people just don't arrest a six-year-old
sounds like an exorcism would be more appropriate
Indiana cops detained a "belligerent" six-year-old last week, after the cantankerous nipper kicked his school principal and threatened to kill two other members of staff. The unnamed perp, who reportedly has previous form for "hitting and biting staff", was escorted from Hendricks Elementary School in Shelbyville to a squad …
sounds like an exorcism would be more appropriate
Or a spanking.
I know people are against corporal punishment, but isn't putting others around this little sh*t exposing them to something quite similar to it?
Do what anotehr country did.
Just send all criminality mental types to an island. Then let themselves sort out their criminal violent behavior onto another criminal. It works! Look at DOWNUNDER!
They gave up the boisterous alpha mindset and decided to get along and live life as you should.
Indeed, which is why I find the end of this piece rather puzzling:
".....avoid suggesting execution is an effective deterrent.........."
The little sod obviously wanted some attention and the school going mental and OTT gave the little sod exactly what he was craving. He a got to see some cops up close and a free, no doubt, fun ride in a squad car! How stupid are these teachers?!
As any half decent parent knows when your little darlings start with "I WANT!" and throwing a paddy 'cos it's not forthcoming, the last thing you do is give in and give them any attention! You tell 'em to pack it in or you'll take away XYZ for the next week, then let them sulk on it!
Maybe it was "spanking" that caused this kid to be violent in the first place. Maybe he's physically brain damaged, or has bipolar affective disorder, or ate the wrong kind of mushroom. Or maybe he really is just an irredeemably evil little bastard (i.e. genetically predisposed toward antisocial behaviour). Anything's possible.
I'd start by asking the question that apparently hasn't even occurred to anyone else: why?
Nothing happens without a reason.
Impulsively "spanking" as a first and only resort won't reveal that reason, and thus will never solve the problem. Granted there are sociopaths who lack any reason, but even there "spanking" won't miraculously cure their affliction, because they're incapable of understanding why they should be punished. Short of imprisonment or termination or science-fiction cures like genetic reprogramming, there's not a lot you can do about it, beyond taking whatever measures are necessary to protect yourself and everyone else.
But surely those are rare and extreme cases. In every other case there's a reason, and therefore a potential solution. "Spanking" probably isn't one of them, though.
>He a got to see some cops up close and a free, no doubt, fun ride in a squad car!
Believe me when I say the punishment you get from your parents after the whole street has seen you being brought home in a police car, then havinng the car parked outside while the police explain to your parents what you've been up to is not a price worth paying.
However, maybe parents aren't as concerned about their offspring these days.
That's the biggest load of namby pamby tosh I've read in a long while.
To answer your question: Why? Because he can, it's fun, there are no repercussions and he'll continue until there are.
Before you get into why he should consider inflicting pain to fun, children just do. That's why they laugh when Tom stands on the garden rake ot the coyote gets squashed by his own anvil.
...the kid had it coming!
You're both a bit off base. Let's dispense with some misconceptions, shall we, and remember that all children are different, as any parent with more than one kid can tell you.
Some kids will kick an adult because they don't care about the consequences, which doesn't mean there aren't any. Some think it's fun. Some are would be lashing out against what they percieve as on unfair punishment (and such kids tend to think all punishments are unfair). For some kids right and wrong just aren't that important. That doesn't mean they're sociopaths. They just don't yet have a well developed sense of morality. Rarely do kids ever lash out like that just because they can.
And then there's how you deal with it. For every kid there are some punishments that are more effective than others. There are some kids that you can get down on their level and tell them that what they did was wrong and they'll never do it again. Other kids do best when put in time out to consider it for a while. Some kids you can get through to by taking away priviledges like TV or video games. Then there are kids whose attention can not be gotten by anything less than a firm spanking. You have to know the kids to determine which is the best approach.
Call it non-verbal communication instead of corporal punishment, clarifies the purpose.
