Kindergartner Charged With Felony

[Praxius]

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

Myself.... love it or leave it. I never called "YOUR" parents retarded.... only you did. If it applies, then that's your judgement doing that.... I just gave you a classification. I asked you what kind of retarded parents.... You could have easily said they are not retarded or very little at all. Also the "Your" was generic in the situation I was describing, not directly towards you or your parents.... unless you relate to the situation I was explaining, then you're parents wouldn't be in that classification of retarded I was using.

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."

Now you're just making excuses to justify your stand. You just basically resaid everything I stated above only trying to word it to suit an excuse to keep a child away from the law.

There are some bad police officers out there, much like there are bad teachers, priests, doctors, etc. but they're there to upkeep peace and stability in our communities and when you need help.... who else are you suppose to run to? The Mafia?

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 don't think you're understanding what I am trying to say to you.... You can pick and choose which laws you feel are just and unjust, but unless you plan on going on a big protest or taking the matter to the courts to change the laws, suck it up and take the laws that are fed to you like a bitch, just like everybody else has to.

Do you actually think that if you commit a crime and the police come at you, that they're not going to take you down and arrest you if you say "I don't believe this law is just or fair, so I shouldn't have to obey it." ~ They're gonna drag your ass away regardless what you think, because they are there to up keep the law..... much like what they did to this child. Just because most people arn't calling the police to haul away kids for freaking out, doesn't mean that can't do it.

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.

There is not much difference in maturity, the only difference is what your taught in your grade.... 15 year olds can still spell just as bad as a 6 year old....

Once again, you're using irrelevant examples to support your side..... it doesn't matter if the kid see's a holstered firearm, or handcuffs and what they think of them.... they get scared.... yeah, so do adults.... if anybody see's a cop coming at them, everybody's gonna be scared, because nobody like's going to jail.... but that's still no excuse for the kid.

It sounds to me like you're letting your emotions run your decisions in this matter.

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.

I was relating you trying to compare a 15 year old to a 6 year old, and yet when I throw someone in the middle, like a 10 year old to connect the dots, you call it obtuse..... I think you're not understanding the two points I am trying to portray.... one is somewhat on your side of things, and the other is towards the law, which is my stand (A combination of the two, plus my own moral up bringing)

You do realize that there is more then just two sides to this argument.... perhaps me taking the third option is confusing you.

I've already stated my opinion on this, and you've got nothing here to make me question its validity. Thanks for the debate.

Fair enough... All I know is your reasoning on this case and your defense wouldn't keep you out of court, nor the kid. There are plenty of legal defenses that would get both you and the kid off the hook, but on your grounds on how she's just a kid.... means squat. She can still be arrested, she can still be thrown into Juvy Court, and she can still face charges under the Youth Act (Depending on where you live)

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Praxius Myself.... love it or leave it. I never called "YOUR" parents retarded.... only you did. If it applies, then that's your judgement doing that.... I just gave you a classification. I asked you what kind of retarded parents.... You could have easily said they are not retarded or very little at all. Also the "Your" was generic in the situation I was describing, not directly towards you or your parents.... unless you relate to the situation I was explaining, then you're parents wouldn't be in that classification of retarded I was using.

You never called my parents retarded? Let's check the record, shall we?

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?

(emphasis added)

When you are replying directly to an individual, and you say "you," the base assumption is you are speaking directly to me. What you did was not polite, and I was pointing it out. I realize you weren't really trying to insult my parents, but don't expect me to deal with your rudeness in a civilized way; you need to become more civilized.

And my parents were not retarded. Children do not always understand things around them. That is why they are under the care of their parents.

Quote by: Praxius Now you're just making excuses to justify your stand. You just basically resaid everything I stated above only trying to word it to suit an excuse to keep a child away from the law. There are some bad police officers out there, much like there are bad teachers, priests, doctors, etc. but they're there to upkeep peace and stability in our communities and when you need help.... who else are you suppose to run to? The Mafia?

My entire point is that the teacher in this situation did not need help. The six year old child was not a danger to herself or others, not in any way that could not have been dealt with efficiently and legally by any reasonably trained professional educator. You think itis appropriate to call in the police just ebcause you feel the kid needs a bigger scare? I disagree. It is not that I think the police are untrustworthy. I was simply pointing out that your argument, that anyone who doesn't trust the police mustbe retarded, is not a good argument. And it still isn't, partly because some police are untrustworthy, and mainly because children do not yet understand who they should trust. That is why children have to be taught to fear strangers, because if they are not taught that, they become victims because theya re too trusting.

