• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Misbehaving Boy, 8, Pepper Sprayed By Police

apdst said:
Do you understand what, "isolate", means?
Click to expand...

Do you understand that isolating him means either physically moving him to another room, leaving those who were in the closet hiding from him in there, or exposing them to possible harm from him when they go to move those people? Not to mention, this was in a classroom, so that means that he is disrupting any possible chance for the teacher to use her classroom for as long as the trantrum lasts. Not to mention, how do you guarantee that he isn't going to go after the police officers if one or more is left to watch him or try to leave the classroom if you just lock him in?
 
Zyphlin said:
]Then by all means, if the pepper spray doesn't work then move into attempt it physically.
Click to expand...

They had to spray him, twice! :rofl

Are you seriously suggesting that an Officer will never resort to force unless the other side resorts to force? So if someone just begins to walk away from a scene of an incident a Police Officer should just kind of let them go because hey, that person didn't "take it to the next level" so obviously the police officer can't either. Obviously if a guy is threatening other people and the officer has a chance to subdue him the officer shouldn't becasue the kid didn't "take it to the next level" and attack the cop so the cop can't do anything.
Click to expand...

That's how they're trained.

Sorry, I'll be happy to wait for one of the known officers on the site like Goshin or Caine to come by and state verify that apparently a Cop's not allowed to "take it to the next level" unless the other person does the same type of thing first.
Click to expand...

I look forward to them telling exactly that.
 
apdst said:
Was he throwing stuff, or was he trying to stab someone? An 8 y/o can't do both?
Click to expand...

Sure, he can do one then do another. Since we're not "going to the next level" and just letting him "pitch at fit till they run out of energy" obviously we should let them throw stuff and then pick that weapon back up. You know, can't go in and do something to them in between...that'd be "taking it to the next level" and yo'ure not allowed to do that.

Obviously, you don't know what, "isolate", means, either.
Click to expand...

Obviously you forgot that you didn't state "isolate" once prior to saying it to rogue just now. Or you're just moving the goal posts again.
 
roguenuke said:
Do you understand that isolating him means either physically moving him to another room, leaving those who were in the closet hiding from him in there, or exposing them to possible harm from him when they go to move those people? Not to mention, this was in a classroom, so that means that he is disrupting any possible chance for the teacher to use her classroom for as long as the trantrum lasts. Not to mention, how do you guarantee that he isn't going to go after the police officers if one or more is left to watch him or try to leave the classroom if you just lock him in?
Click to expand...

Ok, that confirms you don't comprehend what I'm saying.

he could have easily been cornered, with the cops forming a barrier between him and the other kids--while the kids were being evaced from the room--and allowed himself to burn himself out to the point where simple restraint would have been possible.
 
Zyphlin said:
Sure, he can do one then do another. Since we're not "going to the next level" and just letting him "pitch at fit till they run out of energy" obviously we should let them throw stuff and then pick that weapon back up. You know, can't go in and do something to them in between...that'd be "taking it to the next level" and yo'ure not allowed to do that.
Click to expand...

The article doesn't say anything about him throwing ****, though.



Obviously you forgot that you didn't state "isolate" once prior to saying it to rogue just now. Or you're just moving the goal posts again.
Click to expand...

You're right. My mistake. But, there it is.
 
Whovian said:
You're so full of it.
Click to expand...

You don't know me. When it comes to my kids, I'll get stupid quicker than you can flick flies off of ****.

Anyone that can't relate to that, probably doesn't have kids.
 
Ikari said:
Yeah, what are those numbers? What are you assuming as "use of force"? You don't seem to have any of that, why would you suggest that my way has the higher chance when you don't actually know any of the numbers yourself?
Click to expand...

"Use of Force" being anything where the cop physically interacts with the Kid.

Pepper Spray by itself has essentially a zero chance of causing any kind of bodily harm lasting more than a few hours. Any interaction physically with the child at least has a chance larger than 1% of potentially causing him some harm. Borken bone, sprained joint, significant bruise, cuts/scrapes...all of which are more long term harm than pepper spray would cause. Some of which would likely open up the cops for potential legal issues more than pepper spray
 
Zyphlin said:
"Use of Force" being anything where the cop physically interacts with the Kid.

Pepper Spray by itself has essentially a zero chance of causing any kind of bodily harm lasting more than a few hours. Any interaction physically with the child at least has a chance larger than 1% of potentially causing him some harm. Borken bone, sprained joint, significant bruise, cuts/scrapes...all of which are more long term harm than pepper spray would cause. Some of which would likely open up the cops for potential legal issues more than pepper spray
Click to expand...

I don't know about your kids, but with my kids, 1% is way too ****ing high.
 
apdst said:
So, what do you do for a living?

I go back to my original statement. If this was my kid, those cops would have to be defending themselves from a pissed off and experienced 42 y/o and see what they're made of.
Click to expand...