So many calls for corporal punishment, it's really turning into the Daily Mail comments section here. Look at it this way, we know beating a dog is an ineffective way of training it so why do you expect it to work any better with a child?
Personally I think the principal did the right thing. It's not as if he called in a SWAT team who broke down the doors, forced the kid into a stress position and handcuffed him. He was lead calmly by one officer to a patrol car and was then taken to the station.
I was arrested when I was eleven years old for shoplifting and spent an afternoon in the cells whilst my cohorts were questioned. For a child that age it was a terrifying experience and it was made no better after I was released knowing I'd publicly humiliated my parents. I can tell you I certainly behaved a lot better from then on.
>Look at it this way, we know beating a dog is an ineffective way of training it so why do you expect it to work any better with a child?
Beating a goldfish is an ineffective way of training it so.... You get the idea, usless comparisons are just that, useless.
The problem with the anti-cp brigade is that they go to extremes and refuse to see nor accept the difference between what is chastisement and true corporal punishment.
It would be a useless comparison if training through violence didn't produce the same unsatisfactory results in all animals that can be trained to a reasonable degree.
If you want to talk about useless at least I picked an example (a dog) that has a similar IQ to a child, whereas you went down the reductio ad absurdum route and chose a goldfish.
>whereas you went down the reductio ad absurdum route
I'm glad you noticed that, so you should be able to realise that corporal punishment does not mean a beating about the head until black and blue. CP has been adopted to make simple chastisement sound like an horrific beating.
This being Indiana he's probably had plenty of spankings. Ethics aside, some children respond well to them others don't. Half the challenge of parenting is finding an effective method of disciplining each individual child which is a new challenge for each one.
First off, I didn't even mention beating somebody about the head until black and blue. Second, you seem to be failing to understand that any violence, even if it's just a slap on the arse is counter productive. It's an ineffective way of training a child.
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with your last sentence. The dictionary provides two definitions for chastisement. One is a strong verbal reprimand (not corporal punishment), the other is a beating.
"Look at it this way, we know beating a dog is an ineffective way of training it so why do you expect it to work any better with a child?"
I challenge you to train EITHER of them if the dog/child doesn't think YOU are the one in charge. If the dog thinks it is in charge, you'll get bitten and if the kid thinks it, you'll get ignored.
You don't have to be violent towards something to assert your authority. Try thinking a bit ffs.
We'll just have to agree to disagree, but I do note that you consider a slap on the backside to be an act of violence. Also your reliance on dictionary definitions instead of an ability to grasp the gist of something may explain a few things.
I consider it violence because IT IS violence. It might be mild or barely of consequence or however you want to justify it but that doesn't stop it from being violence.
Unless you're going to provide your personal definitions of words, then yes, I will be relying on the dictionary.
>yes, I will be relying on the dictionary.
Then lookup up violence, all definitions include intent to cause injury, damage, abuse, etc.
violence, n - the exercise or an instance of physical force, usually effecting or intended to effect injuries, destruction, etc.
A smack on the arse is certainly an instance of physical force being used, and whilst it's not needed for the definition it does cause injury. Like I said, you can try to justify it by saying that it's a small or negligible injury, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
You write as if you are not a parent and don't remember being a kid either. Children are individuals and they are born with distinct personal attitudes. If they weren't, we'ld be worse off socially than we are. There are a lot of really scary folks out there who are parents of very decent children. With a kicker or biter the "reason" per se, may simply be that they are frustrated. The target of the agression wouldn't listen, wouldn't play, wouldn't help, wouldn't shut up, or something. With a principal, the cause was likely would not stop condescending long enough. With a six-year-old frustration is common enough. Ideally, yes, first find out "why," if possible. Then, explain the golden rule: don't bite unless you want to be bitten, don't kick unless you want to be kicked.
