If somebody breaks my nose, I may have to take them down. This is probably a small school resource officer (who is female), and probably a large 11 year old girl. Combine that with the fact that the 11-year-old is enraged enough to be throwing desks and chairs...yeah, I 'd say it might be justified. Breaking noses is a good way to get your ass whipped. IMO. Seriously, though, nobody wants a crooked nose, nor do most people want to have to deal with getting plastic surgery to get it corrected.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
This 11 year old girl was between 160-170 lbs. That's as big as an adult. She pushed a kid into traffic and assaulted an officer (who tried to restrain the student prior to any tasing, with the help of a nearby teacher).
To answer the question you asked in the opening post: Yes, it is sometimes acceptable to taser an 11 year old girl. Obviously.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:The incident began when teachers at the Moss Elemenary School in Orange County confronted an 11-year-old girl for allegedly attempting to push another student into ongoing traffic outside the campus, MyFOXOrlando.com reported.
Yeah, I pretty much lost all sympathy for her there.
--j_k, who wonders what an Elemanary school is
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
If the reports are accurate, then yes, the tasing was justfied in this incident.
Tasing is certainly not pleasant, but in most cases is an effective, non-lethal way of subduing someone who is a danger to themselves or others. Most of the time, the person suffers no permanent injury and recovers quickly.
She attacked teachers and an officer - she allegedly had shoved a smaller child in traffic, so she was definitely demonstrating dangerous behavior. She had to be subdued, and what options are there? Wrestle her to the ground and forcibly restrain her while she fights back? Hit her with a nightstick? Both of those sound like they have a higher potentiality of injuring the student. Of those options, tasing seems to be the best.
Now, perhaps something different should have been done before it escalated to that point. If the child has special needs, perhaps the Special Education teacher who knows her best should have been called in to help talk to her. I'm sure we could second-guess all day long and think of a bunch of different ways it could have been handled before it got to this point. Regardless, the teachers and the officer there had a responsibility to subdue her before she could hurt herself or other people, and it sounds like they did what they had to in order to accomplish that.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Now, perhaps something different should have been done before it escalated to that point."
Somebody should cut down on that kid's sugar intake.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "Now, perhaps something different should have been done before it escalated to that point."
Somebody should cut down on that kid's sugar intake.
If memory serves, her mother says she has some sort of learning disability. In any case, it's safe to say she's not your typical 11 year old.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"In any case, it's safe to say she's not your typical 11 year old."
It makes me wonder why she's in with the regular school population. We had the learning disabled/BEH (Behaviorally and Emotionally Handicapped) classes always separated from everyone else. They were on a totally separate wing of the school. It worked. The only teachers/staff who encountered those kids knew them very well, and had been trained for these situations.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "In any case, it's safe to say she's not your typical 11 year old."
It makes me wonder why she's in with the regular school population. We had the learning disabled/BEH (Behaviorally and Emotionally Handicapped) classes always separated from everyone else. They were on a totally separate wing of the school. It worked. The only teachers/staff who encountered those kids knew them very well, and had been trained for these situations.
After reading the "Surrogate Parent" thread, I'd hate to usurp her mother's wishes and take her out of the general population. After all, mother knows best.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah, because that's exactly what people were saying in that thread. Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
From the thread:
However, when the child's physical safety isn't in question, and no abuse is occurring, very few and far between are the instances when a non-involved adult knows more about the well-being of a child than a parent.
I read that as "mother (parent) knows best". Maybe I'm missing some nuance.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
The nuance you're missing is "when the child's physical safety isn't in question." Clearly this 11 year old isn't safe if she's getting tasered.
Using a taser on a kid like that disturbs me. I'd much rather have requirements for safety officers to be physically large & strong and have training in safe physical restraint than put people into the job whose only option is to use a taser. If the kids are bigger than the officer, then the school needs a bigger officer.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You reduced a very long post, which has been followed up with several additional very long posts, to a single sentence.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Whatever her issue may be, assaulting school personnel and pushing a student into traffic (or attempting to) is where I lose most of my sympathy.