This is where you and I significantly differ. If my child was engaging in the same actions as the 8 year old here, I'd have absolutely zero problem with the police pepper spraying him. As I said very early on, the kid exposed himself to negative consequences when he chose that course of action. I'd even go so far as to punish my child above and beyond the pepper spray that the officers administered, but hey, that's just me. I won't defend my child for being a hooligan. :shrug:
 
apdst said:
Ok, that confirms you don't comprehend what I'm saying.

he could have easily been cornered, with the cops forming a barrier between him and the other kids--while the kids were being evaced from the room--and allowed himself to burn himself out to the point where simple restraint would have been possible.
Click to expand...

Simple restraint would be "taking it to the next level"
 
apdst said:
I don't know about your kids, but with my kids, 1% is way too ****ing high.
Click to expand...

And yet you would want them to have "grabbed his arm and spanked his ass" which would have a much higher chance for doing some kind of lasting physical harm than pepper spray would
 
Zyphlin said:
And yet you would want them to have "grabbed his arm and spanked his ass" which would have a much higher chance for doing some kind of lasting physical harm than pepper spray would
Click to expand...

No, I've done it hundreds of times and didn't do any harm. I sure as hell didn't have to spray acid in my kids's ****ing eyes!
 
apdst said:
The article doesn't say anything about him throwing ****, though.
Click to expand...

You must've missed the update to the story theangryamerican posted. With how fast the threads moving that's not unreasonable. From that story:

He had just thrown a TV and chairs and was now trying to use a cart to bust through a door to an office where teachers had taken some young students for safety.
Click to expand...

He was throwing stuff.

You're right. My mistake. But, there it is.
Click to expand...

And I agree with regards to the isolation. Then again, you get in a situation where how? Corner him off? Theoritically easy but we don't know the situation. And in again, depending on how enraged and how the kid was acting, trying to corner him off could've possibly required some sort of physical altercation ("taking it to the next level") to actually achieve it, in which case they'd be taking action with a higher chance of causing the kid harm then pepper spray.
 
apdst said:
No, I've done it hundreds of times and didn't do any harm. I sure as hell didn't have to spray acid in my kids's ****ing eyes!
Click to expand...

Well obviously since you've done it 100 times without harm that must be true of all cases everywhere.

True or False, there is a larger chance of causing harm that lasts more tham a few hours from placing your hands on an enraged child and trying to disarm and subdue them or spraying them with pepper spray?

By the way, for someone arguing about calling things by their right name, hyperbolicly referring to pepper spray as "acid" doesn't really help your earlier indignation. Especially since whats used in the USA isn't usually the synthetic kind that has an acid in it.

Pepper spray is rarely known to cause any harm. The few times its known to be fatal is usually when its involved with some other sort of issues, such as a severe case of astham, which in and of itself could also cause a freak death if you're involved in a physical tussle.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
You must've missed the update to the story theangryamerican posted. With how fast the threads moving that's not unreasonable. From that story:



He was throwing stuff.



And I agree with regards to the isolation. Then again, you get in a situation where how? Corner him off? Theoritically easy but we don't know the situation. And in again, depending on how enraged and how the kid was acting, trying to corner him off could've possibly required some sort of physical altercation ("taking it to the next level") to actually achieve it, in which case they'd be taking action with a higher chance of causing the kid harm then pepper spray.
Click to expand...

that might change things a bit.
 
apdst said:
The article doesn't say anything about him throwing ****, though.


You're right. My mistake. But, there it is.
Click to expand...

The other article, the yahoo one that posted on about page 2 or possibly 3 of this thread, did mention him throwing things and even trying to ram a cart into the door of the office where the kids and teacher were locked into.

Also, only one of the sprays of pepperspray made it to his face, because the first one was reportedly blocked by him. And he stated to the cops

"Come get me, f-----," he said.
Click to expand...
Colorado police pepper-spray misbehaving boy, 8 - Yahoo! News
I know this was posted earlier, but figured I'd post it again since I am quoting it.

This stuff is mostly from his own interviews, not the police report. And even the kid states he "kinda deserved it".
 
Zyphlin said:
Well obviously since you've done it 100 times without harm that must be true of all cases everywhere.

True or False, there is a larger chance of causing harm that lasts more tham a few hours from placing your hands on an enraged child and trying to disarm and subdue them or spraying them with pepper spray?

By the way, for someone arguing about calling things by their right name, hyperbolicly referring to pepper spray as "acid" doesn't really help your earlier indignation.

Pepper spray is rarely known to cause any harm. The few times its known to be fatal is usually when its involved with some other sort of issues, such as a severe case of astham, which in and of itself could also cause a freak death if you're involved in a physical tussle.
Click to expand...

Flase, in my opinion.
 
apdst said:
They had to spray him, twice!

Are you seriously suggesting that an Officer will never resort to force unless the other side resorts to force?
Click to expand...
That's how they're trained.
Click to expand...
two words...

Rodney King
Click to expand...

apdst said:
The difference being, I'm not being pulled over for DUI.
Click to expand...

so, officers are trained never to use force unless force is uesd... unless there's a DUI involved, then they can go to town?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom