arms, stay like that till the kid tuckers themselves out or decides to behave.
She used to use it on me and my brothers, doesn't hurt. If thats still around, thats how you do it. Honestly though just grab the kid, pick them up and separate them from the class, its a damn 6 year old. All this "the kid could hurt you" crap is just that, toughen up or get a new job.

[fushigi]

Are all teachers trained in how to use the "basket lock"? Did this woman know the hold? Should we be giving mandatory self-defense classes to all teachers?

[DEEJ85]

If you have to restrain a child for their own safety or for others safety, you do it in the presence of as many adults as possible (and out in an open easily visible area). This way not only are you being properly supervised with the child, you also have witnesses that can testify that you didn't use excessive force (assuming you didn't)

In a case where one child (unarmed) tries to attack another, I would just place myself between them and try to talk the child down. That way I don't have to use force at all. again adult witnesses are valuable.

If a child was armed then I'm not sure what to do.

I'm by no means an authority on the matter, this is just what I've seen and been told by those above me.

[Praxius]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint To what point and purpose? I know you think that a 6-year-old should understand that breaking the rules leads to punishment, and I agree. But why would you think that being arrested by a strange police officer, handcuffed and put into a strange car, would make sense to a six-year-old? Why would you think that this child would immediately think, "Gee, I must have broken a rule, and now this is my just punishment. I won't be doing that again!" Isn't it possible the child might be thinking that the policeman was going to take her away and shoot her with his big gun? If she is simply scared and confused, she is learning nothing. And if the value of this is not in teaching her right and wrong, then it can only be in protecting the general public from a dangerous first grader, and that I simply don't accept.

If the kid is thinking that of the police officer, then their parents are worse then I imagined, and perhaps the kid would be better off being shot... I mean come on.... how did you portray police officers when you were a kid? I was taught to trust them and goto them when you are lost or in trouble.....

What kind of retarded parents did you have to think a police officer would shoot a kid?

So you see no difference between the mental capabilities of a 15-year-old and a 6-year-old? I see a difference. I think my example, in which I explicitly stated that my "crime" committed at the age of six did not lead to my arrest, proves that, while 18 may be too old to be the inviolable bright line for the ability to understand crime and punishment, 6 is most definitely too young.

You can't just pick and choose what you feel is right or wrong, and which age mentality kicks into high gear or not..... any persons under the age of 18 can not be charged in adult courts, but they still can and will be arrested under youth laws.

The only core differences between a 6 year old and a 15 year old, is what they are taught in school.

Let me ask you this then..... is a 15 year old closer to an 18 year old's mentality? If so, then perhaps the youth laws should start going a bit lower in ages, say 10 years old and anybody older can be charged as an adult. Would that make you happier?

Once again, I see quite a difference between a 17-year-old and a six-year-old.

It doesn't matter at all about the age.... the act was similar and the danger was there.... I don't care if the person in question was 80 or 2 years of age.... if they are doing something against the law you arrest them.... if they pose a danger to someone else in society, then you arrest them..... a 6 year old kid can still pull a trigger just as easily as you or I...... I know I could.

Based on my experiences with children, I feel it was unjustified.

Fair enough, but with my experience, I feel it was..... to each their own.

I'm not faulting the police officer, though I think he should have treated the principal like the idiot she was. I'm faulting the school administration for calling the police when no crime had been committed. According to that story, they called the cops because the girl was sitting in the principal's office and she wouldn't stop screaming. Unless she was hurting herself, and it says nothing about that, there is no danger to anyone there, which means there was no reason to call the cops. It was the school's responsibility to deal with her temper tantrum.

Scratching, spitting, etc. no matter how small you may think they are, they are still forms of assault. If you spit on an officer, they have every right to grab your arse and throw you in the wagon. If other kids and teachers are being physically attacked by this kid, then they have the right of protection, peace and the ability to continue on with their teachings in school without having to worry about some crazy kid.

If the kid was screaming her head off for a long period of time in my office, why should I have to put up with it? If the parents can not be reached to deal with this brat, then why should I have to put up with it? You say it comes with the job.... some things do, but this doesn't. You have the times where you gotta sit down with a kid for 5-20 mins and talk them down and resolve the situation, but if you can't break through with the kid and they are not going to co-operate andcalm down, then call the cops, haul the little shit away and hae some pace in your day...... big deal.

