Reply With QuoteIt's called child abuse.
It could definitely imprint some sort
of psychological trauma that manifests itself for the rest of his life.
It's called child abuse.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
No I am not defending using
a stun gun on a six year old... there were different ways to handle that no doubt... But yes the problem was
diffused.... and no one got hurt.
But people are sitting here putting a dark image over all the people who
protect and serve, with a very obtuse generalization.
Someone who does put their life on the line everyday is
criticizing someone who does. Which you have no room to do so when you do know do so yourself.
Being were I
am I no longer listen to media one bit... no matter how many sources it comes from (Considering they stake each
other out)... I only give my opinion on stuff I witness first hand, or have had expierience in. Which some people
should think about, before they go speaking out against something they have no CLUE about.
Adams
I happen to be a child
psychologist and I've got news for you: Emotional and physical trauma is getting hurt, especially when you're six.
The damage from either emotional or physical abuse can take a lifetime to heal.
Child care and education are
neither war nor beat policing. Just because somebody has a gun doesn't excuse him or her from knowing the
difference. To imagine that a six year old with a piece of glass, in a roomful of professional adults, is a grave
mortal threat would almost be paranoid and antisocial thinking. I could say that people who lack knowledge, training
and experience regarding taking care of disturbed kids have no room to talk about how to do so in a crisis.
People who protect and serve needn't feel like victims when asked to take responsibility for their irresponsible
actions, and find safer approaches to working with the community that hired them to protect and serve.
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 11-15-2004 at 03:24 AM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Did you see about the 76 year
old woman tasered for not leaving a nursing home?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10...nny_spark_out/
What about the guy who was stealing
electricity who was killed by a taser? (irony surrenders)
http://www.rightsideadvisors.com/fee...x?ArticleID=50
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetetive electronic music." --Kristian Wilson, Nintendo Inc., 1989
I think DAdams problem is that people
who become cops or soldier are put in situations where the right and wrong path isn't always immediately known, and
that they deserve a greater margin for error because mistakes will happen. They shouldn't be punished for putting
themselves in vunerable situations - afterall human error is inevitable, and there are plenty of grey
areas.
I agree there has to be accountability though, whether it be doctors, cops, soldiers etc. But they
also deserve some sort of allowance to f*ck up since they are putting themselves in situations where mistakes will
be made, and it is hard to ask for a cop or soldier to be on the other side of the mistake (ie get
shot).
That does not mean they should allowed to be negligent, however.
Agreed, in general.
Of
course a soldier needs a greater margin of error in a war -- a cop on a traffic stop too.
The following
was a somewhat different kind of incident, for example, though still a serious matter:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/15
/marine.probe/index.html
The problem is that this is not the issue here; just as it's not an issue of
random error in a crisis.
If you walk into, say, a day care to attend to an out of control 6 year old, your
mind set and menu of interventions has to be different from the outset. It's not like you're busting a crack
house.
And of course, there were multiple problems in the situation, and plenty of blame to go around.
The
biggest problem is education and law enforcement training rather than the individual officer, who nonetheless also
played a part. This is systemic with law enforcement. Funding loss is always an issue too. At least in Oregon, there
is big problem with lack of support for training. More thorough training also gives you a chance to spot those who
may be psychologically inappropriate for police duty.
The issue is also not one of failing to understand and
forgive when someone -- or a system -- makes a mistake and owns up, seeking to repair the problem.
On
the other hand, there's no excuse for someone involved failing to see there's a problem. People thinking
out loud or shooting the breeze in a forum is different, and not a big deal. But I also hope the public is not
growing accustomed and complacent regarding misuses of force.
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 11-15-2004 at 08:56 PM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
none
I always thought that two
wrongs didn't make a right. Guess I'm getting old. I really hope that DCW is in the same age bracket as Adams,
Pancho, and Sweet Brenda - otherwise my opinion of that age group is going to be lessened. I'm amazed, really
amazed.
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
I'm not sure what your point is.Originally Posted by koolking1
DCW
Ok I get now
Actually I 'm pretty sure I'm older and I often
lie about my age especially on the web
DCW
Most that age try on and take off beliefs like shopping for shoes; but eventually
pick ones that fit.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
We all
did it, if I remember right--then again I am old and senile!
Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite.
--Lazarus Long
Great words from someone who doesnt have to deal with this shit face to face.
BJF... that is essentially what I am trying to say... not so much that you should give them a margin of error...
but it might be a differnet story if you were to be in the situation they were in.
But like I said... Everyone
here has their own opinion, and I am not trying to change that.. but to put yourself in other people shoes, and then
make an informed decision... NOT FROM THE DAMN MEDIA!!!
Adams
While I appreciate what
you are doing, please be aware that you are not the first, nor will you be the last to "deal with this sh!t face to
face".
