10-year-old is tasered by officer

[Rachmaninoff]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I can't even begin to cover how messed up this seems to me, an officer using a taser on a kid. It's not as complete as I'd like, but here's the article:

[URL="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34014497/"][U]10-year-old is tasered by officer in Arkansas[/U][/URL]

I did run into another case where an 11 year old was tasered and it mentioned that they tried to pass a law so that tasers can't be used on kids. However that was stalled since there is no research to show what it can do medically to them.

So what do you guys think? Should they be banned when it comes to minors? Or should they be allowed if the situation warrants it? [/FONT]

[chibi-master]

I think that any officer should have the physical capacity to take a child into custody without the use of a taser. However, if the case is extreme, ex. the kid has a gun, then I would be fine with it.

[Rachmaninoff]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I'd agree with that. Though I would hope they'd never run into a ten year old with a gun. o_O[/FONT]

[Sangome]

[FONT="Microsoft Sans Serif"][SIZE="1"]Sad thing is that you never know in this day and age. I hope that never happens either, but...yeah. Sad, really.

Anyway, yeah, I pretty much agree with what Chibi said. After reading the article, it seems like, in this instance, it was justified. Not that I'd taze every delinquent throwing a temper tantrum, but this kid seemed very violent and out of control, so.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Calibri]Given how bound officers are anyway when it comes to these situations, I'm not bothered by [I]this situation[/I], which is what I think we should discuss before going to the general case.

Also take note that (per the article) the officer was mindful of the duration of the stun.

If the kid had a gun (which is really kind of a o O situation to bring up), then the officer still wouldn't have been able to use the taser unless actually fired upon, as far as I am familiar.[/FONT]

[Rachmaninoff]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I did find something else with a little more info on it if you all want to read: [URL="http://www.4029tv.com/news/21638427/detail.html"][U]Article[/U][/URL][/FONT]

[pooperson]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][SIZE="1"]I think this whole situation is awful. How else would a little girl react if someone of authority told her, "You're going to jail"?

Also, I'm curious as to what she DID though. O_O[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Rachmaninoff]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Well apparently, she was throwing a fit since she didn't want to take a shower before going to bed. Though the source for that here: [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575494,00.html?test=latestnews"][U] article[/U][/URL] is fox news. >_>[/FONT]

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Calibri]Also consider that the mother called the police [I]and[/I] told the man who responded to use a taser simply because her child was throwing a fit.[/FONT]

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]I fully support the tas(er)ing of anyone who strikes a man in the groin, ten years old or not, if you do that the kid-gloves come off.

There's also the avoidance of a fully grown man potentially having to physically restrain a ten year old girl which could've lead to far worse injuries than a half second jolt of electricity. Seems the lesser of two evils in my opinion.[/SIZE]

[Korey]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"][COLOR="Navy"]I believe that the officer was perfectly justified in what he was doing when he tasered the girl. Like it mentions in the article, simply trying to restrain the girl physically could potentially harm her. Maybe even more so than a shock from a taser. Also, given the girl's unruly condition and her struggles against the officer, he had to administer the necessary amount of force to keep the subject from harming herself or others.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='Chibi Master']However, if the case is extreme, ex. the kid has a gun, then I would be fine with it.[/quote]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"][COLOR="navy"]From what I've seen and read about the rules of engagement for police officers, if there's a gun involved, there is no "kid-gloves" when it comes to dealing with a subject. They need to use the neccessary amount of force to keep the subject from harming themselves or others (the latter more than the former). I would think that if a 10 year old was using a gun, that the officer would respond with the neccessary amount of force, even if it meant disabling or possibly killing the child with his own firearm.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Skye]

[size=1][b]O.O[/b][/size]

[Boo]

[size=1]Taser guns should not be used (for any such purposes) anyway.[/size]

[Skye]

[size=1]Now that I'm over my "nyehhh???" response:

Why didn't the mom just pop the kid in the first place? I mean, if she was gonna call the cops on the little girl she coulda just settled forpersonal humiliation in the form of her hand + daughters backside.[/size]

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Calibri]Ahh, but, see, that'll get Child Services called on you nowadays, for abuse.

