Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/15/09 01:29 PM, yinyangman wrote: Lemme just say I don't respect dressing rules in schools because they made zero sense whatsoever! There has to be rules that make sense!

Come to think of it, I wouldn't find that costume distracting or disruptive if I was an administrator!

That is because you have autism and you only take one side of this story.

The threat to other people overrides her 'sensitivities'. Being handcuffed isn't poor treatment, it's an appropiate tool to deal with uncompliant people.

At 1/15/09 01:37 PM, ToddM wrote: That is because you have autism and you only take one side of this story.

The only side that's deserving of empathy and compassion (the Towrys)! I'm through with negotiating.

At 1/15/09 01:45 PM, yinyangman wrote:

The only side that's deserving of empathy and compassion (the Towrys)! I'm through with negotiating.

You know I have been around autistic kids like in the story and many of teachers have gotten injured such head injuries and a broken arm so the teachers did the right thing to prevent others from getting hurt.

At 1/15/09 01:49 PM, ToddM wrote:

At 1/15/09 01:45 PM, yinyangman wrote:

The only side that's deserving of empathy and compassion (the Towrys)! I'm through with negotiating.

You know I have been around autistic kids like in the story and many of teachers have gotten injured such head injuries and a broken arm so the teachers did the right thing to prevent others from getting hurt.

Autistics can be selfish as proven by yinyangman. Notice how he is only taking one side of the story without considering and refuting the other side. It doesn't matter that she's autistic. She has to learn to live in the real world. If she kills herself because she couldn't handle it, then she loses.

At 1/15/09 03:58 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote:

At 1/15/09 03:51 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: You seriously mean fucking EIGHT-YEAR OLDS can get arrested with handcuffs in the US?

I'm glad my kid won't grow up there.

Well, lets say, hypothetically, wherever you are, an 8-year old child gets an automatic weapon and kills 3 people in school. They're going to use handcuffs. I don't get why this is so shocking. If they don't, that is rather scary to me.

Actually, I don't think any eight-year-old has ever had an automatic weapon here, and the number of times a child that young has killed someone here can probably be counted on one hand.
But sure, if they did get an automatic and killed three people I could see the reason to use whatever means nessecary. But that isn't even comparable to this situation, is it?

At 1/14/09 10:40 PM, yinyangman wrote: Next time a child escapes in sadness because of what you've done, especially from school grounds, let him/her go!

Go where? Where was this kid going to run after she left the room?

At 1/14/09 10:56 PM, yinyangman wrote: You lose, I win! tough luck.

Or more simply, he's not going to dignify your post with a response.

In short, he just told you that if your to stupid to see the flaw in your own argument, then it's not going to matter much if he tries to tell you so anyway.

At 1/15/09 12:20 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: As unfortunate as that is, the GIRL IN QUESTION was not causing any harm and the teacher being pregnant does not make the kid dangerous, it makes the teacher weak.

You consider pregnancy a weakness? And you call ME an insenitive prick? DAMN.

(Or at least my parents)

Big clue about personal credibility here.

I want people who's logo is 'To protect and serve' to actually fucking protect us. Police officers are there to protect us, cleaning up afterwards and investigation are handled by Crime Scene Investigators, nt run-of-the-mill cops.

What you want is irrelevant int his matter. Do you have your own personal police bodyguard and 24/7 armed escort? No? Then I suggest you hire a bodyguard, because the cops aren't going to be there to protect you from getting your ass kicked the next time you get into a fight. They'll arrest the guy who did it only after they investigate accordingly.

Crime Scene Investigators are just that, crime scene investigators. Detectives and police offers do the actual leg work in terms of finding out who comitted the crime, as well as motive, and opportunity.

I deal with kids often, I have an anger-prone younger brother, and yes, that is EXACTLY what my parents would do, until I wore myself out, cried, went to bed, and woke up fine.

.... either your lying because I called you out on your bullshit, or your parents are so liberal as to be wimps. Any parent that would allow they're children to fly off into a rage like that until they're energy is spent isn't

THAT'S MY POINT. THAT WAS UNNECESSARY. There is no fucking way there is an 8 year old GIRL strong enough that the only way to restrain her is to dogpile her.

Dog pile means to physically lay on top of them. From what I read, this girl was restrained by the hands and feet. That's all.

it means they're sadistic.

That's more conjecture than my guess about the intentional lawsuit.

Fine. Are teachers not capable of dealing with an angry 8 year old without hurting her? Really?

