Poll: Security Guards V.S. 12-year old punk
- Thread starter Shycte
- Start date
Actually no. Fuck the government, fuck the police, and fuck organization. I am a vehement anarcho-libertarian. If I had my way, there wouldn't be a government.Schoengeist said:
That said, I'm also a huge proponent of personal responsibility. The kid made a choice to act like a twat, knowing the potential fallout. He should face the consequences of it.
Honestly, in a perfect world that kid would have gotten himself killed by a train and no one would have batted an eye, but we don't live in such a place.
You present a valid point, and I thank you for that (I also respect your intention to avoid having children), but you still did not answer my question. "Treat them like people" is vague and imprecise. How would you treat them like people, and how would this influence them? Cause and effect, action and consequence, how would you teach these concepts to someone with a child's understanding of the world; someone who is driven by id and impulse and will not believe the stove is hot until they put their hand on it?Tubez said:
Would the bleeding hearts rather that the little shit got killed by a train?
Or got someone else killed?
Or many other people killed?
Would you be saying it's not his fault that people died because he caused something to happen, or would you be saying he should have known better?
Or got someone else killed?
Or many other people killed?
Would you be saying it's not his fault that people died because he caused something to happen, or would you be saying he should have known better?
Guards probably took the batons out in order to keep anyone who decided to take a slightly more violent whack at them at bay. Not way out of line. Notice he just leaned on it, all it says is "I'm restraining your friend for a reason. You were yelling at me before, don't make this escalate". He made no threatening movements.Xaryn Mar said:
Funfact #1: It takes between 6 - 16 pounds of sudden pressure to break someone's knee (google it). The way the kid was moving, he was gonna put a whole lot more than that on it. If anyone has me in that kind of the hold and I want to get out, I'd do the same thing. Kid was harassing him, may not have hurt yet, but the security guard had a bunch of people yelling and threatening them on one side, and someone to keep under control on the other. He has the right to restrain the kid in the most efficient and effective manner possible.
Oh, and guards EVERYWHERE have the right to use the FORCE NECESSARY TO RESTRAIN. Based off the kid dangling his feet, he wasn't about to let the guard gently guide him to the ground.
Why are so many people acting like the guard slammed him one in the gut
Honestly? Im not completely sure on how to deal with kids. But I guess I would try to act like my parents, which gave me respect and trusted me and the worst part when I did something wrong wasnt that they would be angry its more the feeling of seeing them being disappointed.Thistlehart said:
Also, I don't see where they search his bag. I see them putting his hat in the bag, but not a search..
Ah no, it'd be rude of me to expect you to do that. And to answer your "So?"(Which I find to be very confusing considering you asked me a question and I answered):Tubez said:
So because I and lots of other people in this thread are from countries where spanking is considered a legitimate punishment, we can't help but see it as just that.
Wait...wasn't this about a security guard and a kid. I think I'm starting to go off-topic.
My bad.
I'm getting pretty bored of this culture of 'complain and get favour'. The reason why this kid is as much of a terror here is because of the storm that gets kicked up in response.
All children will see from this is that acting up is fine, and the punishment for them doing so is what gets lauded.
The media concern themselves with supposed bad influences in games and film, obviously fictitious entities; this is the real bad influence here.
Who cares though right? As long as those valued ratings are gathered. We need the value of consequence to be instilled back into the raising of our children.
All children will see from this is that acting up is fine, and the punishment for them doing so is what gets lauded.
The media concern themselves with supposed bad influences in games and film, obviously fictitious entities; this is the real bad influence here.
Who cares though right? As long as those valued ratings are gathered. We need the value of consequence to be instilled back into the raising of our children.
The job of a security guard is to 1) Protect the client, personnel and property, and 2) Protect the guests of the facility. This is what the guards were doing, using the least amount of force possible, given the situation. In the story that's been linked to, http://www.thelocal.se/36574/20111006/ , the kid clearly admits to behaving irresponsibly with the trains, and repeating the action after being confronted by the guards. For all the people crying, "they're just being stupid, if they hurt themselves, so what?", imagine if that did happen. The mother would, instead, be outraged that the security guards didn't do anything, and the train station would likely be hit with a huge lawsuit. They protected the client and the people. Doing their job.
When they detained the kid, again, after he had repeated what they told him not to do, he and his friends try to escalate the situation by getting in their face, hurling insults and murder threats. The guards keep the situation calm and do not escalate anything until the detained kid starts kicking at the guard's knee, which is when he was put on the ground, using minimal force. One of the other members of the kid's group rushes toward the guard, which is when the baton comes out, causing him to back off. No further action is taken until backup arrives.
These guards did exactly what they should have done; they protected the client, the people and themselves using as little force as was required. They showed great restraint and did not abuse their position. Kudos to them on a job well done.
When they detained the kid, again, after he had repeated what they told him not to do, he and his friends try to escalate the situation by getting in their face, hurling insults and murder threats. The guards keep the situation calm and do not escalate anything until the detained kid starts kicking at the guard's knee, which is when he was put on the ground, using minimal force. One of the other members of the kid's group rushes toward the guard, which is when the baton comes out, causing him to back off. No further action is taken until backup arrives.
These guards did exactly what they should have done; they protected the client, the people and themselves using as little force as was required. They showed great restraint and did not abuse their position. Kudos to them on a job well done.
Now that's a good answer, thank you. I agree 100%.Tubez said:
Please understand that I don't advocate physical discipline as the sole method of teaching. That would be incorrect in the extreme, but depending on the circumstances and the child it is sometimes necessary to deliver a short, sharp shock. It immediately instills a sense of action-consequence that can be expanded upon later.
Spanking a child is not the same as beating them. A child getting a swat when they're being naughty is the equivalent of realizing that touching a hot stove is painful. It's one thing to put a dab of soap on your finger and wipe it on a child's tongue for swearing, it's another thing entirely to hold them down and pour the bottle in their mouth. Later, you only have to reach for the soap for the child to realize what they just did wrong and apologize.
I find this whole discussing quite disturbing, and I'm honestly wondering what video the people supporting the guard in this thread watched.
Now, I want to speak my mind, but I don't want to get drawn into the name calling I see in a lot of these posts, so I'll just tell you what I saw:
For the first two minutes, I see a very large guard holding a small child in an unnecessarily painful hold. I *can't* hold my elbow that high over my shoulder, and although a 12-year-old is going to be quite a bit more nimble, it probably still hurts. At first I assumed the kid had been shoplifting or something, and I thought it was out of line. Speculating about what may have made this called for, I thought the kid might have attacked the guard, or someone else. When I then read the kid was restrained not for something as minor as being reckless, as we all were at that age, I was amazed. The guard was bullying the kid. Hurting him for no reason, when a normal guard would have simply held on to the kid in a non-painful manner.
Meanwhile, his friends are running around being little shits, and the restrained kid is probably shouting nasty stuff too.
Then, at the 2-minute mark, there's something I clearly see very differently from most people in this thread. The kid is trying to climb out of a painful hold! Most people here claim he is kicking the guard, but it's far to slow to be kicking! And you can see the kid trying to get his arms out of the guards arm.
I could go on, but on whether the rest is appropriate hangs on your interpretation of the preceding, and this is getting too long.
I also wonder why he was just standing there, and, at the end, dragging the kid off. A security guard is only allowed to restrain people under very specific conditions, usually to wait for the police. Is that what they were doing?
The reason the fact that the kid is 12 is not so much relevant in and of itself, but because it results in this: The kid is tiny, and the guard is huge. A man that big should be able to restrain a kid that small without having to resort to violence.
But the most disturbing thing is the people saying this is good because the kid needs to "respect authority". I honestly don't know how to respond to that without pulling some form of a Godwin. In democracies we are governed by 'Rule of Law', and authority in no way keeps people from having to justify their actions. Security guards have no special privileges, and he's either be right or wrong regardless of uniform.
Oh, and in a vain attempt to prevent to black-and-whiting so prevalent in this thread: I'm not saying the kid and his friends aren't behaving like little shits. I'm not saying they shouldn't have had some proper degree of punishment. I'm saying that the guard initiated violence with the painful restraint, that I don't think the kid was kicking the guard, but trying to get out of the restraint. I think if the guard had held the kid in a normal manner from the start, there would have been no violence.
Now, I want to speak my mind, but I don't want to get drawn into the name calling I see in a lot of these posts, so I'll just tell you what I saw:
For the first two minutes, I see a very large guard holding a small child in an unnecessarily painful hold. I *can't* hold my elbow that high over my shoulder, and although a 12-year-old is going to be quite a bit more nimble, it probably still hurts. At first I assumed the kid had been shoplifting or something, and I thought it was out of line. Speculating about what may have made this called for, I thought the kid might have attacked the guard, or someone else. When I then read the kid was restrained not for something as minor as being reckless, as we all were at that age, I was amazed. The guard was bullying the kid. Hurting him for no reason, when a normal guard would have simply held on to the kid in a non-painful manner.
Meanwhile, his friends are running around being little shits, and the restrained kid is probably shouting nasty stuff too.
Then, at the 2-minute mark, there's something I clearly see very differently from most people in this thread. The kid is trying to climb out of a painful hold! Most people here claim he is kicking the guard, but it's far to slow to be kicking! And you can see the kid trying to get his arms out of the guards arm.
I could go on, but on whether the rest is appropriate hangs on your interpretation of the preceding, and this is getting too long.
I also wonder why he was just standing there, and, at the end, dragging the kid off. A security guard is only allowed to restrain people under very specific conditions, usually to wait for the police. Is that what they were doing?
The reason the fact that the kid is 12 is not so much relevant in and of itself, but because it results in this: The kid is tiny, and the guard is huge. A man that big should be able to restrain a kid that small without having to resort to violence.
But the most disturbing thing is the people saying this is good because the kid needs to "respect authority". I honestly don't know how to respond to that without pulling some form of a Godwin. In democracies we are governed by 'Rule of Law', and authority in no way keeps people from having to justify their actions. Security guards have no special privileges, and he's either be right or wrong regardless of uniform.
Oh, and in a vain attempt to prevent to black-and-whiting so prevalent in this thread: I'm not saying the kid and his friends aren't behaving like little shits. I'm not saying they shouldn't have had some proper degree of punishment. I'm saying that the guard initiated violence with the painful restraint, that I don't think the kid was kicking the guard, but trying to get out of the restraint. I think if the guard had held the kid in a normal manner from the start, there would have been no violence.
I see a bunch of people going "Oh, hes 12, what the fuck?" Or stuff like that, really people, what? 12 year olds know what right and wrong are, and from what i understand, Darwinism should have taken effect when these morons where riding trains in between the junctions. You go to any country, and you see some kids doing something completely retarded, like train dodging or playing frogger in real life, the cops are going to stop them, but in this case, a guard stopped them, and i support this man for doing his job. and from what else i understand, the other kids where yelling just vile things at him, hell, im surprised he did not do more.
Well guards are not allowed to make an arrest, only the police are Guards may detain them without using weapons, cuffs or violence and may defend themselves aganst attacks with an EQUAL force. That means no batons unless the kid used a weapon.One Hit Noob said:
The right place to be is actually somewhere in the middle. A totalitarian system would beat that kid down every bit as much as an anarchic one (hell he propbably would have suffered a whole lot more on either extreme), the only thing that changes is who is doing the beatings, government goons, privately hired goons or just pissed off guys on the street. Thats why we have a serious discussion on the matter and get other authorities to look into it.CannibalRobots said:
OT: I feel we take a too lenient leaning on kids a lot of the time these days. Theres a middle ground that needs to be reached though, too lenient breeds mouthbreathing little snots that feel they're allowed to do anything. Too much discipline and you stiffle their ability to learn. Although honestly most of that work needs to be done by their parents rather than the system. If the kid is a shithead its his parents fault not society's.