I was dealing with it before you were (probably) born, ever heard of a place called Viet Nam??
At least you get to be a "hero",not "a baby raper and mother killer"!
Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite.
--Lazarus Long
none
Adams, you really don't
understand the caliber of many of the posters here. I have 1003 days, yes 1000 and 3 days of IndoChina service.
And, I still feel no need for anyone in this country to use a stun gun on a child, or a law-abiding adult for that
matter (protestors come to mind).
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
Again, I hope I appreciate the
work DAdams and his colleagues are doing. I don't know much about fighting wars.
In my 15 years of child MH
work, though, I've often been face to face with more out of control, emotionally and behaviorally disturbed kids in
a week than most humans will be in a lifetime. In addition, I just came off of 3-4 years general mental health
crisis work, where I was helping suicidal folks and others in crises multiple times every day. We also did crisis
work for 9/11 (as it was happening on 9/11 and after), anthrax incidents, and the space shuttle disaster. So if I
was in that particular situation with the boy and his glass I'm pretty sure I'd be calmer, sharper and exercise
better judgement than I would in most normal, day-to-day situations; like, say, waiting in line at the DEQ.It
would be just another interesting day at work in many respects, and that child almost surely would not have hurt
himself further after the intervention started.
I mostly worry about folks being in those situations without
having the necessary training, just like I'd worry about my own ability to bust a crack house. Cops would not
typically have the necessary training, sadly.
Communities need mental health professionals to work closely with
law enforcement for sure, since it's so freaking common to encounter disturbed individuals. It wouldn't hurt the
military either to have training in mental health crisis. The best way to handle an emergency is to avoid it in the
first place, no matter how well armed you are.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Totally Agree with you DST.
I too have been there. No need for this extreme force.
Officers untrained!
Elk
And you know... I never said I was the first or last... The people of Vietnam have my completeWhile I
appreciate what you are doing, please be aware that you are not the first, nor will you be the last to "deal with
this sh!t face to face".
I was dealing with it before you were (probably) born, ever heard of a place
called Viet Nam??
At least you get to be a "hero",
respect... You say people call me hero... but I get alot of the same flak that the people of Vietnam get. Which is
wrong... We are troops that follow orders... Though I do complete agree with what is happening.
Adams
And you know... that opinion is completely logical...Again, I
hope I appreciate the work DAdams and his colleagues are doing. I don't know much about fighting wars.
In my 15
years of child MH work, though, I've often been face to face with more out of control, emotionally and behaviorally
disturbed kids in a week than most humans will be in a lifetime. In addition, I just came off of 3-4 years general
mental health crisis work, where I was helping suicidal folks and others in crises multiple times every day. We also
did crisis work for 9/11 (as it was happening on 9/11 and after), anthrax incidents, and the space shuttle disaster.
So if I was in that particular situation with the boy and his glass I'm pretty sure I'd be calmer, sharper and
exercise better judgement than I would in most normal, day-to-day situations; like, say, waiting in line at the DEQ.
hurt himself further after the intervention started.
I mostly worry about folks being in those situations
without having the necessary training, just like I'd worry about my own ability to bust a crack house. Cops would
not typically have the necessary training, sadly.
Communities need mental health professionals to work closely
with law enforcement for sure, since it's so freaking common to encounter disturbed individuals. It wouldn't hurt
the military either to have training in mental health crisis. The best way to handle an emergency is to avoid it in
the first place, no matter how well armed you are.
and more training is ALWAYS a plus... we in the military do get training... not for specifically situations like
this... but all around mental health... which has to be repeated yearly...
... And remember... Human basic
instincts are Reproduction, and Survival.
Adams
Then if your so High Caliber... why would you do something
petty like sterotyping a whole age bracket with 3 peoples opinions???
Kinda shots holes in any opinons you
throw out there.
Adams
I think it was purely a matter
of luck that no one did get hurt, I agree; stun guns or tasers have no place being used on 6 year olds. Its
obviously crazy & I think it just reflects a growing fascist mentality amongst some members in the law enforcement
community.
Pop quiz: A person holds a
piece of glass to a 6-year old boy. After trying to talk him out of it to no avail, do you use the stun gun on that
person to save the child?
Anyone would say yes to that. In fact, you'd probably say do whatever's necessary,
even if it means killing him, because he's threatening a child's life. Wouldn't you?
...well, the person just so happened to be himself in that situation. Ohhhh, now
it's different...what if it was one child with a piece of glass to another child's throat? Would you use the stun
gun then or would you just talk to the kid? What if it was a gun? Oh, now that's different...the
line's getting fuzzy now, isn't it...and you have all the time in the world to ponder morality without someone's
life on the line...I'm sure it's not so different when you're in the situation and you have to make a move or
somebody dies. I'm glad we can all sit and criticize the poor guy who saved the child's life for using a
method that didn't do so much as shake the boy up for 5 minutes...
