But you've just defeated your own arguments! This disciplinary methods very likely involved this type of escalation that she hadn't reached suspension/explusion on, even outright fighting rarely results in suspension/expulsion for a first offense, so why shouldn't this girl still have been in class for the second occurence, having been given a chance to hopefully correct the problem.

I do want to say though that I agree with you otherwise, so much so that I intend to give written permission to my childrens teachers to intervene and/or punish if necessary if I ever get a report of my children misbehaving in school where I feel that my kids need to gain respect for their teachers. I'm not saying I condone them beating the crap out of some kid, but giving them the option to pick them up, haul them out of class, and either spank them or put them alone in a corner somewhere would go a long way for building a healthy respect that I really feel is lacking.

Thank you, Smooth.

I just had a short talk with my lady who teaches 3-6 yr old children with hearing/speech impediments. Her school allows the teachesr to put 'problematic' children in a padded room that has an observation port...I kinda thought it was funny, but really, i think it is a great idea. The kid and everyone else is safe from harm and you remove hte audience for the child.

liquidlight, you raise some very important questions.

First of all, I will preface this by stating that I am not a clinical psychologist. While I was conducting my undergraduate education in sociology, I took numerous social-psychology and human development courses. I am currently in my second year of a Ph.D program for criminology, law and society. I do, however, have personal experience in that I spent a large part of my youth in institutions for troubled children as well as sites for criminally deviant children (and that bled into my adult years, aka, prison).

My wife, however, is working toward her Master's of Family Therapy. The information I am providing is gleaned from my introductory level pschology and human development courses and her advanced material.

Any information provided here should not be taken as the advice of an expert, but from a personal experience of what works and what doesn't supplemented by both of our education.

My wife works as a therapist in a juvenile shelter. In fact, she works in a place not dissimilar from where I spent most of my youth. Their rules are not the same as public schoolteachers, but they are also not supposed to touch the clients as a general rule. However, all of the counselors know the importance of love, physical contact, and the absense of them children have felt in their lives. Furthermore, this situation was not ordinary. I notice a number of people, yourself included, keep referencing the spector of a lawsuit. The threat may be real, but the school is still being sued. A lawsuit doesn't matter so much as liability. I ask myself whether, as a member of a jury, I would find the teacher guilty of hugging a disruptive child or handcuffing one. I would sympathize with the teacher on the former, the parent on the latter. I doubt the parent would sue a teacher for hugging her daughter to calm her down, but we don't know. Those rules were incorporated to reduce sexual molestation. I think common sense is in order here. No jury will find a teacher guilty of an offense if she hugs a disruptive child and tells her she loves her.


You ask me how can I advocate providing positive stimulation as a means to reduce negative behavior?

What we have to realize here is that both responses, the teacher hugging the child and the police officers cuffing her, serve as positive responses to her behavior. You are correct in stating that positive reinforcement will likely result in more behavior, but that logic applies to the police actions, as well.

What we need to consider is the fact that children model from their environment. When we meet violence or disruption with violence, they learn violence is acceptable and appropriate responses to things they do not agree with. When they associate love and kindness with disruptive behavior, they will begin to use those kinds of behaviors.

Over time, the love and kindness route will reduce the amount of violent outbursts a child expresses as a means to obtain attention as she learns socially acceptable methods to ask and obtain it. That is, she learns to ask for a hug when she wants one instead of throwing a tantrum.

Or she can learn that every time she feels the need for attention, she simply becomes violent and will receive all the violence (or attention) she desires and more.

Of course, she is only a young child. She is not sitting there calculating her needs versus responses. It's our responsibility as adults in our society to rear children in ways we think are beneficial for our society. But if we remove violent interaction from the classroom, and from the home, and the child is still acting violently, we need to start peering around and find out just where she is picking it up from. Children do not have inherent behaviors, they learn them.

I couldn't agree more with the last statement, that children learn what we teach them and I appreciate that we have different outlooks on this.