How was this girl hurt? I do believe (and Malachy pointed out) that the girl had only "light bruises" at the most. Psychological damage is arguable at best.

Are you high? I fucking could! I do that to my 80-pound brother all the time to calm him down! It's easy, and I HOPE that a police officer is stronger than a 14-year-old boy. And if they aren't, use two hands!

If you can curl 50 to 80 pounds one handed, you're either (a) a steel worker, (b) a steroid freak, or (c) retard strong. Bruce Lee arm curled 80 pounds at the peak of his physical training, and he was only able to do it a few times at best (an amazing feat considering it was 2/3rds of his own body weight). And since you're sure as NOT Bruce Lee....

At 1/15/09 02:29 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: What was NOT appropriate was giving her a conviction.

The charges were dropped, unless you failed to read the article.

I take this to mean, why isn't she in special ed?

No, why is she in public school at all? Why isn't she in a private or alternative school where her disorder can be treated properly? Or better yet, why isn't she homeschooled?

Aspergers' and autistics aren't mentally deficient

Never said anything of the sort. Actually, I went the other direction and vouched for the fact that they are relatively normal individuals who can be dealt and reasoned with.

You consider pregnancy a weakness? And you call ME an insenitive prick? DAMN.

Pregnancy makes you weaker. Hence, a weakness.

Big clue about personal credibility here.

I'm fourteen.

What you want is irrelevant int his matter. Do you have your own personal police bodyguard and 24/7 armed escort? No? Then I suggest you hire a bodyguard, because the cops aren't going to be there to protect you from getting your ass kicked the next time you get into a fight. They'll arrest the guy who did it only after they investigate accordingly.

Crime Scene Investigators are just that, crime scene investigators. Detectives and police offers do the actual leg work in terms of finding out who comitted the crime, as well as motive, and opportunity.

I'm not asking police to follow me around and protect me, I'm asking them to, when feasable, deal with situations that result in the least amount of injuries. If I get in a fight and a cop is there, his job is to break us apart, and, ONLY IF THAT FAILS OR WE ARE BOTH, FOR SOME REASON, VERY DANGEROUS, does he tazer us while laughing. Police don't stand by and wait until the danger subsides, then arrest, thaey do EVERYTHING THEY CAN to help and protect us, so long as it's within reason. That's like saying a fireman's only job is to put out the fire, while saving people inside the building with a fireman's ladder on a truck to carry them down is pointless.

I deal with kids often, I have an anger-prone younger brother, and yes, that is EXACTLY what my parents would do, until I wore myself out, cried, went to bed, and woke up fine.

.... either your lying because I called you out on your bullshit, or your parents are so liberal as to be wimps. Any parent that would allow they're children to fly off into a rage like that until they're energy is spent isn't

I'm not lying, and my parents are both tough people who were raised in the South. That is the BEST way to deal with angry children. Restraining them makes you cruel, spanking them makes the situation worse. Letting them tire themselves out makes them angry at nobody, because nobody is stopping them.

Dog pile means to physically lay on top of them. From what I read, this girl was restrained by the hands and feet. That's all.

Maybe an exaggeration on my part, but still unnecessary.

That's more conjecture than my guess about the intentional lawsuit.

How was this girl hurt? I do believe (and Malachy pointed out) that the girl had only "light bruises" at the most. Psychological damage is arguable at best.

Light bruises is far too much. They could have handled the situation without touching her, and they CHOSE NOT TO. Psychological damage is relevant, even if she wasn't autistic. If I was 8 and I got restrained by the limbs by shouting adults, then carried away by police, I'd have nightmares for months.

If you can curl 50 to 80 pounds one handed, you're either (a) a steel worker, (b) a steroid freak, or (c) retard strong. Bruce Lee arm curled 80 pounds at the peak of his physical training, and he was only able to do it a few times at best (an amazing feat considering it was 2/3rds of his own body weight). And since you're sure as NOT Bruce Lee....

You're not curling them, you're lifting them. An average person in decent shape can lift a small couch on their own. This little girl weighed about a third as much as a small couch. I can barely curl 30, and I'm in good shape. You're wrapping your arm around the object and lifting it about 2 feet off the ground. Easy.

At 1/15/09 05:25 PM, Sajberhippien wrote

But sure, if they did get an automatic and killed three people I could see the reason to use whatever means nessecary. But that isn't even comparable to this situation, is it?

And I was just responding to the quote.

You seriously mean fucking EIGHT-YEAR OLDS can get arrested with handcuffs in the US?