Because they do not have good judgement.

Because they are children.

Quote by: Praxius I don't think you're understanding what I am trying to say to you.... You can pick and choose which laws you feel are just and unjust, but unless you plan on going on a big protest or taking the matter to the courts to change the laws, suck it up and take the laws that are fed to you like a bitch, just like everybody else has to.

Suck it up and take it like a bitch? Really? See what I meant about being civilized in your debate?
What law was broken that required the police oficer to be called? Tell me that. I understand that once the police officer arrived, the child resisted arrest, but what crime was committed that required the arrest the child then resisted?

Quote by: Praxius Do you actually think that if you commit a crime and the police come at you, that they're not going to take you down and arrest you if you say "I don't believe this law is just or fair, so I shouldn't have to obey it." ~ They're gonna drag your ass away regardless what you think, because they are there to up keep the law..... much like what they did to this child. Just because most people arn't calling the police to haul away kids for freaking out, doesn't mean that can't do it.

There is no law against kids freaking out that I'm aware of, which does indeed mean the police can't just come and haul the kid away. If there is no law to keep, they can't be seen as keeping the law -- can they?

So tell me what law she broke.

Quote by: Praxius There is not much difference in maturity, the only difference is what your taught in your grade.... 15 year olds can still spell just as bad as a 6 year old....

I have taught 6-year-olds, and I have taught 15-year-olds. You are wrong. There are great differences in maturity. And maturity is not determined by how well someone can spell.

Quote by: Praxius Once again, you're using irrelevant examples to support your side

But the spelling proof is solid gold?

Quote by: Praxius ..... it doesn't matter if the kid see's a holstered firearm, or handcuffs and what they think of them.... they get scared.... yeah, so do adults.... if anybody see's a cop coming at them, everybody's gonna be scared, because nobody like's going to jail.... but that's still no excuse for the kid. It sounds to me like you're letting your emotions run your decisions in this matter.

Not my emotions, the child's emotions. My point is that the child can't be reasonably expected to understand 1. that a police officer has been called to uphold the law, 2. that the child, as the focus of the police officer's attention, has broken the law, 3. that the police oficer has the right to arrest the lawbreaker herself, 4. that being arrested does not mean she will be hurt, 5. that her duty as a citizen is to go peaceably with the police officer and face up to the consequences of her actions, and 6. that she will have her full rights protected during and after her arrest, and she will have her day in court.

Children don't understand that. Not any of it. Expecting them to is ridiculous, and yet you're arguing exactly that.

Quote by: Praxius I was relating you trying to compare a 15 year old to a 6 year old, and yet when I throw someone in the middle, like a 10 year old to connect the dots, you call it obtuse..... I think you're not understanding the two points I am trying to portray.... one is somewhat on your side of things, and the other is towards the law, which is my stand (A combination of the two, plus my own moral up bringing) You do realize that there is more then just two sides to this argument.... perhaps me taking the third option is confusing you.

You are confusing me, because you do not make any sense. You stated clearly that the only difference between a 15-year-old and a 6-year-old is what they have learned in school, that their maturity is identical. If there is no difference, as you stated, then a 10-year-old is not in the middle connecting the dots, it is in direct opposition to the position you stated. And yet you tried to use that contradiction of your own opinion to prove me wrong. That is not taking the third option -- that is changing your stance wuithout any explanation as to why, and since you confirm in this latest reply that you still see no difference between 6 and 15, clearly you have not taken the third option -- you are simply arguing at random.

Quote by: Praxius Fair enough... All I know is your reasoning on this case and your defense wouldn't keep you out of court, nor the kid. There are plenty of legal defenses that would get both you and the kid off the hook, but on your grounds on how she's just a kid.... means squat. She can still be arrested, she can still be thrown into Juvy Court, and she can still face charges under the Youth Act (Depending on where you live)

No, the grounds that she's just a kid means everything. Here.

http://www.oja.state.ok.us/SAG%20Web...dy_Summary.pdf

The term is defined in the first paragraph, and the study concludes that children under 15 are probably not competent under the law. The younger you get, the more that "probably" approaches "definitely."
Have you any proof that this six-year-old was competent to stand trial? Or are you going to fall back on your statement that you personally could recognize right and wrong, and could have taken part in your own defense at the age of 6?