I should add to my arguments that I was rather severely physically abused by my father for most of my childhood and that experience has given me more than a slight hesitation in using violence to solve a situation. I say that because I don't see the police behavior or the handcuffing as a violent reaction because of the way that it was performed, they didn't add the emotion into the action that typically would accompany violence.

I would hope that handcuffing anyone would be unnecessary, but having also done my own stint in official corrective institutions I can also speak from experience that for some people all the love and all the non-interventional measures in the world sometimes aren't sufficient and that's the basis of my position. Because of my home life growing up I ignored or discarded the consequences of certain things, until I reached a point that an external stimulus forced me to re-evalute my behavior. I wasn't getting this at home, and though I don't have evidence to this fact, I would say that this girl isn't getting those lessons either.

Well, either you didn't watch the entire video, or you "selectively" missed something, because I'm pretty sure that letting a child frolic about in a room with broken glass (that she broke) is probably not the best course of action. And I'd be willing to bet that the "ignore it, and it will go away" attitude is what caused this in the first place.

A teacher fondling a student and telling them "I love you"would never involve the police being called and someone being handcuffed. :rolleyes:

To be fair to smooth you're being awfully subjective about some alternatives that should be approached objectively, and deserve equal consideration as possible opportunities, though I wouldn't say necessarily for this little girl.

On the contrary, I am being just as objective as they are to the actions that were taken.

liquidlight,

I agree with your sentiment. There are a variety of methods to address our childhood outbursts. As adults or even adolescents, external punishment is a quite different matter than when we are still in our development stages, in my opinion.


However, police interaction coupled with arrest is a violent expression of the state. That's why I mean--not that they were physically abusive. I think you would agree, upon reflection, that restraining someone against his or her will is violence upon the person and the person's freedom. If we link freedom to the core of one's identity, we would have to admit that restricting that freedom, even for cause, is violence upon the very existence and meaning of a free person's identity.

mrkilxx,
Not only did I watch the entire video, I showed it to a class full of univeristy students last night. You may think that leaving a child alone in that room is unacceptable, but that's no reason to discard my point unless you believe that was the only room available to place her in.

Ignoring it and it going away, whatever else it may have done, was not a factor in this situation as evidenced by the police officer's own statement that he had been involved in previous incidents. In fact, that singular statement bolsters my point that police intervention is having the opposite effect people in here think it would have.


In regards to point 2, rather than rolling your eyes at my statement, you would do better to reread it and realize that was directed at parents in this thread. The first sentence clearly distinquishes, to my mind, between restraining a child and "fondling" one. Why would you malign my point to reflect that of a pedophile? That makes very little sense to me and doesn't really add to the discussion, in my opinion.


EDIT: liquidlight, I want to point out that I don't classify violence as necessitating emotion. I would probably classify violent+emotion (in the way I think you are conceiving of emotion in such a circumstance) as abuse. I don't find that surprising given that you associate abuse with violence as a result of your upbringing. I don't want to speculate too much on that, however, I'm not trying to be offensive at all and I suspect you can gather that given our childhoods being seemingly similar.

But a smack on the bottom is violence. I could use the term "force" if that clarifies my position. That we can model non-force rather than force for our young children. But like I said, I'm not an expert, just giving an opinion because so many people asked who was going to step up to the plate and offer an alternative.

I think the experts have actually a more detailed guide for when to use force and when not to. I also think you might reconsider whether the force inflicted upon you by the state stops your deviance now, or did you learn another method to handle yourself?

I guess what I mean by that question is I conceive of the incarceration period as a cooling off period, but nothing more. I didn't learn much from it, anyway. The way I walk my life now is a product of what I learned from positive influences in my life, not imprisonment. I wonder if you feel the same way upon reflection.

But that's not what you said. Putting the child in isolation is completely different than leaving her in a place that she could cause further damage to public/private proprty and/or herself.


You are absolutely right. I don't believe the school or the police ignoring her is the problem.

Simply because someone who shares your side of the discussion already hinted at it. And yet you failed to admonish them, which in itself is very telling.

