Police pepper spray 8 year old
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Now I know they beat you down, A Pacifist will not fight even defensively, so if you are a true pacifist you did nothing and they left after you started crying I'd guess, and judging by how all you can do is insult me for even DARING to question you, you didn't talk them down r find a peaceful solution to the conflict like a true pacifist does, you had to have swung at them. so yeah you either got beat up or you kicked their ass, otherwise that wasn't much of a group attack. so yeah I'm gonna assume (again better teaching.) that your in the "Making shit up" arguement too.Kinguendo said:
This is one of the few cases of force that, though they may seem extreme phrased a certain way, I actually support the police knowing the details. Pepper spray is not permanently damaging, and the kid had to be subdued.
Oddly enough, this seems rather justified to me.
He tried to kill people. I don't care if he is a kid, he still should be subdued.
He tried to kill people. I don't care if he is a kid, he still should be subdued.
Guys, we're not saying every toddler can take on 2 armed policemen and walk away victorious with a trophy ear between his teeth...
We're trying to explain that if things did go wrong, and bad luck happens, then a small kid who's in a rage, and strong enough to tear things off a wall, could POTENTIALLY do damage, and police have to deal with potential threats and make them not a threat any more.
Personally if they could make some kind of raygun that instantly caused extreme, agonizing toothache in every tooth, but did no actual damage, I'd be fine with them using it on anyone from 2 to 102, IF there was a risk of permanent injury to innocents.
Pain is temporary, injuries can be permanent. IF you have to explain to the kid why his eyes hurt, you say that the policeman had to protect the other people because he wouldn't listen, and so had to make him hurt for a little bit. Then to remember next time that if he stops, it won't happen again.
Of course the police should be responsible when using pepper spray, tasers, etc, but if there's potential threat, take em down without injury.
The idea that we should use kid gloves and protect the children, only works if we have children that are not wild, angry, and violent. Not all children are perfect little darlings, and I wouldn't advocate going into a library and randomly spraying quiet, well behaved kids.
He was acting like a violent, criminal midget, however, so he had to be treated like one, and they cared enough about his welfare not to use anything that could injure him. Again, pain is temporary.
We're trying to explain that if things did go wrong, and bad luck happens, then a small kid who's in a rage, and strong enough to tear things off a wall, could POTENTIALLY do damage, and police have to deal with potential threats and make them not a threat any more.
Personally if they could make some kind of raygun that instantly caused extreme, agonizing toothache in every tooth, but did no actual damage, I'd be fine with them using it on anyone from 2 to 102, IF there was a risk of permanent injury to innocents.
Pain is temporary, injuries can be permanent. IF you have to explain to the kid why his eyes hurt, you say that the policeman had to protect the other people because he wouldn't listen, and so had to make him hurt for a little bit. Then to remember next time that if he stops, it won't happen again.
Of course the police should be responsible when using pepper spray, tasers, etc, but if there's potential threat, take em down without injury.
The idea that we should use kid gloves and protect the children, only works if we have children that are not wild, angry, and violent. Not all children are perfect little darlings, and I wouldn't advocate going into a library and randomly spraying quiet, well behaved kids.
He was acting like a violent, criminal midget, however, so he had to be treated like one, and they cared enough about his welfare not to use anything that could injure him. Again, pain is temporary.
It's pepper spray, come on. It's not like they beat him. Pepper spray takes you out for a minute and hurts like a *****, but once it's gone, it's gone no damage done.
and really? An 8year old saying: 'nu-uh, he hit me first' is almost immediately recognised as a lie, and when he wrecks the school and says that he doesn't know why it's fine? Come on, that mom should be ashamed.
and really? An 8year old saying: 'nu-uh, he hit me first' is almost immediately recognised as a lie, and when he wrecks the school and says that he doesn't know why it's fine? Come on, that mom should be ashamed.
No, I actually didnt insult you. I made a factual analysis of your arguing style, sometimes the truth hurts. However you ARE resorting to insults, claiming things are true that arent and stating that I was "beaten down" and I "cried".vikeif said:
My advise to you is stick to the facts instead of your baseless claims and insults, you are proving nothing other than your inability to argue and your rudeness.
What I don't get is how two teachers are afraid of a EIGHT year old, what 's the worst he could do, hit them with a stick using his eight year old muscles?
Yes you telling me I'm just making every thing is completely different when I said you making everything up.Kinguendo said:
WHat facts, I have to base of what you said and only thing you have said was "Their attack had no effect and they left" if you want me to use my facts, start giving them and stop telling me everything I say is made up bullshit and I will start taking you seriously.
I mean really, all you have done is tell me everything I say is wrong, your right, and that I just keep making everything up, since golden rule is a very nice rule, Why is all bloody hell should even give a shit about you or your opinion then?
I think it was bad on the school(a school specifically for children with behavioral problem) for not being able to handle him better.
Interestingly the kid admits he deserved it. The kid seems fine now. Hopefully he learns to control that anger. I fear what'll happen to him as an adult if he doesn't.
Interestingly the kid admits he deserved it. The kid seems fine now. Hopefully he learns to control that anger. I fear what'll happen to him as an adult if he doesn't.
The kid was in full blown meltdown mode. He was literally threatening the lives of two people, I don't care how old you are, you need to be stopped even if force is required. Pepper spray is the least painful of all the other non-lethal takedowns (rubber bullets, tazer, etc.). The kid will get over it.
By the way, from what I read in the article, mom is the biggest enabler I've ever seen.
By the way, from what I read in the article, mom is the biggest enabler I've ever seen.
Pretty sure the kid's psychotic. Not sure the mom in this case could do anything short of an exorcism.Zetion said:
If someone is using a weapon, and has stated that they intend to use it to kill someone, I'm pretty sure standard police procedure is to kill said person.
The kid got lucky because he was 8. I hope this taught him something, because if he keeps doing this eventually it is going to lead to him getting seriously hurt. You can't threaten someone's life and get mad if they react.
His mother needs to stop worrying about the fact that he was pepper sprayed and worry about why he was pepper sprayed. Fix the problem and it won't happen again.
The kid got lucky because he was 8. I hope this taught him something, because if he keeps doing this eventually it is going to lead to him getting seriously hurt. You can't threaten someone's life and get mad if they react.
His mother needs to stop worrying about the fact that he was pepper sprayed and worry about why he was pepper sprayed. Fix the problem and it won't happen again.
Pepper spray, the much better alternative to tasers, dogs, CQC and bullets. It's only temporary and generally doesn't have major lasting effects, so personally I think they were justified. That kid says that he put the stick down and did not want to hurt his teachers anymore, yet he says that he cannot control himself; therefore would it not be the best course of action to disable him from potentially causing further harm?