You didn't throw in any caveats, such as "for having a violent tantrum"

And for the record, this is to everyone: There is a difference between throwing a tantrum and throwing fists.

At 1/15/09 08:02 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: If I get in a fight and a cop is there,

Which in a real life situation is WHAT percentage of the time?

That's like saying a fireman's only job is to put out the fire, while saving people inside the building with a fireman's ladder on a truck to carry them down is pointless.

Actually, it's more like saying that a cop's job is to be a high-school janitor who occasionally breaks up fights.

I'm not lying, and my parents are both tough people who were raised in the South.

I reside in the south, I have as yet to meet someone who would voluntarily let their kids beat on them the way you describe even IF they didn't spank their kids.

Restraining them makes you cruel

How?

spanking them makes the situation worse.

That's a matter of opinion, one of which I'm not going into right now.

Letting them tire themselves out makes them angry at nobody, because nobody is stopping them.

And what does that teach them? That's it's okay to wail on someone like a prize fighter when you're mad about something, because they'll just take it? That not only sends the wrong message but is HIGHLY irresponsible.

Light bruises is far too much.

How much of those bruises were from her struggling against the teacher, as opposed to the teacher's force applied to her? Because, as you said, it's not THAT difficult to hold down an 8 year old.

They could have handled the situation without touching her, and they CHOSE NOT TO.

Uh huh. Yeah, assume the fetal position, let the kid beat on you for a while, send the wrong message, and let the kid think they run the place. You ought to be on Nanny 911.

Psychological damage is relevant, even if she wasn't autistic.

She barely knew what was going on, which shows a lack of cognitive ability. I question how much of the claim of nightmares and psychological damage is true and how much of it is hyperbole on the mother's part.

After all, she's getting ready to sue the school district, remember?

You're wrapping your arm around the object and lifting it about 2 feet off the ground. Easy.

Wrapping your arm around and lifting up is kind of different from what you were describing earlier, namely, hold them at arms length mid-air and let them wear themselves out. Or at least that's what I got from your method, in which case, I apologize for the retard strength comment.

what exactly is autism?
this un knowing ness makes me wonder why she said "what are batteries?" rather than

WHAT IS LOVE
BABY DONT HURT ME
DONT HURT ME
NO MORE

I've yet to post here, so I'll throw in my 2 cents.

I believe that the situation was properly carried out by all parties involved. While it does seem extreme, a child throwing a temper tantrum can be a nightmare to control. I think the handcuffs were a little much, but I can understand that.

The situation could have been handled better if the teachers understood the girl's disorder, which the apparently did not. It would have been much if they had understood that people with autism/aspergers develop connections to things, no matter how strange those items may seem(my gf's older brother as aspergers, and he always carries a picture of Gannondorf with him)

As for the police, the acted exactly as they should have. They did not know of the child's condition, so the officers restraining the girl was proper.

At 1/15/09 09:02 PM, flashwarrior wrote: what exactly is autism?
this un knowing ness makes me wonder why she said "what are batteries?" rather than

WHAT IS LOVE
BABY DONT HURT ME
DONT HURT ME
NO MORE

go back to general where you belong. If you just going to add something stupid and pointless to the topic, don't post.
you asked what autism is, here you go

At 1/15/09 04:34 PM, supyohos123 wrote:

:She has to learn to live in the real world. If she kills herself because she couldn't handle it, then she loses.

She wins!

I'm not kidding!

At 1/15/09 10:00 PM, yinyangman wrote:

She wins!

Looks like you missed the memo. We've mentioned that her charges were dropped.
However, they shouldn't be. She should have to prove why she shouldn't be charged in court. It would benefit the whole system, and set some sort of referable precedent (not mandatory precedent, just a reference).

I'm not going to discriminate against people with mental illnesses like yourself. But if they are a threat to others safety shouldn't they get in the same amount of trouble as people who don't have mental illnesses that also threaten other peoples safety?

If a mentally ill person had a gun and was threatening to shoot someone with it would you just let it slide because he/she was mentally ill? Although this isn't as serious, its the same idea. Just because someone had a mental illness doesn't mean they should be allowed to hurt or threaten other people.

The courts follow the conduct of law. I read they reviewed the case and it would seem that she already proved why she shouldn't be charged. She's EIIIIIIIGHT! She is also too young to be charged!

I spit in your face! Patooie! roflmao

YINGYANGMAN!! ACTUALLY TRY READING PEOPLE'S RESPONSES! IT HAS ALREADY BEEN STATED THAT THE GIRL IS NOT EVEN GOING TO BE TRIED, THE IDEA THAT SHE WOULD BE CHARGED WAS BS!