It's wasn't the time incarcerated that I learned from, it was the act of the incarceration at it's inception that taught me a new consequence, though your reference to a "cooling-down" is quite accurate. Once I understood that incarceration was one of the consequences I began to reassess what I'd been doing and came to several conclusions and adjustments to what I felt was acceptable behavior. Granted most of this were things that I learned about myself and not from the incarceration. On that note though that's why I've advocated supporting the action, in the hopes that it would be the particular catalyst much as it was for me in allowing this child to learn as much about herself as anything else.

I also think that you and I would define violence differently, for instance, I don't include things like spankings as violent unless done with a malicious intent. As you put it I much prefer the use of the word force as it seems, at least in my head, to be much more accurate.

Damn, what the child did was pretty bad. But, still I dont think she should have been handcuffed.

Assuming the news articles out there about this story are accurate, no I didn't defeat my own argument. The kid had been a holy terror many times before. The kid's mother had called the school and said they were not to lay a hand on the kid or she'd sue them. Those two elements should have been enough of a clue to the administration of the school that this kid was not manageable - in part because the kid is a little shit, and in part because the mom is threatening legal action if they DO discipline her. If a kid is not manageable, then the kid should be shipped out.

The school allowed themselves to be held hostage by the mother. They acted as though the mother is allowed to tell the school what rules it's allowed to set. In reality, it should have been the other way around. The school sets the rules, if the mom/kid don't like the rules, they leave. Easy as that.



Furthermore, back to the original question as to whether the handcuffing was necessary - the kid was sitting down and not going nuts when the cops got there. Why did they handcuff her? There was absolutely no reason for it.

[QUOTE=MooseMan3000]Alright, just to clarify a few things that obviously didn't get through.

1) They're campus police. They weren't arresting her, they were cuffing her so she didn't do any more damage.

2) The cops weren't AFRAID of her. They used three people to cuff her in order NOT TO HURT HER. Of course one person could do it, but that would involve throwing her on the ground, holding her arms behind her back with one hand and cuffing with the other. That might be painful for her.



Of course she deserved it. This is the second time that the administrators have called the campus police on this child. She was informed clearly that it was going to happen, and she persisted in being a little shit.Technically, she COULD have been arrested, because she purposely destroyed private property, but they didn't feel that was necessary. They were just going to remove her from the building and keep her there until the mother arrived and they could speak with her - perfectly reasonable.

More importantly, the mother is to blame here. The teachers at this school are obviously very lenient in doling out punishment - that tantrum went on for at LEAST the 6 minutes of the tape in the class, and the 5 in the office, probably longer. And all the teacher did to her the entire time was tell her to stop. "We're not allowed to destroy the room." The mother complained that the principal treated the child too harshly... I don't believe that for one god damned minute. If this video is representative of the incident the mother was talking about, she needs to get a fucking life.

The child hasn't been taught how to behave, and she has never been taught to respect, well, anything. She needs some tough love, and since the mother obviously isn't giving her any, the school has to step up. End of story.


I agree with this, handcuffing her was to avoid any more outbreaks and to calm her down.

So you're going to have the police "give her a talking to," after the last occurence when she had been warned that the handcuffing would have been the outcome? Why shouldn't she have been handcuffed? It's obvious from the points that you raise that she isn't going to police herself, her mother certianly hasn't been doing, and has apparently forbidden the teachers from doing it.

You're advocating that the police should have backed down and reinforced to this girl yet again that she can be a holy terror and whatever else she wants and get away with it because the worst that is going to happen to her is that people are going to give her a few idle threats.

Removing her age as a factor, since I'm relatively sure that we can all agree that this child knew precisely what she was doing and continued to do so with intent, if I were told that a particular behavior was going to land me in cuffs I'd be inclined to listen, then if I did it again most people would call me an idiot for ignoring the fact that I had been warned, this situation is not much different.

That's part of the problem these days....a lot of parents I see don't follow through with their "threats", and the kids stop respecting or even believing their parents.