[brien]

Quote by: fushigi How would you have dealt with the situation? Would you have used force to restrain the child?

I am not a Education professional but I would agree that the child should have been physically restrained if the child was about to cause harm to others or to the child him/herself.

School administrators have the repsonsibility to protect 6 year old students from harm, either caused by another, or by themselves. The school administrators need to take reasonable steps to ensure they meet these goals. If that involves a straight jacket, so be it. If it involves a "rubber room", so be it. Once the police are engaged, it opens up a whole different realm of responsibilities that are out of the hands of the school administrators. Engaging the police is wrong for treating a 6 year old's temper tantrum.

Once again, I am not a professional educator, so I don't have the answers, but I know the answers for controlling 6 years old students don't lie with the police.

[fushigi]

I tend to agree with you. It seems like an absolute waste of law enforcement resources. However, my argument is that the teachers don't have the training to restrain a child without risking injury to themselves or the child.

Furthermore, strapping the kid in a straightjacket or confining him to an isolated room would DEFINITELY be grounds for child abuse charges.

I don't know how common incidents like these are, or how teachers normally deal with them. I'm hesitant - without that data - to say "let's take money from our already thinly-stretched education budget to train all teachers in self-defense."

In the absence of giving teachers the legal precedent to restrain violent children by any means they see fit, and without raising property taxes even more to give them mandatory training, when a child won't respond to a teacher's commands verbally and the parent is unavailable, I can't see any alternative to bringing in the cops to take care of the situation.

[iclaudius]

And my argument is that, in this debate, it's neither your job nor my job to come up with what should have happened in that situation. Charging the child with a crime is unjust; it simply does not matter what the circumstances are. That's all we have to say, no matter what really happened, no matter where it took place, no matter what excuses you use... Yes, the child needed to be restrained. Yes, the child was crossing "the line." But I'm under no burden to provide an escape hatch for these people if I'm going to deny the legitimacy of their actions. That's simply outside the scope of the debate. CS and I have given all of you numerous reasons as to why 6-year-olds are not entitled to be charged with a felony. If you want to come up with a plan for teachers in this situation, I think that's a great idea, and I definitely won't stand in line to stop you. But these two cases are not linked. Just because you couldn't think of anything else to do but call the cops does not make it the right thing to do. And actually, I'm not even disputing that it wasn't; it would have been just fine if she was detained but not charged, for example. Charging her with felony resisting arrest, on the other hand, is a different matter entirely.

[iclaudius]

Quote by: 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.

Prax, I've been a fan of your level-headed posts since before I became a member of this board. It honestly shocks me that you'd say something like this... although perhaps, in this case, you're simply trying to be too level-headed. At this point, you seem unreachable in terms of debate. Really, all I have left to say is that (again) understanding consequences and understanding the moral fabric that frames them are two different things. I don't care if you understood that "house burning down" = "bad"; not even that changes the fact that a 6-year-old simply cannot be expected to understand why any action is good or bad, and therefore, cannot be expected to be held to PUNISHMENT for actions relating to why they chose what they did. If they did not willingly understand what it is to be a criminal, how would it be right to allow them to choose to be one (especially since they haven't really chosen to be one at all)? I'm not saying they are hot from the womb, I'm saying that they simply aren't capable of understanding why something is bad, and so punishment on that level is simply wrong. Again, if you want to debate my actual claims, rather than regurgitating nonsense over and over, I invite you with the greatest respects. Until then, I'm afraid we'll just have to part ways.

[fushigi]

I'm also inclined to agree with this view. However, there does need to be some kind of reporting of the 6 year-old's behavior for the benefit of future admissions boards considering her application.

If we could guarantee that records of her violent behavior would be reviewed during every admissions procedure, I'd support that over giving her a criminal record. However, I'm not certain that school records are as "sticky" as police records. Anyone have any insight into this?

[brien]

Furthermore, strapping the kid in a straightjacket or confining him to an isolated room would DEFINITELY be grounds for child abuse charges.

Well then, we certainly have a "knumdrum" because if the child hurts himself or another, the school offficals are responsible as well. imo, I can't see how retstraining a child from hurting himself or others, is child abuse.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: fushigi I'm also inclined to agree with this view. However, there does need to be some kind of reporting of the 6 year-old's behavior for the benefit of future admissions boards considering her application. If we could guarantee that records of her violent behavior would be reviewed during every admissions procedure, I'd support that over giving her a criminal record. However, I'm not certain that school records are as "sticky" as police records. Anyone have any insight into this?