Child abuse...whatever made that kid do
that was child abuse...what was done was in the child's best interest to keep him from hurting himself
further (yeah, let's not forget he already hurt himself three times). Psychological trauma...whatever caused
him to cut himself is the real psychological trauma. The cop prevented the child from killing himself so that he
could get the help he needed to erase that possible trauma and abuse (or just mental instability). Sure, there were
other ways to go about it, but obviously they didn't work, did they? Geez, everyone acts like the guy saw the kid
with a piece of glass and stunned him. Probably what actually happened was this went on for a while...the kid lost
it, the principle alerted others, the police finally arrived, they tried to talk him out of it, it didn't work, the
kid started cutting his own leg after cutting his eye and another part of his body...what do you do? Do you continue
to try and talk him out of it when he's in the middle of killing himself? Do you try to take him out and
accidentally slice the boy up or beat him to a pulp? Do you simply shock him and catch him as he temporarily loses
his ability to stand like his feet fell asleep for a few minutes and get him to the hospital to treat the
real threat---his self-inflicted wounds?
I'm very offended that someone would even for a second
question my values when I've been the leader in actually realizing the immediate threat of harm to that child,
himself, and the police officer's solution that caused minimal harm to the child compared to the damage he
was inflicting on himself at the time. Where are my values? That officer saved the boy's life and you're
crucifying him. Where are your values? What about all of those incidents where kids, teenagers, and even adults die
in a struggle because the gun went off, the knife/glass/weapon slipped and killed the person they were trying to
protect? What do you do then? You crucify the police officer for not doing his job properly without hurting someone
else because he had to use a method other than the best he had available because some 'armchair police officer'
(taking the term from football) thought he could do a better job.
I'm not saying walking up to a kid and
shocking him with a stun gun is perfectly normal. I'm saying in that situation, it was justified. The kid is fine,
there was no permanent harm done because of the incident, and any hesistation from that officer could've cost the
boy his life. That's how I see it. The officer did his job and saved a child's life. Where are my values? They're
right here where I support the people who do good in this world and only question them when they use excessive force
to harm a human being instead of help them.
There are much worse crimes in this world than temporarily
shocking a child to prevent him from hurting or killing himself. Those are the ones I'm worried about.
Values...more like priorities. The child's life was number one on that man's list, and you're all willing to
risk the child's life just so you don't use a stun gun and look bad. To me, that's wrong.
Well Stated Panch!
I agree. I have to ponder how to address tough situations that are life threatening every day. I
saved a girl form a rapist just 5 months ago. I also saved my self from two street thugs with base ball bats 2
months ago. In my aria we have right to carry permits and I have carried for 12 years. I teach safety and
marksmanship. I personally make my own ballistic gelatin and conduct ballistic studies. I spend a lot of time
studying physics relating to firearms and projectiles and going to marksmanship competitions. I have to contemplate
proper storage, the law and safety every day. To acquire a permit you must file an application to the Police and
State Police with finger prints. The application reads “This is not a permit to use a firearm it is a permit to
carry a fire arm. The only way you may use your firearm is if someone has the intensions and ability to cause
severe bodily harm to you or someone else’s person.” According to the law if you use profanity directed toward a
person when in an altercation with them you can be guilty of assault with a deadly weapon if you are armed when you
do it. You bare the responsibility to do every thing possible to defuse a bad situation. If you can run, run. You
may only use deadly force to stop some one from causing severe bodily harm or death to you or some one else.
You can’t just get mad because some one talks bad about your mother or
something. But if you go into a bank and some guy picks up a little
girl and places a gun to her head and says I’ll blow her head off,” then you can legally pick him off and be
justified by the law. He was armed and had intentions to cause severe bodily harm or death to the little girl.
Many police are glad to arrive at the scene of an attempted rape to find an armed citizen with a rapist on the
ground face down waiting for the police to arrest him. I have been there. If he did not drop the knife that he had
to her throat I would have done what I had to do. I was not happy to be in that situation. I hope it never happens
again, but if I have to, I will do what I have to do to stop a horrific crime against a law abiding citizen. I
spent several days thinking about what happened. I thought about the ramifications of what could have happened.
How I felt about that was on my mind for weeks, I did not like it. I still know a woman was saved. It was
something I could not have done because of my stature if I was not armed. Now with the guys that thought I would be
a fun target because I am a smaller guy and they were both about 6’. As they approached me and I realized what was
about to happen, they were going to beet me with ball bats, I prepared like an old west gun fighter. I pulled my
shirt so to give me access and I un-latched it so I could use a quick drawl technique. Then they said “What, you
going to shoot us?” I said, “I don’t want to do that to your family and friends. My heart breaks just thinking
about all the people who’s life will be affected and will morn the loss. But, I will if I have to. I think it is
best for all, that you go home and enjoy your families. I suggest you go and give your mother a big hug and kiss.”