Well see Liquid, there's a problem. First off, most police forces require the cop to have a reasonable suspicion that the individual being handcuffed presents an immediate threat of serious physical injury to the cop or to others in the area if they're not arresting them.

This kid was sitting at the table. She wasn't tearing up the room. She wasn't hitting anyone. She didnt' go nuts when she saw the cops. Not only that, but all the kids had been cleared out of the room. There were only adults, much larger and stronger than her, in the room. There is NO WAY those cops had a reasonable suspicion that she'd hurt them or anyone else in the room.

Handcuffing the kid was ridiculous. Plain and simple. There was no reason at ALL for it. The kid was under control at that point. Had the kid started going crazy again, then cuffing would probably have been justified.

Lemme ask you this. If you're in a room sitting quietly, would you be real thrilled if 3 cops burst in and cuffed you, not to put you under arrest, but just to restrain you? Of course, you would (or at least, you should) be pissed. You don't NEED restraining. You're not threatening anyone, you're not doing anything.

The cuffs are for one of two reasons. Restraint, or arrest. They're not arresting her, she doesn't need restraining at that point, there's no excuse for cuffing her.

I am advocating that the police should not have abused their handcuffs with the kid. I am advocating expelling the kid. The kid should learn that there are consequences, but that does not mean we have to make unreasonable consequences for the kid. When my kid colored on the wall I grounded him. I did not tie him up, because to tie him up would have been unreasonable, and frankly would have been child abuse. He learned that there are consequences to his actions, without the consequences being absurdly over the top.

right, but that's for YOUR kid. Obviously this child's parent does not show that there are consequences for such actions. If you don't make your own solution, someone else will make it for you.

You've summed up everything I wanted to say better than I could say it. How this is "controversial" is completely beyond me. They weren't roughing her up, she wasn't slammed on the desk, they weren't arresting her. They were handcuffing her because she was out of control and destructive, and a potential danger to herself (and other students, previously). And by this point, perhaps handcuffing is the only language an out of control five-year-old can understand.

I'd love to send the mother a good book on parenting.

EDIT: This whole thing is really such a shame. Her parents must be worthless -- children at that age are primarily shaped by their family life, which must be total shit. Now she's been hardened by police presence and interaction, and has already been handcuffed at age five. If this doesn't shape her up a bit, she's gonna go downhill from here.

My point was that there are appropriate disciplinary measures, and there are way over the top disciplinary measures. I don't tie my kid up because it would not be appropriate. And if the cops came to school and handcuffed my kid even though when they got there he was sitting quietly at a table, you'd better believe I'd sue the hell out of them. But don't worry. Junior would still face bigtime consequences at home if he ever did anything that required the school to call the cops. He just wouldn't get clapped in irons.

I admire those of you in this thread who advocate using positive reinforcement etc.. in trying to deal with this 5 yr old's problems. However probably anything positive you can do will be overcome by ineffective parenting. Without parental support these children will probably be a problem for a long time to come.

What in the world CAN the mother sue for?? There were no damages EXCEPT to public property - which I don't hear of her offering to pay for BTW. The girl was not injured either. Is the mother gonna pay the school for the lost time, money, and damages that her out of control daughter who was supposedly raised right DAMAGED? I don't see it. How can she justify suing for millions of dollars.


"In addition to the 5-year-old girl, Akins has a son, 4, and another daughter, 3. Pinellas court records show she has been trying without success to collect child support from two St. Petersburg men who are the fathers of the children. The father of the 5-year-old has been arrested more than a dozen times since 1995, mostly on drug charges.

Records also show that around the time of her daughter's handcuffing, Akins was in the throes of an eviction proceeding with the owners of her St. Petersburg apartment. A note she wrote to the court indicates the problem involved subsidized rent payments from the St. Petersburg Housing Authority."

Oh ok, maybe she's just wanting to pay for her boyfriends drug habits and her multiple children by multiple fathers. (note:sarcasm)

I usually try hard not to be prejudice against people but this woman seems to be acting like street trash that think the world OWES them for all the hardship that they really bring on themselves. She needs to be serilized and her children given to responsible parents. I find this situation and subject disgusting. I really hope she looses on her lawsuit and that the school district and police fine her for the damages her daughter did to public property. Now THAT would be justice.

like shooting fish in a barrel... too many things here from her not accepting any fault or responsibility for how her child acts...