There's a profound difference between a spanking and a beating. That said, the entire purpose of any "punishment" is provide a learning opportunity about what constitutes acceptable public and social behaviour. I can say truthfully that as a kid, I would far rather have been spanked than had my mom bemoaning her embarassment and humiliation because I got into trouble.
"Half the challenge of parenting is finding an effective method of disciplining each individual child ..."
That is the real and awful truth. I have a son and a daughter. My son could be "chastised" with a look. My daughter, would likely not have yielded to to a club. Isolation worked wonders however - "you room, now." Every dog Ive' had was also that way as well.
Whilst there's a difference in the degree of violence inherent in a spanking or a beating, they're both still violent acts.
A behaviour instilled through violence is based upon fear. That fear needs to be maintained otherwise the behaviour will revert.
Are you trying to tell me the best way to raise a child is through violence or the threat of it?
Tempting as it may be, to do a bit of spanking, I'm not convinced it would help, At six it is "the parents who are to blame" seriously. If that kid isn't going to go off the rails for the rest of his life someone needs to get a grip on his home-life and what's going on. That might mean having to give them compulsory parenting courses. I really don't know.
I'd argue that any child incapable of understanding that it's wrong to kick someone, for any reason other than justifiable self-defence, is either brain-damaged or a sociopath.
Understanding basic morality is not quite on a par with understanding, say, rocket science. Merely being a child is no excuse. The real "namby pamby" here is treating children like they are incapable of understanding anything, and therefore you have a free pass to use violence against them, because "you know, what else can you do?"
I don't assume children are retards. I just treat them like people, albeit short people. It amuses me how puzzled other adults are at children's behaviour around me, simply because I don't baby-talk them. They think I'm too "stern", but the fact is children adore me for it, and I've never had to lift a hand to any of them.
Other posters who pointed out it's the parent's fault are quite correct, of course. Clearly such a child has no moral grounding. All I'm saying is that beating the hell out of him probably won't instil that moral grounding, it'll just affirm everything he's learned about violence. If he has anything other than a cabbage for a brain, he should have the capacity for reason, but you won't appeal to that sense of reason with a fist.
If after your best efforts he still turns out to be an irredeemable sociopath, then so be it, at least you tried. Then please feel free to beat, lobotomise, torture, imprison, or execute him, or whatever else gives you satisfaction.
After living here in rainy blighty for twenty years: Either they stopped too early, or this simply doesn't work.
I agree totally. You try and reason with them and depending on their age, some will take it, some won't. Obviously, this depends on theri home life as well. If they've been dealt with reasonably from day one, they're more likely to think about it and try to reason it, whereas if they've been abused, neglected or pampered all their life, they're more likely to kick off and keep kicking or whatever. Nothing wrong with talking to children and trying to explain, it's just that we have to accept that some are either not capable or don't wish to think and reason it. Then, there needs to be a sanction. Nobody is talking about beating a child, but simply administering a smack or restraining them as a final resort.
Anyone who can't tell the difference between a smack and a beating needs to question their reasoning ability.
sterilising his parents!?!?
No, firing the principal and his staff would be more appropriate.
When a police officer who has no particular qualifications with regards to childcare whatsoever is capable of calming down the "unruly" subject and making him walk voluntarily to the car my only conclusion is that the school staff is beyond incompetent.
99% of the time when I hear an incident like this the person at fault is the incompetent parody of an educator in front of the whiteboard. I used to do volunteer work in a school before the "all adults are paedos" Labor mandate.I remember out of a class of 12 in a private school I remember seeing the following breakdown (same age group - 6 year olds):
3 students hiding in the toilets
1 pretending to be sick
1 refusing to cooperate but in class
1 refusing to enter class and attached to the radiator in the hallway in a manner where the only means to detach her would be breaking a limb or an angle grinder to detach the radiator.
1 hiding in the library
All of that in an "elite" British private school with multiple _OUTSTANDING_ Offsted report ratings.