They're just as sticky, but not as candid. The culture of victimhood has made it so that school employees are uncomfortable with branding a child as a troublemaker on any kind of !!PERMANENT OFFICIAL RECORD!! The emphasis has moved toward contacting the parent and working the problem out without involving the official apparatus of the school. So school records have become a less valuable source of information, and thus don't get consulted as often as they probably used to. This incident, of course, would have made it into the permanent record because it went out of the classroom and involved the administration, and so this girl's record will report this to any college admissions official or employer who choose to consult the school records.

In response to the comments above about training teachers and the stretched budget: in my experience (I've taught for 7 years in California and Oregon) there is ALWAYS enough money to train teachers. My current district has 9 inservice days, days without students during the school year, intended to give teachers time to learn new things. Dedicating one, two, or ten of those days to safe physical restraint would not only be no hardship, it would be very useful, considering the same culture of victimhood that says, "Johnny isn't bad -- he has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and social anxiety disorder."

[Praxius]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint You never called my parents retarded? Let's check the record, shall we? "What kind of retarded parents did you have to think a police officer would shoot a kid?" (emphasis added) When you are replying directly to an individual, and you say "you," the base assumption is you are speaking directly to me. What you did was not polite, and I was pointing it out. I realize you weren't really trying to insult my parents, but don't expect me to deal with your rudeness in a civilized way; you need to become more civilized.

And clearly taken out of context just for the sake of crying offense....

"... TO THINK A POLICE OFFICER WOULD SHOOT A KID"

If your parents taught you that you can't trust a police officer and they will or might shoot you at the age of 6, or whatever.... then you're parents must be retarded..... if they didn't teach you this, then they are not..... and if they did, it's my opinion the parents are retarded, because that to me is pretty blaitent bad parenting.

And my parents were not retarded. Children do not always understand things around them. That is why they are under the care of their parents.

That does not relate to the comments I was making, moving on.

My entire point is that the teacher in this situation did not need help. The six year old child was not a danger to herself or others, not in any way that could not have been dealt with efficiently and legally by any reasonably trained professional educator. You think itis appropriate to call in the police just ebcause you feel the kid needs a bigger scare? I disagree. It is not that I think the police are untrustworthy. I was simply pointing out that your argument, that anyone who doesn't trust the police mustbe retarded, is not a good argument. And it still isn't, partly because some police are untrustworthy, and mainly because children do not yet understand who they should trust. That is why children have to be taught to fear strangers, because if they are not taught that, they become victims because theya re too trusting.

I never said it's retarded not to trust police, I said it's retarded to teach your kids not to trust them.... if you can't trust your police in your area of living, then there's either something seriously wrong with your police force and needs to be delt with, or there's something that perhaps you are doing wrong....

It's perfectly fine not to trust police if you had a bad or more then one bad experience, but it's not a good idea to raise your kids into not trusting the police or the firemen.... That just as bad as teaching them not to trust blacks or muslims because you encountered a few bad apples. If an emergency occurs, you don't have time to screw around with a kid who doesn't want to go with you because they don't trust you..... in the middle of a house fire, you don't have time for that crap... in the middle of a shoot out, you don't have time for that either.

Suck it up and take it like a bitch? Really? See what I meant about being civilized in your debate?

It was civilized, since it also related to myself as well, just as equally to you..... there are laws that we have to suck up until we can change them..... unless you like living in a prison..... we have to suck them up like bitches, unfortunatly.... try and stop thinking everything is personally towards you for a moment and try and actually read what I am typing.

What law was broken that required the police oficer to be called? Tell me that. I understand that once the police officer arrived, the child resisted arrest, but what crime was committed that required the arrest the child then resisted?

Ask them, not me.... they have a better understanding of the situation then you or I, and as mentioned in the original report and post, information has been limited to protect the identity of the child in question, etc etc.

If they followed the rules, and went by the book, then she apparently must have done something, or the police would be sued by now, don't you think?

There is no law against kids freaking out that I'm aware of, which does indeed mean the police can't just come and haul the kid away. If there is no law to keep, they can't be seen as keeping the law -- can they?