You know that's a pretty good example of not only what's wrong with our country but why I changed my mind about becoming a teacher.

False arrest.

The false arrest/imprisonment tort says false arrest is "An Unlawful Restraint Of A Person's Liberty Or Freedom Of Movement."

The kid wasn't doing anything to necessitate handcuffs. The handcuffs restrained her freedom of movement.



She can then heap emotional suffering on top of that (I dunno about you but if I were 5, I'd have the everlovin' CRAP scared out of me if three big uniformed cops came in and slapped cuffs on me)



So yeah, the lawsuit is justified. Completely.

And before you guys start yelling at me that I'm sympathising with the woman - - not even close. She's a pathetic excuse for a mother. Which is why this situation is even more unfortunate - - -they've given this reprobate a legitimate reason to sue, and a legitimate reason to insist that it's all the school's fault. What were they thinking?

Certainly a lawsuit is not the answer. Unless it's the government suing the parents for doing such a lousy job.

She can sue for whatever she feels like at the moment -- but it's certain 99% of judges side with the discretion of the police. There is no case, except if you count the value of publicity.

Do you really think it was unlawful?? If someone is damaging public property they shouldn't be restrained?? I don't see this holding up.

They restrained her from damaging more property and leaving bruises on the teachers - trust me I've been given bruises by a 5 yr old so I know it can happen.
And before you say - well she was sitting down when they started to cuff her. That's ONLY because she knew she was doing wrong - SHE KNEW - so she had no excuse for what she'd done and she knew she deserved to be restrained. Why else would she have suddenly plopped into the chair the moment the cops came in?

If she wants to go the "emotional suffering" route - how about the teachers sueing for work related stress caused by that child. Don't tell me their blood pressure wasn't up. When dealing with an out of control child - you get scared for them and scared that someone is gonna blame you for that kids behavior - I know. Emotional scarring - that kid is already emotionally a wreck if she thinks that behavior will get her what she wants. Being restrained = emotional damage. I want to laugh. That child was warned. If she hadn't been restrained it would have taught her that her actions were justified. That's emotional scarring in my book cause that girl is gonna think that anger and tantrums work. She has a chance LONG before the cops came in to change her behavior. The fact that she changed it the moment the cops came in does not matter because THAT'S too late. You can't hold back from handing out consequences when the child stops her actions because she's seen the consequences coming. That's poor discipline to do that.

I so hope that this gets thrown out.

Oh and BTW - I read another article - Apparently the mother is trying to pull the racist card. I saw no racism in that situation. NO one mentioned color. They only responded to behavior. Pulling the racist card in this situation should be taken as an insult to all races because it's giving that arguement a bad name. It's this kind of behavior that contributes to making people angry at other races - The minority person cries victim and claims the action was an attack of their race. Next time someone IS racially persecuted legitimately people don't believe it because someone else already cried wolf. She is hurting other blacks by trying to pull this crap. That really burns me.

One more thing I must add.
When it comes to what amount the tort may be filed for I believe one can only claim between $2,500 and $25,000 PLUS damages (i.e. physical harm to body or property) when filing a tort against the government for false arrest. This woman is filing for WAY more than that and she has not actual physical damages to claim for.

Section 2672 Federal Tort Claims Act.

If the child had been raised to respect authority, this situation might have been avoided in the first place. I still place blame on the parents. 5-year-old children should not be that destructive, and this girl wouldn't if her parents were teaching her how to behave (both by instruction/discipline and example). The only exception would be a mentally handicapped child, which is not the case (or has not been determined or made known).

