Handcuffing, patting down: is either appropriate for a five-year-old?
Dec 16, 2004, 10:34 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,017
Handcuffing, patting down: is either appropriate for a five-year-old?
I saw this story on CNN and got to wondering.
From the story, in which a principal was suspended for asking police to handcuff a 5 year old student:
The boy's mother, Aroni Rucker, said Wednesday her son had trouble adjusting to his first year of school and may have been disruptive, but he did nothing to warrant such treatment.
"They put handcuffs on my baby," Rucker said. "That's for adults who murder and kill. He's 5. He's in kindergarten."
St. Louis police spokesman Richard Wilkes said the department was looking into the incident. "Handcuffing 5-year-olds is not a practice of the department," he said.
University spokesman Bob Samples, part of the sponsorship team, said only that "it's inappropriate to handcuff a 5-year-old."
--------------------
Okay, so why is it that everyone agrees handcuffing a child is terribly inappropriate, but patting down a 5-year-old like he's a drug dealer getting booked is just hunky-dory? Aren't both experiences similarly upsetting both to the child and to us as adults watching the process? As I see it, the main problem with handcuffing a young young child is that it paints the child as a criminal when he's at an impressionable age. Patting down a child in perfect imitation of what he'd see happening to criminals on a TV show like COPS would seem to do the same thing.
Or am I missing something here? There's no claim that handcuffing a child is damaging in any way other than psychologically, right?
From the story, in which a principal was suspended for asking police to handcuff a 5 year old student:
The boy's mother, Aroni Rucker, said Wednesday her son had trouble adjusting to his first year of school and may have been disruptive, but he did nothing to warrant such treatment.
"They put handcuffs on my baby," Rucker said. "That's for adults who murder and kill. He's 5. He's in kindergarten."
St. Louis police spokesman Richard Wilkes said the department was looking into the incident. "Handcuffing 5-year-olds is not a practice of the department," he said.
University spokesman Bob Samples, part of the sponsorship team, said only that "it's inappropriate to handcuff a 5-year-old."
--------------------
Okay, so why is it that everyone agrees handcuffing a child is terribly inappropriate, but patting down a 5-year-old like he's a drug dealer getting booked is just hunky-dory? Aren't both experiences similarly upsetting both to the child and to us as adults watching the process? As I see it, the main problem with handcuffing a young young child is that it paints the child as a criminal when he's at an impressionable age. Patting down a child in perfect imitation of what he'd see happening to criminals on a TV show like COPS would seem to do the same thing.
Or am I missing something here? There's no claim that handcuffing a child is damaging in any way other than psychologically, right?
Dec 16, 2004, 10:55 pm
#2
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
answer
Okay, so why is it that everyone agrees handcuffing a child is terribly inappropriate, but patting down a 5-year-old like he's a drug dealer getting booked is just hunky-dory? Aren't both experiences similarly upsetting both to the child and to us as adults watching the process? As I see it, the main problem with handcuffing a young young child is that it paints the child as a criminal when he's at an impressionable age. Patting down a child in perfect imitation of what he'd see happening to criminals on a TV show like COPS would seem to do the same thing.
Or am I missing something here? There's no claim that handcuffing a child is damaging in any way other than psychologically, right?
Or am I missing something here? There's no claim that handcuffing a child is damaging in any way other than psychologically, right?
Dec 17, 2004, 4:24 am
#3
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Arlington VA
Posts: 5,735
Originally Posted by eyecue
ITs is believed that a terrorist would sacrifice a child to accomplish their goal. They would hide something on a child to attempt to avoid its detection. Hence children and babies get patted.
Patting them as a matter of course to maintain some BS political correctness garbage or becasue a broken computer system selected them to meet a quota is PATHATIC (and not what our founding fathers faught for).
Dec 17, 2004, 8:30 am
#4
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
ummm
Originally Posted by AArlington
And possibly should ONLY IF THEY ALARM THE WTMD.
Patting them as a matter of course to maintain some BS political correctness garbage or becasue a broken computer system selected them to meet a quota is PATHATIC (and not what our founding fathers faught for).
Patting them as a matter of course to maintain some BS political correctness garbage or becasue a broken computer system selected them to meet a quota is PATHATIC (and not what our founding fathers faught for).
Dec 17, 2004, 8:43 am
#5
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bklyn, NY. ex-UA 1P, ex-US pref, ex-CO plat, ex-DL sil, ex-HH dmnd. Presently Free Agent
Posts: 391
Originally Posted by eyecue
ITs is believed that a terrorist would sacrifice a child to accomplish their goal. They would hide something on a child to attempt to avoid its detection. Hence children and babies get patted.
That much said IF ANYONE IS GOING TO PAT DOWN MY KIDS I WILL NOT PREVENT THEM BUT WILL HAVE A COP CALLED OVER TO BE A WITNESS.
Dec 17, 2004, 8:58 am
#6
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,017
Originally Posted by laguardiaguy
That much said IF ANYONE IS GOING TO PAT DOWN MY KIDS I WILL NOT PREVENT THEM BUT WILL HAVE A COP CALLED OVER TO BE A WITNESS.
I'm just trying to figure out why handcuffing a kid is so objectionable. If we're allowed to pat kids down, I really don't see why we would say handcuffs are so much different. Both are treating the kid like he's a violent criminal. Both could seriously disturb a kid's psyche, leaving him wondering what he did that was so wrong.
If you're answering about terrorists and their tactics, you have completely missed the point of the question. I am not asking whether someone might plant something dangerous on a kid. I"m asking what is so different between handcuffing and patdowns that one is allowed and the other gets a principal ejected from his job for applying it to a kid. Your answer must be of the form:
handcuffing is more damaging to a kid than patdowns because...
OR
handcuffing a 5-year-old is okay because ....
Dec 17, 2004, 9:46 am
#8
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Arlington VA
Posts: 5,735
Originally Posted by eyecue
Im sure you have heard that we look for more than metal.
Dec 17, 2004, 9:51 am
#9
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 55,189
Kids are being used by terrorists. What can you do? Get a private screening just as I would do if I were travelling and they wanted to pat me down. I would derive any comfort from some police officer watching the screening. If it still bothers a parent, then take the train or drive.
I'm flying a heck of a lot less because of these patdowns. It's just not worth it to me. If it bothers others as much, then do the same.
I'm flying a heck of a lot less because of these patdowns. It's just not worth it to me. If it bothers others as much, then do the same.
Dec 17, 2004, 10:02 am
#10
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Arlington VA
Posts: 5,735
Well, if you look at the T-S-A system objectively it is rather easy to determine that TSA exists to protect the people on the ground, not those in the air.
TSA tries to detect threats that can turn the plane into a missle. They do little to prevent turning the plane into an in-air bomb. If somebody wants to kill passengers, they can. But they will have a harder time killing thousands on the ground (with the fortified cockpit doors, the pilots could hopefully either land first or worse case crash the plane in a desereted area).
Once people realize that, then they will realize the absuridty of screening little kids with patdowns. Ineffective until every piece of cargo is screened for explosives.
TSA tries to detect threats that can turn the plane into a missle. They do little to prevent turning the plane into an in-air bomb. If somebody wants to kill passengers, they can. But they will have a harder time killing thousands on the ground (with the fortified cockpit doors, the pilots could hopefully either land first or worse case crash the plane in a desereted area).
Once people realize that, then they will realize the absuridty of screening little kids with patdowns. Ineffective until every piece of cargo is screened for explosives.
Dec 17, 2004, 10:02 am
#11
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
Originally Posted by Analise
Kids are being used by terrorists.
The truth of the matter is that we haven't seen a real terrorist in the United States in a couple of years -- and the few that we have seen (like the nutcase who shot up LAX) didn't use children to do their dirty work.
As I have said countless times, this haystack simply has no needles. You can search for terrorists at airports until the cows come home, but you will never find any -- because they aren't there!
Bruce
Dec 17, 2004, 10:14 am
#13
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
More direct
Originally Posted by GradGirl
I saw this story on CNN and got to wondering.
From the story, in which a principal was suspended for asking police to handcuff a 5 year old student:
The boy's mother, Aroni Rucker, said Wednesday her son had trouble adjusting to his first year of school and may have been disruptive, but he did nothing to warrant such treatment.
"They put handcuffs on my baby," Rucker said. "That's for adults who murder and kill. He's 5. He's in kindergarten."
St. Louis police spokesman Richard Wilkes said the department was looking into the incident. "Handcuffing 5-year-olds is not a practice of the department," he said.
University spokesman Bob Samples, part of the sponsorship team, said only that "it's inappropriate to handcuff a 5-year-old."
--------------------
Okay, so why is it that everyone agrees handcuffing a child is terribly inappropriate, but patting down a 5-year-old like he's a drug dealer getting booked is just hunky-dory? Aren't both experiences similarly upsetting both to the child and to us as adults watching the process? As I see it, the main problem with handcuffing a young young child is that it paints the child as a criminal when he's at an impressionable age. Patting down a child in perfect imitation of what he'd see happening to criminals on a TV show like COPS would seem to do the same thing.
Or am I missing something here? There's no claim that handcuffing a child is damaging in any way other than psychologically, right?
From the story, in which a principal was suspended for asking police to handcuff a 5 year old student:
The boy's mother, Aroni Rucker, said Wednesday her son had trouble adjusting to his first year of school and may have been disruptive, but he did nothing to warrant such treatment.
"They put handcuffs on my baby," Rucker said. "That's for adults who murder and kill. He's 5. He's in kindergarten."
St. Louis police spokesman Richard Wilkes said the department was looking into the incident. "Handcuffing 5-year-olds is not a practice of the department," he said.
University spokesman Bob Samples, part of the sponsorship team, said only that "it's inappropriate to handcuff a 5-year-old."
--------------------
Okay, so why is it that everyone agrees handcuffing a child is terribly inappropriate, but patting down a 5-year-old like he's a drug dealer getting booked is just hunky-dory? Aren't both experiences similarly upsetting both to the child and to us as adults watching the process? As I see it, the main problem with handcuffing a young young child is that it paints the child as a criminal when he's at an impressionable age. Patting down a child in perfect imitation of what he'd see happening to criminals on a TV show like COPS would seem to do the same thing.
Or am I missing something here? There's no claim that handcuffing a child is damaging in any way other than psychologically, right?
Dec 17, 2004, 10:15 am
#14
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NH
Posts: 5,720
The world has gone nuts in my opinion. Absolutely nuts. There should be no "rational" style discussion on this issue. Every adult should be rising up in horror and anger over the whole issue. 5 year olds are babies. They're impulsive, sometimes disruptive, lacking in reason, charming, delightful, prompted by emotion, deserving of love and affection.
They are not even close to being children, let alone young adults... and eventually adults. They can barely even understand the consequences of not eating all their dinner.
As I said, this is absolutely insane. The adults should be arrested. At least they can reason.
Rita
They are not even close to being children, let alone young adults... and eventually adults. They can barely even understand the consequences of not eating all their dinner.
As I said, this is absolutely insane. The adults should be arrested. At least they can reason.
Rita
Last edited by rkt10; Dec 17, 2004 at 10:17 am
Dec 17, 2004, 10:21 am
#15
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Arlington VA
Posts: 5,735
Originally Posted by eyecue
Then at what age do you say that a person becomes a threat to a LEO? Someone that is in custody of a LEO can, without warning, decide to use any force or means available to them to escape. When I was a police officer, the SOP left it up to the officers descretion as to when to handcuff a juvenile. However there are instances when a juvenile has assaulted an officer to get away. This story is kinda of a "scared straight" thing. The principal influenced the LEO to try a tactic on the child and it backfired on him.