I hope the caps got your attention.

At 1/15/09 10:20 PM, yinyangman wrote: The courts follow the conduct of law. I read they reviewed the case and it would seem that she already proved why she shouldn't be charged. She's EIIIIIIIGHT! She is also too young to be charged!

I spit in your face! Patooie! roflmao

I was talking to AntiangelicAngel, who claimed she should have charged no matter how young or autistic she is.

Doing that would not benefit the system, but CORRUPT IT!

At 1/15/09 10:20 PM, yinyangman wrote: The courts follow the conduct of law. I read they reviewed the case and it would seem that she already proved why she shouldn't be charged. She's EIIIIIIIGHT! She is also too young to be charged!

That's a seriously flawed reason. Being 8 does not make you too young to commit battery.

I spit in your face! Patooie! roflmao

And seriously, you're not engaging in debate or presenting any reasons or evidence as to how the police or teachers acted inappropriately or what alternatives they had. You're just spouting "discrimination!!!" over and over again (figuratively). I'm seriously surprised the mods don't count this your acts trolling, but that's up to them. You're an annoying little twerp, and your not helping your case.

At 1/15/09 10:30 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: I'm seriously surprised the mods don't count this your acts trolling, but that's up to them. You're an annoying little twerp, and your not helping your case.

Maybe that's because they think I'm right.

At 1/15/09 10:28 PM, yinyangman wrote: I was talking to AntiangelicAngel, who claimed she should have charged no matter how young or autistic she is.

Doing that would not benefit the system, but CORRUPT IT!

Seriously, think about this. This is procedure. Example: Someone comes at me with a knife. I wrestle him to the ground, he hits his head on the sidewalk and dies. This is a case of self defense. Now here is what happens. The police arrest me. I make bail. I get a lawyer. I go to court. In the pre-trial phase, I demonstrate that this was self defense. The judge agrees. I go home. That's how it works. The same should happen for similar defenses that justify criminal acts. In this case, it would have been an insanity plea (which is a vague term, but her mental deficiency legally would put her under its reach).

At 1/15/09 10:32 PM, yinyangman wrote:

At 1/15/09 10:30 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: I'm seriously surprised the mods don't count this your acts trolling, but that's up to them. You're an annoying little twerp, and your not helping your case.

Maybe that's because they think I'm right.

Sorry to double post, had to post to go back and check this fact.
So far-

Mods that disagree with you:
Proteas
SevenSeize
Mods that agree with you:
none

You're just talking without thinking at this point.

Which in a real life situation is WHAT percentage of the time?

It's hypothetical.

Actually, it's more like saying that a cop's job is to be a high-school janitor who occasionally breaks up fights.

No, because I'm not asking the police to follow me around and protect me, I'm asking them to try o keep anybody from getting injured when they're ON THE SCENE.

I'm not lying, and my parents are both tough people who were raised in the South.

I reside in the south, I have as yet to meet someone who would voluntarily let their kids beat on them the way you describe even IF they didn't spank their kids.

Well that's because we balance our tough South upbringing with our suave Beverly hills logic.

How?

Because if you can stop a kid without restraining them, DON'T RESTRAIN THEM.

That's a matter of opinion, one of which I'm not going into right now.

Very well, but spanking distances kids from parents and leads to problems later in life.

Letting them tire themselves out makes them angry at nobody, because nobody is stopping them.

And what does that teach them? That's it's okay to wail on someone like a prize fighter when you're mad about something, because they'll just take it? That not only sends the wrong message but is HIGHLY irresponsible.

No, it calms them down faster because nobody is fighting back. when they're older and smarter, THEN you beat their ass when they fight with you. THEN they're old enough to understand they had it coming.

How much of those bruises were from her struggling against the teacher, as opposed to the teacher's force applied to her? Because, as you said, it's not THAT difficult to hold down an 8 year old.

EXACTLY! Do you think a kid will magically stop fighting when you pin them? The teacher should have expected (light) resistance, and therefor taken an option that wouldn't hurt the poor girl. Namely, sucking up and taking it. Especially when you provoked her in the first place by not letting her leave the room or call her parents.

They could have handled the situation without touching her, and they CHOSE NOT TO.

Uh huh. Yeah, assume the fetal position, let the kid beat on you for a while, send the wrong message, and let the kid think they run the place. You ought to be on Nanny 911.

I never said shit about fetal position. Stand straight and tall, and turn slightly away so your genitals are unreachable, and take it. If anything, the kid will be intimidated by your terminator-like inability to feel pain.

She barely knew what was going on, which shows a lack of cognitive ability. I question how much of the claim of nightmares and psychological damage is true and how much of it is hyperbole on the mother's part.

Barely knowing what is going on is WHAT will cause the nightmares! Regardless of what her mother said, what will leave greater emotional harm on an 8-year-old? Knowing exactly waht is happening and realizing that you're being restrained, or not knowing what is going on and thinking you're being attacked? (The second one)

After all, she's getting ready to sue the school district, remember?

I don't think suing is necessary, but I do think that this incident was barbaric.

Wrapping your arm around and lifting up is kind of different from what you were describing earlier, namely, hold them at arms length mid-air and let them wear themselves out. Or at least that's what I got from your method, in which case, I apologize for the retard strength comment.

It's alright, we all make mistakes in communicating and interpretation. I'm glad we're both smart enough to come to agreements.

At 1/15/09 10:39 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

Wrapping your arm around and lifting up is kind of different from what you were describing earlier, namely, hold them at arms length mid-air and let them wear themselves out. Or at least that's what I got from your method, in which case, I apologize for the retard strength comment.

It's alright, we all make mistakes in communicating and interpretation. I'm glad we're both smart enough to come to agreements.

Here's a thought. Let's teach teachers who have to work with autistic children safe ways to pin them. Though maybe we have to pay them extra for additional classroom hazards.

At 1/15/09 10:43 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote:
Here's a thought. Let's teach teachers who have to work with autistic children safe ways to pin them. Though maybe we have to pay them extra for additional classroom hazards.

Okay fine. So maybe, less than 20%, holding the child physically wasn't immoral after all. But remember and mark my words: It is wrong at any time to handcuff a child! I didn't think this up. My mother has. You think she's wrong? Go ahead, say it if you think my mother was wrong.

At 1/15/09 10:53 PM, yinyangman wrote: It is wrong at any time to handcuff a child! ... say it if you think my mother was wrong.

I think your mother was wrong. As tempting as it was, I'm not just saying this because you told me to. I really think she was wrong.

If a child committed a crime and wouldn't leave, stop, etc. with his/her own will and they feel its necessary to handcuff the child, I say they do so. Once again, if someone is threatening to hurt other people, and they won't cooperate then why not put handcuffs on them? Just because they are little kids (or in the case of the autistic girl, have mental illnesses) doesn't mean they shouldn't be stopped in any way if they are seriously hurting others.

It's alright, we all make mistakes in communicating and interpretation. I'm glad we're both smart enough to come to agreements.

Here's a thought. Let's teach teachers who have to work with autistic children safe ways to pin them. Though maybe we have to pay them extra for additional classroom hazards.

I would actually be in full support of a class that teaches teachers how to properly deal with children that are throwing a tantrum without injuring them. That's be great.

I can't believe what I believed! I guess it was totally amoral of me to think it was 24/7 wrong to handcuff children!

But don't you find looking at children in handcuffs horrifying?!?

Mods who have disagreed with you thus far:
SevenSeize saw nothing wrong with the actions.
Proteas thinks the mom is at fault.

At 1/15/09 10:53 PM, yinyangman wrote: But remember and mark my words: It is wrong at any time to handcuff a child! I didn't think this up. My mother has. You think she's wrong? Go ahead, say it if you think my mother was wrong.

(couldn't post earlier)
Your mother was wrong. Your mother is an ignorant twat with no sense of reality or ability to think abstractly, and she raised her child the same way. If a child managed to get a knife and stabbed someone, he should be handcuffed. If a girl poisoned a classmate, she should be handcuffed. If a girl punches a cop that is trying to get her to behave in the nuts, she should be handcuffed. If a child gets into the cockpit of a plane and pokes the pilot in the eye, he should be handcuffed. These are all situations where it is perfectly acceptable to handcuff a child. When a child assaults someone, that is as well.

At 1/15/09 11:04 PM, yinyangman wrote: I can't believe what I believed! I guess it was totally amoral of me to think it was 24/7 wrong to handcuff children!

But don't you find looking at children in handcuffs horrifying?!?

Oh, golly, what's this? The common sense bug finally struck you, after dozens of ranting, ignorant posts! Congratulations!
And no, I don't find it horrifying. I think it's kind of cute. You know what's horrifying? Tantrums.