Are all these kids "at fault" - give me a f*** break. The teacher - yes. The principal - doubly so. Kids? I doubt it.
See as Voland's Right Hand demonstrates that he isn't a teacher and knows nothing about either teaching or the control of children.
Volunteer at schools? I don't think so.
"When a police officer ... is capable of calming down the "unruly" subject..."
I don't know the law in Indiana, but it might be as simple as a police officer being allowed to use reasonable force to restrain an offender, but the school teachers not.
My heart bleeds for the parents and teachers who actually want to parent and teach in the UK/US. Since the nanny-state and cotton-gloved numptys continue to expand I think I might begin offering Caribbean Attitudinal Neurological Integrated Nice-child Generating camps.
I think, calling in the police was a great idea. By the sounds of it; this little bugger probably only ever feared the cops (cause his parents could never tell him "no" for fear of him divorcing them; and so let him watch "Cops/Thin blue line/etc"). The Teachers & Parents have no effective means of control any more.
I don't beat my kids, but they're sure I will if they step out of line... so they don't. They have also been told that their Teachers have my authority to punish them any way they see fit; and if all that doesn't work, they know they're going to the local prison for the weekend.
This little &*(%^(* doesn't have that.
Working in a school, I can safely say that you, Voland's right hand, are an ignoramus.
Schools are there to teach children. Teachers are there to teach. They are not there to act as prison wardens, they are not there to be kicked, shouted at, abused or anything else.
If a child will not respect the role of the teacher, than it is the parents at fault for allowing their child to behave in that way.
Seriously?? In all your rant, you never once blame the parents?
Shifting parenting from the actual #!@!$ parents to the schools is the #1 problem with education in America.
And American cops carry guns. That will get a brat's attention.
Plus think about how cops are portrayed on American tv. It creates an image that, though not entirely accurate, is effective at getting a kid's attention.
Besides, maybe he associates police with his "uncles" being taken away and not seen again.
I am going to reply once, to avoid repeating the same thing to multiple posts:
1. The teacher is _NOT_ a prison warden. However, the "Crowd Control" part of teaching profession is officially a requirement. One of the criteria during an Offsted inspection _IS_ "Is the teacher in control of the class or not". If not, she fails automatically even on the rather loose UK criteria.
2. The teacher "in control" of that class blamed 4 kids as non-educatable and requested EP evaluations and statements on 4 of them (out of 12). Out of the 4, 3 that were _TAKEN _ _OUT_ by their parents and moved to a new school are doing fine now at the age of 11 (top of their class all of them). The remaining one has developed a fobia of school which to the point where she has a dislexic statement (I do not think she is dislexic - it is the little girl that attached herself to the radiator). Her parents are now sorely regretting that they did not take her out.
3. Parents can do very little if the Principal is an idiot and the teacher is a union protected incompetent. A principal that has so little authority in his school that he has to call police to put a 6 year old under control is beyond salvation. This means his authority is ZERO. ZILCH. NIL. That 6 year old will now be followed by a horde of others. 6 year olds behave that way. It does not matter what you do at home, you leave them for 2 hours in the presence of someone they know is a muppet and there will be an ongoing riot all right. If there is no riot, they are not "normal" 6 year olds. In fact, that is not different with any students (I have seen more than once 16 year olds behave the same way when they see that the teacher is a muppet).
4. There are plenty of ways for a principal (and a teacher) to have an unquestioned authority even in schools that in rather rough neighborhood. No need to be a prison warden to be respected even by year one. In fact "not being a prison warden" is probably a requirement.
5. While I am not a professional teacher, I have taught in secondary, high school and university and I have never, ever had any issues with "class discipline". In fact, for some of the "elected" classes I have taught I have had issues with overcrowding and too many people wanting to move to my class (despite it being more difficult). This means that you have to make the class interesting though which is beyond the abilities of a lot of people who pretend to be "teachers".