Picture yourself as a kid in that school..... do you want this kid to be allowed to run around kicking, biting, scratching everybody and causing a big scene? I don't care how small the kid is, but I shouldn't have to put up with some other fuct up kid running at me, biting, scratching and screaming..... those other kids have just as much rights as that idiot who was causing the problems in the first place.

Call it tough love.

So tell me what law she broke.

Ask the cops.

Not my emotions, the child's emotions. My point is that the child can't be reasonably expected to understand 1. that a police officer has been called to uphold the law,

I call that bad parenting then.

2. that the child, as the focus of the police officer's attention, has broken the law,

You mean to tell me you got some guy with a gun and a uniform who's 4x bigger then you, that you understand goes after bad guys, is now coming after you, so you must have done something bad? Right..... excuses.

3. that the police oficer has the right to arrest the lawbreaker herself,

Who else has the right to arrest people? What were you taught police officers were for as a child?

4. that being arrested does not mean she will be hurt,

Why would she think she would be hurt?

5. that her duty as a citizen is to go peaceably with the police officer and face up to the consequences of her actions,

So kids are not taught to behave themselves, don't start fights, don't steal, do what your teachers tell you, listen to your elders? Some world we live in today I tell ya.

and 6. that she will have her full rights protected during and after her arrest, and she will have her day in court.

At that point, irrelevent.

Children don't understand that. Not any of it. Expecting them to is ridiculous, and yet you're arguing exactly that.

And you are arguing that kids are vegitables who can't understand the world around them or what they do.

You are confusing me, because you do not make any sense. You stated clearly that the only difference between a 15-year-old and a 6-year-old is what they have learned in school, that their maturity is identical. If there is no difference, as you stated, then a 10-year-old is not in the middle connecting the dots, it is in direct opposition to the position you stated. And yet you tried to use that contradiction of your own opinion to prove me wrong. That is not taking the third option -- that is changing your stance wuithout any explanation as to why, and since you confirm in this latest reply that you still see no difference between 6 and 15, clearly you have not taken the third option -- you are simply arguing at random.

How could I change my stance if you didn't even know what my stance was in the first place?

I see the differences between the under age as being what they are taught, because generally, until they become legal adults, they are still considdered developing, growing, and learning.......

Learning does not mean they can't be arrested or charged with something though, which you keep confusing.... this is why there are youth courts and laws and why kids around the world are being aressted all the time as I type this.... for starting fires, breaking windows, getting into fights, stealing cars and money, etc etc.... this is just one of those situations.

No, the grounds that she's just a kid means everything. Here. http://www.oja.state.ok.us/SAG%20Web...dy_Summary.pdf The term is defined in the first paragraph, and the study concludes that children under 15 are probably not competent under the law. The younger you get, the more that "probably" approaches "definitely." Have you any proof that this six-year-old was competent to stand trial? Or are you going to fall back on your statement that you personally could recognize right and wrong, and could have taken part in your own defense at the age of 6?

Holy sweet murciful crap man...... I never said the kid would be competent to stand trial..... you go and look anywhere in my posts and tell me where I said the kid would be competent for trial. I was talking completely about the arrest, not the trial and whether the aresst was warented..... I told you the kid will most likely never goto trial over this, but the police were correct in their arrest..... both are two different things and you seem to be trying to argue both at the same time, which you can't.

I said personally, I know my rights and wrongs at that age, and personally, I feel kids should stand trial for such things...... BUT..... as I said about laws and sucking them up to you, it also applies in this situation as well.... the laws don't do that, so it won't happen, but the laws allow for arrests, so I suck up the fact that kids won't goto prison for commiting crimes and you suck up the fact that they can still be arrested to keep the peace.

[Praxius]

Quote by: iclaudius Prax, I've been a fan of your level-headed posts since before I became a member of this board. It honestly shocks me that you'd say something like this... although perhaps, in this case, you're simply trying to be too level-headed. At this point, you seem unreachable in terms of debate. Really, all I have left to say is that (again) understanding consequences and understanding the moral fabric that frames them are two different things. I don't care if you understood that "house burning down" = "bad"; not even that changes the fact that a 6-year-old simply cannot be expected to understand why any action is good or bad, and therefore, cannot be expected to be held to PUNISHMENT for actions relating to why they chose what they did. If they did not willingly understand what it is to be a criminal, how would it be right to allow them to choose to be one (especially since they haven't really chosen to be one at all)? I'm not saying they are hot from the womb, I'm saying that they simply aren't capable of understanding why something is bad, and so punishment on that level is simply wrong. Again, if you want to debate my actual claims, rather than regurgitating nonsense over and over, I invite you with the greatest respects. Until then, I'm afraid we'll just have to part ways.

Ok, well I understand the above and where you're coming from, so I'll put it in this tricky little way:

There are still plenty here and abroad who still believe in religion and God right? So when you were taught from the day you're born what God expects of you, what you can and can not do in order to goto heaven, did or do you today, understand fully why you can not do those things? No.... just because God said so and that's it.... do it or goto hell.....

Don't eat the red apple..... why? Just don't..... we did.... we got shat on.... does that seem fair? Can't do much about it.....

Unfortunatly the laws are the same, you may not understand them all 100%, but you understand it's illegal.... so don't do it. Sometimes it sucks, sometimes it is nessicary. If you don't like it, it is your right and freedom to challenge the laws for change.

When I was growing up, I was taught what is right and wrong, as well as having religion beaten into my head. I think for myself now, but as a kid, you're taught very straight and simple.... do this.... don't do that because.... You either listen to your parents and learn, or you do things your way, and learn..... either way, you'll learn something.

I think people here are just getting upset that I'm playing the devils advocate here and plucking some feathers.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Praxius And clearly taken out of context just for the sake of crying offense.... "... TO THINK A POLICE OFFICER WOULD SHOOT A KID" If your parents taught you that you can't trust a police officer and they will or might shoot you at the age of 6, or whatever.... then you're parents must be retarded..... if they didn't teach you this, then they are not..... and if they did, it's my opinion the parents are retarded, because that to me is pretty blaitent bad parenting.

Yeah, you're right. Clearly I took the word "you" out of context, because when you are speaking to me, "You" means "Everybody on earth." Hey you! You suck. But I don't mean that to refer to you, I mean you.

The parents in this case didn't teach the kid to fear cops (and neither did my parents) but the kid (and myself at that age) were not intellectually mature enough to understand everything our parents did teach us. Like the idea that policemen are always good guys who are there to help. My dad told me he was doing it for my own good when he spanked me, and it took me a few years to understand that.

Quote by: Praxius I never said it's retarded not to trust police, I said it's retarded to teach your kids not to trust them.... if you can't trust your police in your area of living, then there's either something seriously wrong with your police force and needs to be delt with, or there's something that perhaps you are doing wrong.... It's perfectly fine not to trust police if you had a bad or more then one bad experience, but it's not a good idea to raise your kids into not trusting the police or the firemen.... That just as bad as teaching them not to trust blacks or muslims because you encountered a few bad apples. If an emergency occurs, you don't have time to screw around with a kid who doesn't want to go with you because they don't trust you..... in the middle of a house fire, you don't have time for that crap... in the middle of a shoot out, you don't have time for that either.

Again, it isn't what the kid was taught, but what the kid can reasonably be expected to understand. You expect the child to understand that being arrested is her fault, and simply the fair and reasonable consequences of her actions, and I disagree.

Quote by: Praxius It was civilized, since it also related to myself as well, just as equally to you..... there are laws that we have to suck up until we can change them..... unless you like living in a prison..... we have to suck them up like bitches, unfortunatly.... try and stop thinking everything is personally towards you for a moment and try and actually read what I am typing.

I didn't take it personally, I just think it was childish, obscene, unnecessary, stupid, and maybe a little homophobic. Not very civilized debate, IMO.

Quote by: Praxius Ask them, not me.... they have a better understanding of the situation then you or I, and as mentioned in the original report and post, information has been limited to protect the identity of the child in question, etc etc. If they followed the rules, and went by the book, then she apparently must have done something, or the police would be sued by now, don't you think?

I think she did something after the police officer arrived. I'm asking you what you think she did that would merit the police's involvement. What's a good line to draw for when a school administrator should call the cops? I think it would be, when a crime has been committed. Do you agree? If so, can you theorize what crime she may have committed? That way we can maybe look at a few of the statutes involved, and see if her actions match the possible crime -- and thus if the police involvement was warranted.

Quote by: Praxius Picture yourself as a kid in that school..... do you want this kid to be allowed to run around kicking, biting, scratching everybody and causing a big scene? I don't care how small the kid is, but I shouldn't have to put up with some other fuct up kid running at me, biting, scratching and screaming..... those other kids have just as much rights as that idiot who was causing the problems in the first place.

Those are my options, huh? Call the cops and have the kid arrested, or let her run wild and bite everyone in the room? I'm going to call that a faulty dilemma, and say that the teacher's job is to remove the kid from the room, which was done, and the administrator's job is to deal with the kid until the parents can come and get her -- which the adminstration did not do.

Quote by: Praxius Ask the cops.

Dodging the question doesn't help.

Quote by: Praxius I call that bad parenting then.

I call calling the cops on your own 6-year-old bad parenting. You and I disagree.

Quote by: Praxius You mean to tell me you got some guy with a gun and a uniform who's 4x bigger then you, that you understand goes after bad guys, is now coming after you, so you must have done something bad? Right..... excuses.

It's the "understand goes after bad guys" that I take issue with. Why would you assume that a 6-year-old should know that? If the kid really recognizes authority figures as such, wouldn't she have stopped screaming when the principal told her to stop? No? So why should she know that the cop goes after bad guys? Take out that part, and what have you got? A guy who's 4x bigger than you with a gun and a uniform coming after you.

See my point?

Quote by: Praxius Who else has the right to arrest people? What were you taught police officers were for as a child? Why would she think she would be hurt? So kids are not taught to behave themselves, don't start fights, don't steal, do what your teachers tell you, listen to your elders? Some world we live in today I tell ya. At that point, irrelevent.

All the rest of this relies on her recognizing the cop as an authority figure who goes after bad guys and understanding why he is there and what that implies for her actions and the consequences of same. I don't think a first grader understands that.

Quote by: Praxius And you are arguing that kids are vegitables who can't understand the world around them or what they do.

Yeah, because a scared six year old either understands everything a grown up does, or she's a vegetable. Again with that faulty dilemma.

I'm arguing something in the middle. I don't think the kid should be allowed to run free and do whatever she wants. I just don't think the police should have been involved -- that's all.

Quote by: Praxius How could I change my stance if you didn't even know what my stance was in the first place? I see the differences between the under age as being what they are taught, because generally, until they become legal adults, they are still considdered developing, growing, and learning....... Learning does not mean they can't be arrested or charged with something though, which you keep confusing.... this is why there are youth courts and laws and why kids around the world are being aressted all the time as I type this.... for starting fires, breaking windows, getting into fights, stealing cars and money, etc etc.... this is just one of those situations.

I disagree.

Quote by: Praxius Holy sweet murciful crap man...... I never said the kid would be competent to stand trial..... you go and look anywhere in my posts and tell me where I said the kid would be competent for trial. I was talking completely about the arrest, not the trial and whether the aresst was warented..... I told you the kid will most likely never goto trial over this, but the police were correct in their arrest..... both are two different things and you seem to be trying to argue both at the same time, which you can't.

Dude, if she can't freaking stand trial then she can't freaking get arrested! People are arrested so they can stand trial for the crimes they have committed! How can you not understand that? What is the point of arresting someone in order to release them without any charges being filed or the courts becoming involved? Just to waste a lot of time and money?

Quote by: Praxius I said personally, I know my rights and wrongs at that age, and personally, I feel kids should stand trial for such things...... BUT..... as I said about laws and sucking them up to you, it also applies in this situation as well.... the laws don't do that, so it won't happen, but the laws allow for arrests, so I suck up the fact that kids won't goto prison for commiting crimes and you suck up the fact that they can still be arrested to keep the peace.

No, they really can't be arrested just to keep the peace. If the child needs to be removed from a situation because she is a danger to herself or others, the police may take her away to give her to social services, or possibly to put her into a medical facility. If she gets arrested, it is because she has committed a crime, and if she gets arrested for a crime, she needs to be processed through the judicial system, all the way. Being arrested is not just a fun way to discipline somebody's crappy kids.

[fushigi]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint This incident, of course, would have made it into the permanent record because it went out of the classroom and involved the administration, and so this girl's record will report this to any college admissions official or employer who choose to consult the school records.

Then that settles it. There's no reason to involve the police, so long as the teachers are trained how to restrain violent students without injuring them. And speaking of that:

Quote by: Coffee My current district has 9 inservice days, days without students during the school year, intended to give teachers time to learn new things. Dedicating one, two, or ten of those days to safe physical restraint would not only be no hardship, it would be very useful,

Thanks for this info. Definitely sounds like your district is ready for some self-defense training!

I'm all for it.