A parent who tells their kid "If you don't stop I'll call the police on you," probably didn't bother instilling a whole lot of good sense into their kid in the first place, and by now has almost no control over them.[/FONT]

[Gavin]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri]A parent who tells their kid "If you don't stop I'll call the police on you," probably didn't bother instilling a whole lot of good sense into their kid in the first place, and by now has almost no control over them.[/FONT][/quote]

[SIZE="1"]Agreed. I suppose now the threat of "I'm going to call the police" is going to have a hell of a lot more impact on one little girl from now on.[/SIZE]

[Sangome]

[FONT="Microsoft Sans Serif"][SIZE="1"]Now that we know more about it, I'm in agreement with Alla and Gavin...spare the rod, spoil the child, I suppose? I kinda feel bad for the kid now...[/SIZE][/FONT]

[Gavin]

[quote name='Sangome'][FONT=Microsoft Sans Serif][SIZE=1]Now that we know more about it, I'm in agreement with Alla and Gavin...spare the rod, spoil the child, I suppose? I kinda feel bad for the kid now...[/SIZE][/FONT][/quote]

[SIZE="1"]Well funnily enough I'm actually a big opponent of the "spare the rod" mentality of discipline. I believe that parents can indeed raise fine future members of society without resorting to spanking or other forms of physical discipline. In this case however it's clear that the girl's attitude required a more forceful approach, and I'm still of the opinion being tased is far less painful than being beaten.[/SIZE]

[Korey]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"][COLOR="Navy"]I also agree that using non-physical forms of punishment work just as well when disciplining children. It comes down to two things: Consistency and Firmness. If you are consistent in your punishment, then a child (hopefully) is less likely to do things. For instance, if you take away TV for a month every time for a punishment for behavior, then it's easy to discipline the child. It's amazing what happens when you take away electronics from children....

Firmness is always a biggie too. While it breaks your heart to discipline your kids, you have to stay firm to show that you won't give in to them. Children can see the weakness in you when you give in.

But I really shouldn't be talking about disciplining children, as I have none. :p[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Sangome]

[FONT="Microsoft Sans Serif"][SIZE="1"]Ahaaaaaaa I know several people would [I]love[/I] to disagree [as do I, since my mother did a home-based daycare for a few years, and I had to experience this stuff firsthand]. Putting a kid in time-out? Shouting NO at them? Taking a toy away? While it may work for some, for many, it does not. I'm not saying to never ground kids, but a spank on the bum isn't going to kill them, either. [I do think it should be saved as a last resort, though, and anything above the butt is leery. I [I]especially[/I] disapprove of smacking a kid in the face.]

I'm not gonna be arrogant, though, and say that physical discipline can't ever be abused -- it can, it has, and always will be, unfortunately. But so can grounding/taking things away [Grounding them from food or other essentialls for an extended period of time, for example].

I'm sure good members of society exist who have never been physically punished in their lives, but same goes for the other side. It all really depends on who is enforcing it.

Buuuuuuuuut that's where I'm gonna stop, as this is a very touchy subject and I would rather not veer off topic. :animesmil[/SIZE][/FONT]

[SigillumDiaboli]

I would say if it were an extreme situation, such as the kid had a gun, then yes, use the force that is necessary to get the situation in control.
But if it is a little issue, then no.

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Sangome;][FONT="Microsoft Sans Serif"][SIZE="1"]I do think it should be saved as a last resort, though, and anything above the butt is leery. I [I]especially[/I] disapprove of smacking a kid in the face.[/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote]
[FONT=Calibri]Right, the sticking point always comes down to this. Most opponents point to people who have no concept of moderation and good judgment in execution of this type of punishment, and so abuse it (and by proxy, possibly, the child) and render it useless and broken.

For instance, my father (whom I deeply respect) administered corporal punishment to me now and again, but it was highly infrequent, and I never remember receiving more than three whacks. (Not lashes, either. Whacks. They might have felt like lashes at the time, but six- and seven- an eight-year-old kids are slightly more sensitive to such things.) Most often it was the [I]mention[/I] of said punishment that got us in line, both because we knew it hurt [I]and[/I] we knew he'd do it.

But he rarely did it.

[quote name='Korey][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"][COLOR="Navy"]For instance, if you take away TV for a month every time for a punishment for behavior, then it's easy to discipline the child.[/COLOR][/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote]
Only if the child has developed some sort of attachment to the television. Or game systems, for that matter. My mother tried those sorts of things with me when I was in middle school and quickly gave it up because I didn't care. It's one fracking game system, I can do other things. Like read books. Or go outside.

I tend to disagree with "privilege removal" mostly on the basis that the things that are removed aren't seen as privileges and most often just make the kid angst.

[INDENT](See [COLOR=DarkRed]chibi-master[/COLOR]'s remarks about losing the computer. Though it was rather an unjustified reason to begin with as far as I'm concerned, it obviously did nothing to 'correct' the 'errant behavior', and so was completely ineffectual. I could say the same for a number of my friends in middle and high school who got their phones or games or cars taken away for some tommyrot or other and didn't learn anything.)[/INDENT]

The point mostly is that these privileges aren't actually removed. They're simply retracted momentarily, and no emphasis is put on getting it back because all that's required to get it back is a time limit.

Think: when you lose someone's trust, you have to earn it back. When you lose your phone, it comes back after a month. Does the second case inspire any form of behavior modification? Any at all?

If such tactics are to be effective, then, the time limit can't be pre-known. Knowing how long a thing is gone just turns the punishment into a waiting game; if instead the child has to earn back the privilege through their behavior or performance, then you can see first if it matters to them and second if they want to get it back badly enough to change.

[QUOTE=SigillumDiaboli]I would say if it were an extreme situation, such as the kid had a gun, then yes, use the force that is necessary to get the situation in control.
But if it is a little issue, then no.[/QUOTE]
The greater issue here (at least to me) is whether the police even needed to be involved in the first place. Way I figure it, the officer acted within his bounds, and his boundaries are really close.

But what kind of mother calls the police on her own daughter for throwing a tantrum over a shower?

You ask me, taking her to a youth shelter was a good move. Although telling her she was going to jail is a bit more debatable.[/FONT]

[Korey]

[quote name='Allamorph']Only if the child has developed some sort of attachment to the television. Or game systems, for that matter. My mother tried those sorts of things with me when I was in middle school and quickly gave it up because I didn't care. It's one fracking game system, I can do other things. Like read books. Or go outside.[/quote]

[COLOR="navy"][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]True, but I was using the TV as a general object to take away. What's the biggest source of entertainment for children? TV. Especially these days. [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

[quote]I tend to disagree with "privilege removal" mostly on the basis that the things that are removed aren't seen as privileges and most often just make the kid angst.

(See chibi-master's remarks about losing the computer. Though it was rather an unjustified reason to begin with as far as I'm concerned, it obviously did nothing to 'correct' the 'errant behavior', and so was completely ineffectual. I could say the same for a number of my friends in middle and high school who got their phones or games or cars taken away for some tommyrot or other and didn't learn anything.)

The point mostly is that these privileges aren't actually removed. They're simply retracted momentarily, and no emphasis is put on getting it back because all that's required to get it back is a time limit.[/quote]
[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"][COLOR="navy"]
I think that privelge removal, like any form of punishment (to include physical punishment) is a child by child thing and it's up to the parents to instill that sort of morality on their children. You can spank and spank and spank, but if the child doesn't learn anything or correct their behavior, then it just becomes a result of bad behavior that the child has become accustomed to.

"If I do this, then I know I'm gonna get a swat on the tush and that's it."[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote]Think: when you lose someone's trust, you have to earn it back. When you lose your phone, it comes back after a month. Does the second case inspire any form of behavior modification? Any at all?[/quote]

[COLOR="navy"][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Like I said, that's a case by case basis. I shouldn't have generalized and said that it's easy to discipline the child if you just take something away for a month. But I have another point that I think your next quote is better suited for.[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

[quote]If such tactics are to be effective, then, the time limit can't be pre-known. Knowing how long a thing is gone just turns the punishment into a waiting game; if instead the child has to earn back the privilege through their behavior or performance, then you can see first if it matters to them and second if they want to get it back badly enough to change.[/quote]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"][COLOR="Navy"]Using your line of logic (or what I think your logic was), you would say that earning something back inspires people to change their ways so that they can recieve privleges back. But the actual sincerity of changing errant behavior is really murky water. What if the child repeats the behavior? Do you take the privlege away [i]again[/i] and use the same method? If so, then what changes occured the first time?

I think having a pre-determined time of taking away the privlege works well because it's a consistent method of enforcing punishment. If the child were to keep repeating the same behavior, the same punishment would ensue. Now, and here's why my mother's forms of punishment come in, if the behavior is chronic you can increase the length of time the privelge is taken away. One week of being grounded turns into two weeks, a month, etc etc. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Korey][COLOR="navy"][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]What's [B]allowed to be[/B] the biggest source of entertainment for children? TV. [/SIZE][/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]
[FONT=Calibri]Fix'd.

Remember that the parent is the one who allows the child to use it in the first place. Television isn't inherently the biggest entertainment source, it just happens to be the easiest choice for a parent to make.

[quote name='Korey][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"][COLOR="navy"]I think that[/COLOR][/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote]
Please stop using that phrase, it makes you sound like you're afraid of being incorrect. There's nothing wrong with being incorrect at all.

[quote name='Korey][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"][COLOR="navy"]I think that privilege removal, like any form of punishment (to include physical punishment) is a child by child thing and it's up to the parents to instill that sort of morality on their children. You can spank and spank and spank, but if the child doesn't learn anything or correct their behavior, then it just becomes a result of bad behavior that the child has become accustomed to.[/COLOR][/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote]
Right. And that goes in both directions. Although I'd be more apt to say "instill discipline" than "instill morality", since the point of punishment is to correct behavior so that punishment is no longer necessary. Instilling morality is done by example, not done through duress.

Also why my father quit doing it after I was a certain age. The impressionable stage was gone. And I'm reminded of how full-grown elephants can be tethered to a post with a rope that they could easily break, and yet they don't simply because they couldn't break it when they were very young and are conditioned to believe the tether is unbreakable.

[quote name='Korey][COLOR="navy"][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]Like I said, that's a case by case basis.[/SIZE][/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]
I'm going to clarify and say "parent by parent" and not "child by child".


[quote name='Korey][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"][COLOR="Navy"]Using your line of logic (or what I think your logic was), you would say that earning something back inspires people to change their ways so that they can receive privileges back.[/COLOR][/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote]
Not quite. What it does do is place the onus on the child to impress the parent and convince them of their sincerity. So the parent can either choose to return the removed item when they are convinced, or (if they want to play on the psychology a bit) they can arbitrarily determine a length of time and simply not tell the child they have done so.

I can almost tell for certain you would then attempt to ask what would stop the kid from figuring the latter case out if the parent used the same time period each time. The answer would be, uh, don't.

[quote name='Korey][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"][COLOR="Navy"]But the actual sincerity of changing errant behavior is really murky water. What if the child repeats the behavior? Do you take the privilege away [i]again[/i] and use the same method? If so, then what changes occurred the first time?[/COLOR][/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote]
Name me one aspect of any interpersonal relationship in life that isn't murky water, bucko.

The same behavior will most likely occur again. Or are you under the impression that kids are all the time thinking out the long-term results of their actions? :p There's a lack of distinction in your query about "again" as in a simple repeat or "again" as in chronic behavior. Obviously if the behavior is repeated once then the same punishment can be used again, but if it is chronic then the punishment is ineffectual. I expected you to be able to distinguish that for yourself.

Also, the same question stands to you. And you realised it with your own argument following, which is good.

But by talking about chronic behavior at all we're both obfuscating the issue. The point is what is most effective to curtail behavior [I]before[/I] it becomes chronic, not after. After, you've done screwed up already.

[quote name='Korey][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"][COLOR="Navy"]I think having a predetermined time of taking away the privilege works well because it's a consistent method of enforcing punishment.[/COLOR][/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote]
So is the other. My main point against the removal thing, again, is that it's most often something that has little meaning and so is more an irritant than a punishment.

Then again, if your kid ends up actually distressed that they can't watch television any longer, I'm rather concerned.


Speaking of chronic, though, there are two Is in 'privilege', one on either side of the V. I edited, but check yourself. :p[/FONT]

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri] The point mostly is that these privileges aren't actually removed. They're simply retracted momentarily, and no emphasis is put on getting it back because all that's required to get it back is a time limit.

Think: when you lose someone's trust, you have to earn it back. When you lose your phone, it comes back after a month. Does the second case inspire any form of behavior modification? Any at all?

If such tactics are to be effective, then, the time limit can't be pre-known. Knowing how long a thing is gone just turns the punishment into a waiting game; if instead the child has to earn back the privilege through their behavior or performance, then you can see first if it matters to them and second if they want to get it back badly enough to change.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]I would say that this, even, does not [i]truly[/i] work. In elementary school, I had absolutely terrible behavioral problems; I was a hyper little **** and nothing could calm me down. Until the riddlen, that is.

I don't remember what the infraction was, but I got in so much trouble with my dad and stepmother that they took away [i]absolutely everything.[/i] Television (and by extension video games), toys, even my library card.

They then set up a system where I would get my passtimes back after chores and good behavior. Yes, I was a little angel then, but as soon as I had all my stuff back I reverted to being a little ****.

The rebuilding of trust may have inspired behavioral modification, but it didn't last beyond my short-sighted goals.[/color]