I lose the rest upon hearing she's 160-170 pounds. That's bigger than I am now, and I'm twice her age. If she's that physically imposing and she's clearly not going to submit to authority figures (violently resisting), then yeah I'd say it's fair to zap her a little bit.
What's the alternative? Abandon the classroom until a parent arrives? Have the deputy risk even more bodily harm (and possibly harming the child more as well) in a physical attempt to restrain her? It seems like every avenue of subduing the child (barring even more possibly damaging measures) was exhausted before resorting to the taser.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Using a taser on a kid like that disturbs me. I'd much rather have requirements for safety officers to be physically large & strong and have training in safe physical restraint than put people into the job whose only option is to use a taser. If the kids are bigger than the officer, then the school needs a bigger officer.
It just doesn't work like that. Until you've been trained in safe restraint and had to use it, I'm not sure if I could explain it beyond what I have in the last tasering-incident thread.
It wasn't their first option, and it never should be. Sometimes, though, it is the safest option.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Here's what I don't understand: why is it somehow more humane, or acceptable, or whatever, to physically wrestle someone to the ground than it is to tase them?
There are dangers to the latter option too, you know.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: The nuance you're missing is "when the child's physical safety isn't in question." Clearly this 11 year old isn't safe if she's getting tasered.
Without knowing more about this case, I hesitate to speculate too much about this girl's mental capacity. For the purposes of this post, I'm assuming she has a mental disability. In that case, any time she's in a public setting, especially without parental supervision, she runs the risk of doing something that will get her tasered. I guess that makes her a special case.
quote: Using a taser on a kid like that disturbs me. I'd much rather have requirements for safety officers to be physically large & strong and have training in safe physical restraint than put people into the job whose only option is to use a taser. If the kids are bigger than the officer, then the school needs a bigger officer.
Large, athletic types are limited in number. They'd probably serve the community better dealing with actual criminals. Having worked ('worked' here, includes counseling, medicating, wrestling, coaxing off of roofs, wrestling off of roofs, disarming, and so on...) in group homes for a while, I can say that safely restraining an enraged, irrational client in the 165-175lb range can be quite difficult for even a well-trained, athletic male at 6'1 185. Do it often enough, and someone is going to get hurt.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Using a taser on a kid like that disturbs me. I'd much rather have requirements for safety officers to be physically large & strong and have training in safe physical restraint than put people into the job whose only option is to use a taser. If the kids are bigger than the officer, then the school needs a bigger officer.
It just doesn't work like that. Until you've been trained in safe restraint and had to use it, I'm not sure if I could explain it beyond what I have in the last tasering-incident thread.
It wasn't their first option, and it never should be. Sometimes, though, it is the safest option.
Doesn't work like what?
You don't think if the security person had been bigger that she might have been able to avoid using the taser?
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
To answer your question Rakeesh, there's simply a lot of myth surrounding tasers. Many people seem to think they are some kind of "last resort/nuclear launch code" for only the worst of criminals. The truth is, it's only a last resort for when you want to AVOID injury and nothing else is working.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You don't think if the security person had been bigger that she might have been able to avoid using the taser?
He's saying that just because one is well-trained in safe-restraint techniques does not mean using them will not result in any injury. People who shove other people into traffic tend to be a little unpredictable. All the fancy kung fu in the world won't make dealing with someone like that a sure thing.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
quote:He's saying that just because one is well-trained in safe-restraint techniques does not mean using them will not result in any injury. People who shove other people into traffic tend to be a little unpredictable. All the fancy kung fu in the world won't make dealing with someone like that a sure thing.
Also, you're working in an uncontrolled environment. Concrete floors and obstacles.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
[Edit to add the quote]
quote: You don't think if the security person had been bigger that she might have been able to avoid using the taser?
If the School Resource Officer (SRO) had been bigger, it would have increased the kid's chance of getting hurt. When I wrestled, the bulk of the weight classes were only 5 lbs apart. You could wrestle up one class but not two. Even a ten pound difference for most kids is too much to handle safely.
At her alleged weight, there is a bit more leeway. Weights a decade ago were 155, 162, 175, 189, and 215+. She might be able to handle someone 20 pounds heavier putting their weight on her safely, but I wouldn't guarantee it.
My other problem with wrestling is that it puts the SRO in more danger. Wrestling is usually safe because both parties have agreed to abide by the rules and behave infairly predictable ways. You put a wrestler on the mat with a flailing kid and they'll both end up hurt.
While I'm in the camp that wishes it hadn't come to that point at all, I'll back up the taser. At least it only hurts for the few seconds that it's used. Wrestling moves and batons keep hurting.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
No, it doesn't work like that.
Safely restraining a 170 lb violent person is a very difficult task. It's not like you can just walk up and put a hold on them and they magically stop resisting. You generally have to beat them till you have an opening to get a hold on them, then you can put a submission hold on them, but even then the person can keep fighting. If they refuse to give up, you have two choices-- let them go or break them badly.
Yes, if you manage to get a choke hold on them, they will eventually pass out, but a minor side effect is that they may never wake up.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Besides what Jim-Me and others have said, positional asphyxiation can occur simply based on the shortness of breath caused by the struggle plus holding someone face down on the floor.
There's no way to guarantee once grappling begins that the child won't end up in that position. The risk can be minimized, but not eliminated.
I don't know that a taser was safer in this situation - we're relying on third-hand accounts, and the answer isn't simple. I do know that the mere fact of being 11 years old isn't enough to make me think the tasing inappropriate. I also know that I'm willing to give the officer the benefit of the doubt here.
I favor a full investigation. If the school deputies can learn a better way to handle a situation like this, I hope they implement changes. But without knowing more, I can't condemn the deputy.
One of the things I find frustrating about this kid of situation is that the goals of investigating who is to blame and seeking to learn for the future are so often at odds with each other.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Besides what Jim-Me and others have said, positional asphyxiation can occur simply based on the shortness of breath caused by the struggle plus holding someone face down on the floor.
There's no way to guarantee once grappling begins that the child won't end up in that position. The risk can be minimized, but not eliminated.
Exactly. Someone who is struggling wildly may not be safe even with the minimum team of four doing the restraint: two for torso, one for legs, and one for monitoring. What do you do if the person monitoring notices that the person in restraint is beginning respiratory distress? Legally (at least in my area), you must let them go, no matter how violent they are. The larger the restrainers are, the more weight that is pressing on the person's torso.
And even with someone holding the legs, there is a serious risk that the people at the torso will be kicked in the head. It is possible, I have done it, with people who outweighed me by about 25 pounds. These are the restraints we're taught at work, and if the person continues to be violent and injures someone, or if they must be let go and can't be calmed, we have to call the police. And then they take over and do what they're trained to do. Even with ideal staff this can happen.
It's not a simple arithmetic problem. It's very complex and there are two many factors to ever be able to say: Never Tasers.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Not to mention that in order to restrain the person enough that they are not hurting the restrainer(s), enough force may need to be applied that it causes injuries to joints, etc. when the person continues to struggle. This is not ideal and it's what you're trained to AVOID if at all possible, but it does happen. A short incapacitating shock, provided that it is applied safely to someone who has no other risk factors (is not elderly, infirm, pacemaker, or as the latest LA jail incident, is standing up on an upper bunk-- ugh, couldn't they TELL that was a bad idea?) may be safer than physical restraint because of the injuries a person can do him/herself while restrained.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(I'm in the "it shouldn't have gotten to this" camp, though. If she was ED enough to become violent, perhaps she shouldn't have been mainstreamed in this particular situation, and there definitely should have been other measures in place than a lone school cop having to deal with her by herself.)
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"...as the latest LA jail incident, is standing up on an upper bunk-- ugh, couldn't they TELL that was a bad idea?"
Sure they could, but look who we're talking about here.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The better question to ask is: is it ever preferable not to taser an 11 year old girl?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Makes you wonder about the power requirements of the security staff at a Miley Cyrus or Hannah Montana concert.
Posted by krynn (Member # 524) on :
better a tazer than a riot stick to the face
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Here's what I don't understand: why is it somehow more humane, or acceptable, or whatever, to physically wrestle someone to the ground than it is to tase them?
There are dangers to the latter option too, you know.
Because tasing can lead to complications, including death, that rarely happen by physically restraining them.
It is a matter of degree. Both are violent, but one involves a weapon...even if it is a weapon that is of the less-lethal variety.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Here's what I don't understand: why is it somehow more humane, or acceptable, or whatever, to physically wrestle someone to the ground than it is to tase them?
There are dangers to the latter option too, you know.
Because tasing can lead to complications, including death, that rarely happen by physically restraining them.
It is a matter of degree. Both are violent, but one involves a weapon...even if it is a weapon that is of the less-lethal variety. [/qb][/QUOTE]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Rakeesh: [qb] Here's what I don't understand: why is it somehow more humane, or acceptable, or whatever, to physically wrestle someone to the ground than it is to tase them?
There are dangers to the latter option too, you know.
Because tasing can lead to complications, including death, that rarely happen by physically restraining them. When physically restrining someone you can ease up the pressure or let go. Wiht a taser once the shock has been applied there is no changing or adjusting it, really.
It is a matter of degree. Both are violent, but one involves a weapon...even if it is a weapon that is of the less-lethal variety.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Because tasing can lead to complications, including death, that rarely happen by physically restraining them. When physically restrining someone you can ease up the pressure or let go. Wiht a taser once the shock has been applied there is no changing or adjusting it, really.
It is a matter of degree. Both are violent, but one involves a weapon...even if it is a weapon that is of the less-lethal variety.
It was mentioned several times in the thread about the "don't tase me bro" guy, but relying on the physical restraint is more likely to result in injury not only to the restrainers but the restrainees as well.
The taser is used by the majority of law enforcement as a baton substitute. A quick Google of the statistics on deaths caused by batons and other methods of physical restraint vs those attributed, directly or indirectly, to tasers shows the two aren't even comparable: the taser is much safer, even accounting for over- and misuse.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
quote: It makes me wonder why she's in with the regular school population
Least Restrictive Environment is the law. You can't and shouldn't stick ED/LD kids off in a separate wing. Neither of these two articles indicated that this girl had a history of violence; given that limited information, her placement with the general population was appropriate. Even if LRE seems to call for a self-contained academic class, it usually still means mainstreaming in non-academic situations, which this seems to have been.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
BTW, the article explicitly says that the officer in question was injured "during a struggle to restrain" the girl in question.
Some people are treating this as if the officer didn't try, here.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kwea, I'll ask again: why is it better to attack someone with a weapon than it is with your body? Given that tasing is not, in fact, more dangerous than physically subduing the kid.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I dunno, a taser is 100% certain to be an extremely painful experience, nobody really knows whether there are long term risks, a recent study in Chicago resulted in questioning the safety claims made by the Taser manufacturers.
Does the massive pain and emotional/psychological shock of the taser count for nothing? Bruises and fractures aren't the only kind of injury.
I do agree that if the safety officer was unable to restrain the kid and was in fear for her own safety then it was probably the best (remaining) option. Count me convinced the officer was justified in this situation. Doesn't mean I think it was the only way the situation could have played out.
I think in general the impact of a taser, aside from actual risk of death or visible physical trauma, is being discounted a bit too much.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Does the massive pain and emotional/psychological shock of the taser count for nothing? Bruises and fractures aren't the only kind of injury.
Have you ever been seriously shocked? I have. Enough to knock me down and daze and stun me for a few moments. I still remember it - vividly. So yeah, it would be a powerful, impactful moment. The pain was not so much an issue as the disconcerting feeling that I had no control over my body. I was most definitely passive and calm after it happened - it was almost like I had to re-learn how to move. I certainly was in no mood or condition to fight. So I can appreciate why tasers are so effective at what they do. I'm not going to discount the nature of the impact of a taser - a tremendous shock is definitely a memorable event.
But let's not forget the most psychologically damaging thing that took place here was most certainly the fact that she had to be forcibly taken down in front of her classmates, and hauled away from her family and thrown in juvenile detention. And those things would have happened regardless of the method of restraint. Given that, I still think the taser was the best way to restrain her without anyone getting hurt, provided the facts we've been given are correct.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Does the massive pain and emotional/psychological shock of the taser count for nothing? Bruises and fractures aren't the only kind of injury.
Being forcibly held facedown on the ground isn't much fun either, and quite often hurts. It's not like someone's going to just ask you to lay down and you do. Every effort is made to avoid injury, but there's a reason we practice takedowns on padded mats.
And lest anyone think I'm a huge fan of tasers, I'm really not. I just think that most people in favour of physical takedowns don't really realise what happens in that situation and how dangerous and difficult it can be.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I've had painful electric shocks. Badly painful. But not enough to incapacitate me, so I can only imagine what a taser is like. Also I didn't have the experience as a child of an authority figure choosing to shock me, which I think is an important distinction.
I completely agree that the most impactful thing was having to be restrained/controlled and taken away, however it was done. (Sadly the kid didn't leave people other options.)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Does the massive pain and emotional/psychological shock of the taser count for nothing?
Er...is there a difference between the emotional/psychological shock generated by a taser and the shock generated by a physical takedown?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think so. One involves paralysis. The other doesn't.
Some of my most terror-filled moments have been paralysis dreams.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
BTW, some school systems no longer have special classes for severely disabled kids. They may have a special resource teacher or a separate class during part of the day, but here they even had children who could not go to the bathroom by themselves or even speak, in mainstream classrooms. I'm not sure what the standard is, though, or if there is a national standard that would apply both places.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I'm not sure what the standard is, though, or if there is a national standard that would apply both places.
As Liz said, the national standard is least restrictive environment. If the school wants to place a kid in a separate environment, they have to present a formal argument as to why the student can't function in the general population. Even then, removal from the general population is limited to ONLY the situations that are specified.
BTW, of the high profile cases of tasering that I've heard of, this is one of the few that I believe that tasering was probably the best choice.
[ March 31, 2008, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Arnold ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I think so. One involves paralysis. The other doesn't.
I wouldn't say that either one really involves paralysis. Or, alternately, I wouldn't say that one involves paralysis much more than the other.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Is it ever OK to taser an 11 year old.
It sure beats shooting them.
Its better than a night-stick to the back of the head.
My wife works in a school for LD/ED/PD teens. You can only imagine the protocols, protections, and plans they have in place, and use often. They have fully armed police on premises. They have hired teachers for their muscle mass more than educational credentials. They have a safe-room for the office workers to hide in if anyone goes to far over the edge.
So I won't assume an overabundance of blood lust on the side of the taser-er.
I also have a sweet Aunt, a bit hefty, but the nicest lady you can know.
She got sick, went into a fever delerium, and knocked out a police officer trying to get her into the ambulance.
So I won't assume that this was a poor child the evil school system didn't shove into the right protected classroom. It could be a simple medication or allergy reaction that sent this large girl over the edge.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: I also have a sweet Aunt, a bit hefty, but the nicest lady you can know.
She got sick, went into a fever delerium, and knocked out a police officer trying to get her into the ambulance.
I once spent a day with a 7-year-old who can bite and draw blood through kevlar. Strength and size don't always correlate when someone's having a serious meltdown. I never did find out what triggered him, since he couldn't speak, but I suspect the hot, humid weather didn't help.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I wonder if the 160 lb 11 year old is unusually mature, tall and athletically built or an average height obese 11 year old girl. It makes a difference.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Not as much as you'd think. I am a shorter-than-average, overweight person, and I am much harder to throw, leverage, and control, even in a cooperative workout, than someone even 20-30 lbs lighter than me.
edit: that is to say, it has less to do with strength than with sheer physical mass. In fact, if she's weaker, she's likely in more danger of injury.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)