Because I see a difference between 6 and 15, and between temper tantrums and crime. You did not make the distinction clear in saying that you see no problem wityh parents calling the police on their own children, which means you apparently think the police are there to raise people's kids for them. I disagree, and I think people who don't want to raise their own children, or don't know how to, shouldn't have children.

I never said anything about having the police raise your's or my kids..... but you can't baby them all your life and protect them from the law if they break it... or they will not learn anything about consiquence and they will always feel they have mommy and daddy covering their asses while they do what they want.

How many adults have you seen get all pissed off, violent, smash things, throw things, cause a big scene and then get hauled away by the police? Sounds like an adult temper tantrum..... but no matter how you word it, it would be distrubing of the peace and probably resisting arrest, which is a crime and would be charged..... just because a kid does it, doesn't mean it's any different from an adult doing it, and adults still have plenty of temper tantrums.

A temper tantrum is stomping your feet, crying and moaning until your sent to your room.... when you start attacking oter kids, teachers, the principal and even causing a stink with police, that's a bit beyond a temper tantrum.

The child committed no crime that required the call to the police. Whether or not the child committed the crimes she was arrested for, I leave to you and iclaudius to figure out. I will note, however, that iclaudius has the law on his(her?) side, since our laws state that children cannot be charged with felonies unless it can be proven that the child understands the laws, and your only counterargument has been "Kids should know what's bad to do. I did." Hardly a good legal precedent.

May not be a good legal precedent, but neither is your defense and mine still lays on the lines of the law.

Like I said, I don't care if the kid does get charged and thrown in jail, or sent to the gas chamber.... it doesn't matter to me, because chances are it will never happen..... but the police and the school was right in their decisions of arrest in my opinion of the laws.

If I was a parent of a child in that school, I would be very pissed off if my kid was not only attacked by this kid, but also for the fact that the child was disrupting my kid's education.... as many other parents would be..... so what do you do? Fold and let the kid do what she wants, to satisfy some idiot parents, or stick to your guns, and protect the best interests of the other children and parents in the school who outweigh the overall outcome of what happens in that school?

[Praxius]

Quote by: iclaudius An appeal to authority: "Well Albert Einstein says this, and he's a GENIUS, so it must be true." Since I never used legality to make my assertions, it has no bearing on this case. You are saying, "Well, the law says this, and clearly the law is right because it's the law." If you are not saying this, then I have to ask why you even brought it up, since at that point, legality would be both non-applicative (since I'm debating MORALITY and not LEGALITY) and non-helpful to your case.

And I am going stricly legally, not morally.... if I was doing this based on morallity, then.... well.... my current opinion would still stand.

I am not saying the law is correct because it is law... I am saying it is law today so unless you want to goto jail, one would obey the laws.

As I said previously.... "Morally" I feel the laws are wrong on marijuana and many other things, but they are still law and therefore until I or someone else can figure out a way to change it, then it still has to be obeyed, much like this situation... you or I can still think it's wrong, but that is irrelivant.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Praxius If the kid is thinking that of the police officer, then their parents are worse then I imagined, and perhaps the kid would be better off being shot... I mean come on.... how did you portray police officers when you were a kid? I was taught to trust them and goto them when you are lost or in trouble..... What kind of retarded parents did you have to think a police officer would shoot a kid?

Given the abuse stories I've heard from Child Protective Service agencies nationwide, and my own, personal, albiet limited experiences with them as far back as 15 years ago, I would suggest not teaching your kids to find a police officer when they're in trouble.

Today the police are VERY likely to involve CPS (or the Department of Social Services, or whatever the agency is in your neighborhood) at a moments notice. Once those people get involved there is a great chance you will lose many of your parenting rights and are likely to lose custody of your children. They seem willing to do this for the slightest provocation.

I would rather my kid take their chances with a business owner, or even a random stranger, than those criminals. There's a better chance that a random stranger will act appropriately than there is that CPS will.

Keith

[iclaudius]

Quote by: Praxius And I am going stricly legally, not morally.... if I was doing this based on morallity, then.... well.... my current opinion would still stand.

Yeah, you're right... if you ignore the fact that people who cannot comprehend morality are not entitled to full consequences of the law. That's the legalists' standpoint, by the way. I don't suppose it'd be too much trouble to ask you to actually debate the rest of the points I've brought up? Thanks in advance.

[Praxius]

Well I've already expressed my view on it morally.... sometimes some kids need harsh lessons to get over themselves.

If the parents were available to take control of the chld and take them out of the school until they calmed down, then this action would be wrong imo.

If this was the first time this child has had a fit like this and they called the police without previous problems, then this action would be wrong.

If the teachers and the principal didn't use every method in their disposal to quell this situation like any other kid having a fit and jumped the gun and called the cops, then this would be wrong.

As I said, there are some moral issues that have been tramped on here, but legally nothing wrong was done. The child was not harmed, the situation was delt with, and if anything, the kid learned a few things from this.

Back on the topic of understanding vs. age.... when my house burned down around me as I was in there alone, at the age of 9..... I understood the situation, I realized nobody else was home, and I made my own actions to survive.... I knew the consiquences that if I stayed, I would soffocate from smoke, or I would burn to death, or I would be trapped when the house began to collapse..... I wasn't clueless as to what was going on, I knew firemen would be coming soon to help and that police would be there to help as well.... I escaped on my own just shortly before the firemen arrived.

The way you are trying to portray this child at the age of 6, you sound as if the kid just got spit out of her mother and has no clue as to what she was doing.... which is not the case..... if the kid was that clueless as to what was going on, then perhaps she should be thrown in a special class or something.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Praxius If the kid is thinking that of the police officer, then their parents are worse then I imagined, and perhaps the kid would be better off being shot... I mean come on.... how did you portray police officers when you were a kid? I was taught to trust them and goto them when you are lost or in trouble..... What kind of retarded parents did you have to think a police officer would shoot a kid?

Not for nothing, but don't call my parents retarded. Who the hell taught you to debate?

Kids are dumb, okay? Hell, people are dumb. They don't always act rationally and think logically, especially not when they are upset, especially not when they are already scared because they know they are in trouble, and ESPECIALLY not when they are six. There is a reason that we live with grown-ups when we are kids: kids are not as smart as adults. In addition, people don't trust police when they are grown-ups, and they are sometimes right to feel that way. Police officers are just people; some of them are not nice, some of them are scary. The fact that they wear a uniform doesn't make them perfect, or teach them all the proper way to calm a hysterical child. If the police officer didn't act like a nice person, he might have scared the kid. If the kid recognized the gun as a weapon, she might have been scared just because it's a gun, and 6-year-olds can't be expected to automatically think, "But it's foolish to be scared of that firearm; guns don't kill people,. people kill people, and this fine, upstanding law enforcement officer is sworn to serve and protect the people, which includes me."

Quote by: Praxius You can't just pick and choose what you feel is right or wrong, and which age mentality kicks into high gear or not..... any persons under the age of 18 can not be charged in adult courts, but they still can and will be arrested under youth laws. The only core differences between a 6 year old and a 15 year old, is what they are taught in school.

Everybody picks and chooses what they think is right and wrong. If we all followed perfectly the teachings of our parents, we would never disagree with each other. Persons under the age of 18 can and are charged with adult crimes in adult court when they are considered mentally competent and emotionally mature enough to understand right and wrong and the crime they are charged with. Look up Kip Kinkel, if you want an example, but there are thousands of others.

I refuse to believe that you think there is no difference in maturity between a 6-year-old and a 15-year-old. At this point you seem to be arguing with everything I say simply for the sake of being obtuse.

Quote by: Praxius Let me ask you this then..... is a 15 year old closer to an 18 year old's mentality? If so, then perhaps the youth laws should start going a bit lower in ages, say 10 years old and anybody older can be charged as an adult. Would that make you happier?

Yup, just being obtuse. Surely you remember that I am against this child being arrested, and you are arguing for it, so pointing out the absurdity of charging a ten-year-old with a crime, well, that would be my argument, not yours.

Quote by: Praxius It doesn't matter at all about the age.... the act was similar and the danger was there.... I don't care if the person in question was 80 or 2 years of age.... if they are doing something against the law you arrest them.... if they pose a danger to someone else in society, then you arrest them..... a 6 year old kid can still pull a trigger just as easily as you or I...... I know I could. Fair enough, but with my experience, I feel it was..... to each their own. Scratching, spitting, etc. no matter how small you may think they are, they are still forms of assault. If you spit on an officer, they have every right to grab your arse and throw you in the wagon. If other kids and teachers are being physically attacked by this kid, then they have the right of protection, peace and the ability to continue on with their teachings in school without having to worry about some crazy kid. If the kid was screaming her head off for a long period of time in my office, why should I have to put up with it? If the parents can not be reached to deal with this brat, then why should I have