In your own argument for suspension you have cited many times the fact that this was not the first, and by your own logic most likely not the last time that this child is going to be a behavioral problem, so why in the world would there not be suspicion that she needs to be restrained?! If they didn't put the cuffs on her who's going to be the first one that she takes a swing at when she tries to run away? No, it wouldn't necessarily happen but this child has already proven herself to be completely unreasonable, and her size doesn't mean that she couldn't do some serious damage if applied appropriately. . . think about the last time your son accidentally hit you in the groin for example.

If you watch the video again you'll notice that she doesn't freak out when the handcuffs go on, she freaks out when the officers move to put them on her, she was attempting to manipulate everyone into getting out of the consequences of her actions yet again, and I'm sorry, but given what she's already put everyone personally involved in that situation through I don't feel that she has the right to be allowed to do it again, leaving the only method of prevention as restraining her!

As for tying up your son, you're right, but you grounded him, therefore he was restrained, albeit in a different fashion. I would venture that you sent him to his room, and when you did it he obeyed because he understood the consequences. This girl had been asked to stop, told to stop, and then threatened with intervention, none of them had any effect until the officers actually came into the room. What would you have done if when you grounded your son he screamed no like this little girl, picked up the marker and went at the wall again?

It seems to me that a large part of your argument stems from the fact that she was sitting in the chair when the officers arrived, almost as if that means that she hadn't just completed a tirade. Personally, I'd love to be able to do whatever the hell I want and get away with it simply because I was sitting quietly in a chair when the police arrived, but for some reason I think I might be held a little more accountable than that.

I agree with that assessment. A lot of criminals are sitting at home watching TV or going about their "normal" lives when they're finally caught and arrested. If we treated them how Shakran wanted the child treated, there would probably be a lot more dead officers.

scare em while they are young.

With out being able to smack an out of control student ( maybe not smack but actually punish) there is nothign we can do.

if the teachers would had restrained her and she would have eneded up with a bruise from them holding her wrist, guess what parents would have sued

this is the mothers fault because she did not come when she was told to come

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/04/han....ap/index.html

Police: Handcuffing girl not a violation

ST. PETERSBURG, Florida (AP) -- Police officers committed an error of judgment when they handcuffed an unruly kindergartner at school in March but did not violate policy, the department's chief said Thursday.

Chief Chuck Harmon said the two officers who handcuffed the 5-year-old girl were reprimanded for minor errors in handling the situation, which gained worldwide attention when a videotape of the confrontation was released to broadcasters.

But Harmon said the officers were not punished for shackling the child, who had torn up a classroom and hit an assistant principal before the officers arrived.

Still, Harmon said, the officers should have done more investigation, explored ways to defuse the situation and allowed school officials to take the lead in handling it.

"This child needed some intervention, but I don't think it was by law enforcement," Harmon said, calling the handcuffing "premature."

The video of the March 14 confrontation prompted criticism of the police and school system, and charges of racism that brought the Rev. Jesse Jackson to town to meet with school officials. The girl is black, and the police officers are white.

Harmon said Thursday that the report found no evidence of racism by the officers.

A video camera captured images of the girl tearing papers off a bulletin board, climbing on a table and punching the assistant principal before police were called.

Then the tape shows the child appearing to calm down before officers approach, pin her arms behind her back and put on handcuffs as she screamed, "No!" and began to cry.

The girl was put in the back of a police car and had her feet restrained after she tried to kick out the window. She was released later without charges.

The girl's mother, Inga Akins, sold her story exclusively to a tabloid TV show, and her attorneys have notified the city that she plans to sue. A working phone number for Akins could not be located Thursday, and she could not be reached for comment. A call to her Stuart attorneys was not immediately returned.

Harmon said the incident prompted a policy change that will prohibit handcuffing children younger than 8 without a supervising officer being called to the scene. But officers need to retain the option of handcuffing children in "extreme situations," such as when a weapon is involved, he said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Glad that the officers weren't punished...

Error of judgment my ass. If I were in any doubt as to the appropriateness of the officers' actions (which I wasn't), I would be damn sure they did the right thing after hearing that the brat tried to kick the window out of the cruiser. Too bad they're changing the policy to prohibit cuffing her in the future. This will just encourage her mother even further down the wrong road and allow her to do even more damage, unrestrained.