One of them put the bat about 3 inches from my face called me a short ugly mf and then they turned around and went
home. They cursed me all the way down the road. I am glad they lived. I am lucky. It is hard to defuse a bad
situation. You can’t think clearly. The adrenalin flows thick. You have to resort to training. I feel that I
could of disarmed the child manually, but I was not there. Pancho is correct there was ultimately less harm done
than if nothing was done. It is good to contemplate what your options are and how you can deal with a situation
because when it happens you don’t have the time to think about it you must act. P.S. What is an HK45Mark23?
HK45Mark23
I've been avoiding this
discussion because nobody on this forum was there and the details were very thin so we couldn't possibly know the
circumstances well enough to have a valid opinion. I agree with the comments about armchair quarterbacking the
event.
There were a lot of good arguments made for both sides of the debate. The one thing that is clear to me
though is that there was something dreadfully wrong in the first place, before it ended up with a child holding a
piece of glass. That is where our system failed the child; not in the final resolution, if you could call it that. I
hear all sorts of arguments about how we would have/should have handled it but hear nothing about how it could have
been prevented. I know from my own experience and training that almost every violent situation can be prevented and
that is where the real skill comes in and where the questions should be directed. Where did we go so far wrong that
a child felt so threatened or was so disturbed as to want to do himself or others harm?
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
This is what I was
thinking, and I am sure DST was thinking the same thing as a professional in the field.
none
Well, perhaps we should
leave it to the courts to decide for us in these two cases. I know if I were a parent of either of them, it would
go to court. I think it will. I will try to follow-up on this issue.
D Adams: "Then if your so High
Caliber... why would you do something petty like sterotyping a whole age bracket with 3 peoples opinions???
Kinda shots holes in any opinons you throw out there.
Adams"
Well Adams, did you not first
stereotype myself and others by proclaiming that we didn't really have the right to an opinion because "we hadn't
been there, done that". You were the first to jump to conclusions about posters on this thread. I can assure you,
we do have the right to our opinions and you are always welcome to criticise them if you so wish. You are smart,
now would you just please take a refresher course in H.S. English so your opinions will be easier to read. The Air
Force needs people who can write effectively. Do yourself a favor, take that class and one day you'll also be
"High Caliber"
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
more news...
MIAMI (Nov. 20) -
The head of Miami-Dade Schools is asking police to never again use stun guns on elementary school children, as
officers have in at least two recent cases.
In a letter released Friday, Superintendent Rudy Crew told
Miami-Dade Police Director Bobby Parker that "certain tactics should never be used in dealing with young children -
particularly within a school."
The letter was released the same day Parker held a news conference to defend
the use of a 50,000-volt stun gun on a 6-year-old boy in a school office, saying the child had cut himself twice
with a shard of glass and was threatening further harm to himself.
Parker acknowledge that it was
questionable when an officer used a Taser stun gun on a 12-year-old girl, who was fleeing officers because she was
drunk and apparently skipping school.
Police officials did not return a call Saturday seeking comment on
Crew's letter.
On Friday, Parker said officials were reviewing their policy on stun gun use but that
officers will be allowed to continue using them until the review is complete.
The 6-year-old boy who was
stunned on Oct. 20 was treated and then hospitalized for psychiatric observation for five days. A lawyer retained by
his mother has not yet decided whether to file suit.
The girl was checked by a doctor after she was zapped
Nov. 5. The officer in that case voluntarily gave up his Taser, police spokesman Pete Andreu
said.
11/20/04 15:15 EST
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
When all else fails... attack mistypes. Scraping the bottom of the barrel are we. You have never thought way
ahead of your typing???
And no I wasnt sterotyping... I was saying you have never been presented with these
situations... so therefor, you dont know what they were going through.
Adams
PS... I will read every post
you throw up VERY carefully, to try and pick up tips inside them, so when I come back to the civilization I have
sworn to protect... they will show me the same respect of a person like you. "High Caliber"
I think this has gone far
enough off track. Let's drop the personal attacks so I don't have to close the thread.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
If the cop can touch the kid
with a device 3 inches from his hand, the cop can CERTAINLY reach out and SMACK the kid. No, I meant grab the hand
the glass was in. How hard is it for any number of adults to bum rush a tiny kid. Glass or no glass.
Any human
extremly hurting himself, especialy at such a young age, is mentaly unstable. No degree of good or bad parenting can
"fix" a chemical imbalence in the human brain/body.
"The whole world must learn of our peaceful ways, by force!"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks