Police pepper spray 8 year old

[SenseOfTumour]

Gawd, ok, back again, to cover the other ignored point, teachers go thru years of training, generally because they know in their hearts they want to help kids, and teach them about stuff.

They also know that nowadays if they so much as grab a child's arm wrongly, they can be suspected of child abuse, and even a dropped accusation can taint your career for life.

So fuck deal with rowdy kids, call a fucking SWAT team to drop him, I'm not throwing my job away to deal with some crazy little bastard who didn't get told 'NO' enough by his parents.

If wanting to keep your job and not get labelled a child abuser is cowardice, then yes, teachers are all yellow bellied scaredy cats.

It's all changed a lot since I was at school (only about 20 years ago) when it was fairly common to get a cuff around the back of the head, or a ruler across your knuckles, or if you were out of melee range, a simple pen or board eraser launched from the front of the classroom. OF course all the above very rarely happened, but the mere possibility meant a sharp 'RIGHT! settle down...' was enough to restore order in most cases.

I'm bloody sick of this concept that even touching a child's arm is somehow enough to claim child abuse, too. I don't care how sexy you think your son is, the VAST, VAST majority of people have no interest in molesting him, and society needs to realise there's far fewer kiddy fiddlers around that the tabloids like to make out.

 

[heaventorn]

A good slap in the face is what Sir Sean Connery would have given him and that's what I would have done.

 

[TyrunnAlberyn]

First off, judging from the video, I'd say the police was entirely justified to use pepper spray.

Secondly, however, the chip on my shoulder tells me to further chime in that the kid seems to have some serious issues if his anger tantrums are such a regularity and so severe. Furthermore, it seems to me that the mother is not really a good role model, given that she is providing her kid the bad example of: "When you don't agree with something, just cry on the internet/tv", which in my eyes leads to a sense of overentitlement.

 

[Sarah Frazier]

"The police should have talked him down as they had before..." and the mother said later that police were called in twice before to deal with his outbursts? A general school may not be enough for him if a simple change in structure levels sends him off the deep end to where police have to be called.

And bullshit on therapists and doctors saying there's nothing wrong. Even the kid says he knows he has anger issues which may cause career problems in the future. They should be at least trying for sedatives or some form of mood stabilizers which were all the rage not too long ago. Anything that would at least make him slower to anger so the teachers don't have to hide in another room.


Either way, the police would be seen as the enemy. Take all that time to talk to a kid with a stick? The police were weak and should have actually done something. Bum rush him and tackle him to the ground? Police brutality that could have broken bones. Pepper spray? That's considered chemical warfare against a child. Any action would be the wrong one as far as the news networks really care. They did the right thing in using non-lethal force while staying out of swinging distance.

 

[SNIPERFOX ft. Harry P.Ness]

Why not just pressure point him?

 

[ace_of_something]

It's fricken pepper spray. I've been pepper sprayed about a dozen times (have to each year).
He's going to be fine. Maybe he'll learn not to act foolish and that when you threaten to kill someone people are not going to wait and find out if you're being serious.

Also, turning it back on people? WHAT is a BETTER option?

edit: personally though i'd rather be tased then pepper sprayed. Because once the tasing stops the pain is over. Though the likelyhood of serious injury is quite a bit higher for tasing... especially in an 8 year old.

Why not just pressure point him?

Speaking as a cop. That's actually a LOT more likely to hurt him than pepper spray. For a host of reasons.
1) Pressure points are not east to give against a target using active resistance or even worse active aggression.
2) In this situation the points being used would either be on his mandibular area or inner forearm. It's easy, especially with a smaller body like his, to cause some serious bruises and even breaks in a struggle.
3) Though it sounds silly officers are told not to close the 'reactionary gap' to an armed opponent and a stick is being armed. It increases the likelyhood of officer injury pretty dramatically. Imagine if he whacked someone in the eye, jaw, or fellas with that thing.
If an officer does 'close the gap' they are to do it with 'one level higher' in force. Which in this case would be either a baton or a gun.
Pretty sure that would be worse.

 

[bdcjacko]

Why not just pressure point him?

Going out on a limb and saying not all cops know pressure points.

 

[Dana22]

I'm wondering why these cops felt the 8 yr old child couldn't have been taken down by physical force alone?

Those are police procedures. Taking down by physical force may do more harm then good.

 

[ace_of_something]

wait, wait, wait...the teachers ran away and hid in a cupboard...from an 8-year old? If he wasn't armed with a knife or worse I don't see why the teachers couldn't handle it.

Also, I don't buy that the cops had no other option than to pepper spray him. They could have taked him down and only used the pepper spray if the kid charged them.

In pretty much every part of the 1st world teachers are not allowed to restrain a student, they're taught to take the other students and run.
Because people are litigious. Hell a lot of schools can't even give kids detention any more.

 

[Dense_Electric]

Seriously, let's look at the police's options here

Do nothing - The kid remains hazardous to himself and others.
Shoot him - Quite easily lethal.
Beat/tackle him - Still potentially lethal or permanently disfiguring.
Restrain him - The kid could still possibly injure himself or others while struggling.
Taze him - Apparently has lethal potential (however unlikely), probably not the best option.
Pepper-spray him - Non-injuring, non-lethal, short-term side effects.

I don't know about you, but I would have picked one of the last two options. But apparently there are a large number of people who would rather risk injury to the kid and others instead of just ending the situation right there.

 

[JET1971]

My opinion is, he got what was coming to him. he learned a lesson. threaten people with a weapon and expect the consequences for it to be vary harsh. If they didnt take action such as a face full of pain and instead talk him down and send him home with mommie then maybe next time he uses a knife, then the time after that a gun. as It is now I bet he wont pull that stunt again.

 

[Razhem]

Why not just pressure point him?

Going out on a limb and saying not all cops know pressure points.

I really also have to insist on cops not having as much (if any) training in subduing children. It might end bad, very for the kid with a bad move.

Seriously, let's look at the police's options here

Do nothing - The kid remains hazardous to himself and others.
Shoot him - Quite easily lethal.
Beat/tackle him - Still potentially lethal or permanently disfiguring.
Restrain him - The kid could still possibly injure himself or others while struggling.
Taze him - Non-injuring, non-lethal, short-term side effects.
Pepper-spray him - Non-injuring, non-lethal, short-term side effects.

I don't know about you, but I would have picked one of the last two options. But apparently there are a large number of people who would rather risk injury to the kid and others instead of just ending the situation right there.

Just making a point that a tazer is madness. The things have been known to kill people and have the problem that their effect is directly dependant on their current voltage setting, too high and you fry somebody, too low and you barely daze him and calibrating that on the fly against a hostile 8 year old might end with lethal consequences. Spray was the best option, from what I've heard, fucker stings like hades, but doesn't do much else.

 

[Dense_Electric]

Just making a point that a tazer is madness. The things have been known to kill people and have the problem that their effect is directly dependant on their current voltage setting, too high and you fry somebody, too low and you barely daze him and calibrating that on the fly against a hostile 8 year old might end with lethal consequences. Spray was the best option, from what I've heard, fucker stings like hades, but doesn't do much else.

Fair enough honestly, I'm no expert on the things. I just included that so the list would be complete. But if what you're saying is true, that's one more reason to use the spray.

Really, it comes down to this - do the police do something that *might* resolve the situation non-violently (restraining him), or do they do something that *will* resolve the situation non-violently (pepper spray)?

 

[spartan231490]

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42449949/ns/today-today_people/

What do you guys think? Was this justified or totally not needed?

FUCK NO!!! HE'S EIGHT! You grab him and hold him down, you don't hit him with pepper spray. Why not use a taser or rubber bullets? Jesus, is it that hard to restrain an eight year old. I've held down kids a lot older than eight who tried to hit me with a stick. It's not even fucking hard. these officers should be jailed, after being pepper sprayed themselves. I mean, they did it to the poor kid twice. Once I could maybe except as just bad decision making and stupidity, but twice is either negligence or cruelty and absolutely unacceptable.

Wait, pepper spray hurts but tasers don't? So do people just lie about tasers then?

Completely justified IMO. Teachers can't so much touch students without a law suit any more, and I doubt there was a safer way for the police to subdue him. (Yeah, a 200 pound cop pinning down an 80 pound kid sounds really safe)

I don't understand why when little shits like this act out everyone rushes to their defense. When I was 8 I knew right from wrong. I could never have dreamed of doing something like he did.

I was being sarcastic about the tasers or rubber bullets part.

 

[spartan231490]

FUCK NO!!! HE'S EIGHT! You grab him and hold him down, you don't hit him with pepper spray. Why not use a taser or rubber bullets? Jesus, is it that hard to restrain an eight year old. I've held down kids a lot older than eight who tried to hit me with a stick. It's not even fucking hard. these officers should be jailed, after being pepper sprayed themselves. I mean, they did it to the poor kid twice. Once I could maybe except as just bad decision making and stupidity, but twice is either negligence or cruelty and absolutely unacceptable.

Wait, what? I'm pretty sure that both tasers AND rubber bullets would hurt a LOT more then pepper spray.

I mean really.....What?

I was being sarcastic about the tasers and rubber bullets.

 

[Sanglyon]

I believe that every proponent of pepper spray as "an harmless way to restrain an 8 year old" should be pepper-sprayed himself to experience what it feels like, because from experience, people like that have no clue of what real pain is. And if they keep on saying it's still "harmless", give them psychiatric counseling. Because anyone thinking it's ok to use this kind of treatment on a kid half their size "because he has a stick and was threatening to kill" has serious moral and mental issue. What would they do if a 5 years old throw a ball through their window? Set a rotweiller on him?

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

FUCK NO!!! HE'S EIGHT! You grab him and hold him down, you don't hit him with pepper spray. Why not use a taser or rubber bullets? Jesus, is it that hard to restrain an eight year old. I've held down kids a lot older than eight who tried to hit me with a stick. It's not even fucking hard. these officers should be jailed, after being pepper sprayed themselves. I mean, they did it to the poor kid twice. Once I could maybe except as just bad decision making and stupidity, but twice is either negligence or cruelty and absolutely unacceptable.

Wait, what? I'm pretty sure that both tasers AND rubber bullets would hurt a LOT more then pepper spray.

I mean really.....What?

I was being sarcastic about the tasers and rubber bullets.

Ah, right. Makes sense, then. Sorry about the confusion. This being the internet and all.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

Shouldnt a police officer be able to disarm someone anyway, let alone an 8 year old? Anyway, the little brat deserved it.

 

[Gitty101]

I'm with the police on this one. Despite his age, he was still violent to the extent that people feared for their safety. He looks like he's suffered no abnormal effects so there should be no problem with this.

His Mother on the other hand...

FEAR an 8 year old kid ? I'm not some kind of masculinity-worshipper, but Good God! Have some testosterone to put your foot down. Christ.

Hey - I was just going by what the article said. The Teachers locked themselves in a seperate room, hence they feared for their safety.

Though I agree, an 8 year old kid shouldn't have been a problem for Teachers who had recieved training to deal with this sort of thing.

 

[EonEire]

Again (this will be my second time) I won't jump in making assumptions about the American Law System, but are the police actually allowed touch the kid? As in physical contact with no parents present? Or was the pepper spray the only way to actually "deal" with the situation.