I'd seriously question how mentally stable this girl was... She was in the back of a police car, not Manny the Molestor's car...

wild... and today I just read this Aesop's Fable to my tablet PC for voice recognition training.

The school officials bent over backwards to handle it in house without calling the police. What I see in those videos demands praise, not criticism.

If calling the police to handle a student who has been throwing a fit for an hour, damaged property, assaulted a school official, and been engaging in behavior that is dangerous to her isn't appropriate, and whose parents are unavailable, what does a student have to do before it is warranted?

I don't see any problem with either the way the school officials or the police behavied. Given that the girl tried to kick out the car windows, and had to be further restrained, the handcuffs don't seem the least bit excessive.

Gilda

I just read this and wondered if this thread would pop up again. I have to agree with what everyone else said, and I'm glad that the officers weren't punished for what, in my opinion, was doing their job.

i don't see what else could have been done by the school in this situation. could she have been expelled prior to this? perhaps, but that depends on the school district. it's not always as easy as a teacher saying the kid's a brat and they don't want to deal with them. this was a public school--that limits what can be done by a lot. and even if the girl had been sent to a school for problem kids (which aren't available everywhere anyway) what would they have done with her? it may be a public school for troubled kids, but it is still a public school and teachers there are bound by the same rules as other teachers in that district.

i don't know if the handcuffing was really warranted, but it served a point i suppose. i think putting her in the back of the car would have done just as well--and then if she goes crazy restrain her (as they needed to do apparently).

as for hugging a child and telling them they are loved--great advice for parents, total crap for teachers in public schools. a jury may find that preferable to a handcuffing--until sexual assault allegations start flying. and who is to say they wouldn't? does anyone honestly believe that there aren't parents out there who would lie and encourage their children to lie about adults being inappropriate with them if it meant they'd see a ton of money? and while they may be unfounded, those aren't harmless allegations that once proven untrue change the instant opinion people form when they hear them. michael jackson wasn't convicted--would you let your kid spend the night at his place?

leaving the child alone is absurd. remove supervision from a child who clearly is out of control??? no way. had that happened, i'd have sided with the mother 100%. that may work for a parent who sends their kid to their room--but not in a school setting. i've never been in a school that has spare empty rooms a child could be placed in--there are always desks, tables, supplies etc that could be destroyed or a child could be hurt on.

i think what the school did was appropriate. the police weren't inappropriate but i think their change in policy is a good thing.

Yeah no shit, I didn't see that 'kicking out the window' part in any of the earlier reports. Unruly is unruly, no matter the age. Handcuffs are a method of restraint, and this girl clearly needed to be restrained.

You mean to tell me if i went on a crazy rampage and then simply sat quietly, they wouldn't still put handcuffs on me? Bullshit. Being handcuffed just means you're being an asshole, and you need to stop, or you're dangerous. That little girl was given an hour to be an asshole before police had to be called, and she didn't calm down the whole time until the very end, so screw her and her mom. It's possible she calmed down because she heard someone say they called the cops. It's amazing what a kid can know at 5.

I don't know if anybody has mentioned this - couldn't find it in a search.
If you've had a chance to watch the very end of the video the cop says "Do you remember me? I'm the one who told your mum to put handcuffs on you."

Now that sounds like an adult trying to enforce the straight forward notion of action equals consequence. He has previously made a threat and he knows full well that if a threat is not followed through the action will reoccur time and time again.

The child was warned previously that if she acted a certain way the consequences would be bad for her. Now she has seen what can happen of you don't play by the rules.

Yes she is only 5, and the handcuffs seem excessive from the outside, but the only tools available to a teacher are exclusion of the child from classroom activity and the involvement of the parents. It would appear that neither of these methods had worked in the past, so the police had been involved before.

It is well known that more damage can be done to a child through a lack of discipline than by the use of scary tactics. The reasoning power of children is not developed at that age to allow them to see the subtleties of right and wrong so fear can be a useful tool.