The boy is familiar with the teacher, he has kicked in the past without punishment, thinks he can kick again and does so. The police officer arrives in uniform, the six year old has at least enough sense to know you don't kick a copper, especially one you don't know. For all his bravado he's probably shitting himself so he does as he's told.
"When a police officer who has no particular qualifications with regards to childcare..."
So you researched this particular officer's training history, then? Or did you just presume that because he's a cop, he "has no particular qualifications with regards to childcare"?
You DO realize that there are officers specifically trained to work with minors (particularly difficult ones), and that police departments do try, when possible, to send out individuals qualified for the task at hand -- don't you?
I sincerely hope you weren't an English teacher.
Your an idiot. The staff can do very little against the little shit and teh little shit knows it.
Your still anidiot.
For example the girl with the radiator.
Teacher: Little girl, let go of that radiator at once.
Little Girl: No.
T: Let go or I will tell you to let go again in a slightly louder voice.
LG: fuck you
LG: still fuck you.
T: Right you litle shit.
Pulls arm from radiator. Little girl gets tiny scrape. Teacher sent to prison. Papers full of abussive teacher headlines. Teach and school, and local authority all sued by little girls parents.
Volands Right Hand seems to be demonstrating his point rather well. I'm not going to deny there are a lot of useless teachers out there for a variety of reasons; lack of English being one of them (shared by Voland by the looks). However, nations have decided to give them no method of control. Yes, some don't make lessons interesting and complain when the kids kick off. That's their fault. However, there are some kids that kick off no matter what you do and then what? What options have the government given the teacher to control them? Discipline starts in the home and by definition then extends into the classroom as teachers are 'in loco parentis'. In other words, whilst in their care, the teacher is the parent.
However, if the parents don't do anything about bad behaviour at home, the teacher isn't going to stand a chance. The state has for years taken away right after right from parents and then complain when things go wrong. I wonder why. The state can't understand the difference between a reasonable slap or smack and beating the c**p out of a kid, so they ban the lot.
Teacher: Little girl, let go of that radiator at once.
Little Girl: No.
I am not going to call you an idiot, but you will never be a good teacher, you will always fail if you have to teach anyone anything and you will never be a good people manager as well.
1. She is not a little shit. She is an intelligent six year old which knows very well what she is doing with IQ well above average. She is non-violent. She may be stubborned, doing whatever she wants, etc but she is not a _LITTLE_ _SHIT_. No 6 year old is a _LITTLE_ _SHIT_. No human you are responsible for is a "LITTLE SHIT". Ever. Even if he kicks a principal. You need to understand why she has done so and deal with it. Part of the job do you like it or not.
2. The incompetent union protected dolt that was trying to herd the class into the classroom as described in the original post did not understand some of the very basics of her profession (as I said, crowd control is a key requirement both for an educator and a manager). You have to chose your battles and win them. She never bothered to actually sit down in front of the girl for 30 seconds and have a normal, human, non-"LITTLE SHIT" conversation with her. She was just running around like headless chicken, clucking, complaining and end of the day going to the principal.
3. By the way, I did a stint with the same class for a semester as a volunteer teaching assistant for an activity (they needed an extra person to take the kids swimming) and I did not have a problem with anyone in that class. Neither had their PE teacher. Neither had their "proper" teaching assistant. On the day when the "mayhem" was happening she was off sick so the actual "competence" of the teacher showed up with a vengeance.
Can't believe all the downvotes for Voland.
I agree completely with some of the follow-up posts that the number 1 responsibility for educating the child lies with the parents, but teachers and principles can't just blame the parents for all misbehaviour and have no control at school.
Calling in the cops = renouncing their authority. Kids are smart, they pick up these cues really quickly. From now on they know that the teacher and principle are no longer the ultimate authority in the school and can be 'beaten'. I think it would have been far more resourceful for the principle to call in one of the kid's parents
fscked by SHA-1 collision? Not so fast, says Linus Torvalds