If there was no risk to any other child, why did the teacher clear the room?
If so, it could possibly be appropriate to pretend there’s an emergency and call an ambulance in a situation where there’s no medical justification for this.
But invoking a law that requires “liklihood of serious injury” and involves the police still looks entirely unnecessary and inappropriate.
I suppose it’s possible, but I find it hard to believe that the only way for a school to deal with a problem 7-year-old is to call in the police, who then act under color of a law whose provisions pretty clearly don’t match the situation.
Interesting, but not to the point. The relevant question is whether you be happy to see them hauled off by the police under dubious pretenses, and kept in a hospital overnight from which you were excluded.
Possibly to help defuse the situation, or to prevent problems from developing.
I don’t see the OP or title to the thread questioning the police involvement per se, but whether schools should do it.
In any event, I’d think police are trained with guidelines to know when they need to take someone in or not. IANA lawyer or policeman, but it’s interesting to me that the article says:
This was not the first time the boy had acted up, Carroll said, and the lead officer, Michael Kirkpatrick, decided the boy couldn’t just go home again with his mother.
So if people reading it fear that one day, out of the clear blue, a cop will haul their kid off…nah, it sounds like they’ve been there before and the parents had a chance to remedy the situation.
Clearly? Very little is actually clear about this situation. Perhaps we’ll understand more if there is an update about exactly what went on, but otherwise none of us have any real ability to judge whether this boy was absolutely flipping out and violent, or grouchy and sulking.
But the law being cited applies to adults, not just to children, and sets the standard of “liklihood of serious injury” - not simply injury, but serious injury. When dealing with a 7-year-old without (so far as we have been told) any weapon, the notion that serious injury was likely seems far-fetched. This notion is reinforced by the mealy mouthed justifications cited, referring to the fact that the boy stepped on someone’s foot, and “battered” an adult.
Valid point - the OP doesn’t directly raise the issue of police involvement. The linked story does, and clearly the proposed lawsuit relates to this issue.
An important part of their guidelines should be the detail of the laws they are using to justify their actions.
But we haven’t read any court decisions applying the law, so we don’t know how loosely “likelihood of serious injury” is defined. It’s reasonable to believe that the standard might be different when children are involved. You may scoff at the idea of a child “battering” an adult, but what if another child had been on the receiving end? The point is, if the child is flipping out enough to attack an adult (though we don’t know exactly what happened), I could imagine a child being so enraged that his attacks would have seriously hurt a child had he attacked another child. In that case, the school would be remiss in not taking such behavior seriously.
It also counts the possibility for the serious injury to be self-inflicted, and neither you nor I know how he was actually behaving. It’s a whole lot easier for a child to hurt him/herself - say by throwing himself at a window, that kind of thing. If the teachers could not bring him under adequate control that might well have been a legitimate fear.
I don’t believe anyone is suggesting the behavior should not be taken seriously. The question is whether the police had a valid role in this.
True - but the article mentioned only the (dubious) threat of injury to adults - there was no indication of concern for serious injury to the kid, nor of any injuries he actually suffered.
I’ll reiterate the point that if “liklihood of serious injury” gets interpreted as “I thought there was a chance he might hurt himself,” a law once specific is now extremely vague and applicable to almost any situation.
I don’t think there were enough facts given in the article to decide either way, but I wouldn’t necessarily reject the notion of the police taking away a particularly unruly child. It’s not like they tased him (bro).
I think this action should be evaluated in light of the provisions of the law they cited as justification, and the details of the case.
Jurisdictions vary, but I will tell you that the law and school policies can be very rigid and very limited about things like this, and the only ways around those laws can be extreme (for example, I’ve known teachers to file assault charges against kids who were extremely mentally disabled NOT because they blamed the kids for their violent behavior, but because it took an assault charge to get them removed from a “least restrictive enviroment” where they were dangerous to themselves and others.
And I’m sure it will be should the parents file a lawsuit - what we have is a half page article - which is not exactly a legal deposition on the events of the day.
Who else would you call? You want someone who can come very quickly (before (further) damage is done, and someone who is used to handling violent people without injury. I’m sure that the local mental health facility has people who are trained in restraining people without injuring them, but does that facility have those people ready to roll out as soon as they get a call? I’m guessing that they don’t. You also need someone who has the authority to physically restrain someone, and I’ll guess again that the local mental health authority can’t do that without prior permission from either the patient or the patient’s guardian.
I don’t know if this is the case in this particular situation, but many cities and counties have mental health deputies on their police forces. They get called out so they can make informed judgments about whether people need emergency mental health services or not.
In your average classroom, an out-of-control child could get to:
-Plenty of sharpened pencils that make decent stabbing weapons
-Teacher’s scissors (which may be in or on the teacher’s desk)–excellent stabbing weapons
-Chairs, which are good bludgeoners
-Rulers, which if plastic will simply scratch, but if metal can lacerate
-Possibly magnetic metal boards, which can lacerate (a kid in my class nearly got the corner of one in his eye; the laceration near his eye wasn’t pretty. This was an accidental occurrence)
-Various other items that could be used to inflict damage (a stapler can bludgeon or, well, staple; a lunchbox strap can strangle; a door can slam on somebody; etc.)
And that’s leaving out knocking someone onto the hard floor, stomping on their hands, or knocking their head into the corner of an item of furniture, or biting someone.
Even in a normal elementary school classroom devoid of out-of-control temper tantrums, minor injuries are relatively common, whether it’s the kid who inadvertantly elbows another kid in the teeth when turning around, or the kid who slips on a wet patch in the cafeteria and bangs her head on a stool, or the kid who lunges down to catch his falling pencil and gets the point of it embedded in his palm. A kid who is genuinely trying to hurt other people is no joke.
Daniel
It’s easy to say one thing when it’s hypothetical. But have you ever been confronted with an absolutely out of control kid?
I have. Walking to pick up my son I saw one of his classmates running across the playground. I thought that was odd, since I was early and the bell hadn’t rung. I knew this kid pretty well–in fact, my kid went to his birthday parties, and he went to my kid’s parties.
Then I saw a teacher running after him. He got to the chain link fence at the end of the field, jumped onto it like he was going to climb it, looked back, saw the teacher, and decided to go under it instead. At that point the teacher caught up to him, grabbed his foot, and was dragging him back, and he was yelling.
Since I knew him, I ran up to them. The kid was yelling and fighting but when he saw me he went limp, and then started crying.
It was really pretty scary. He was just a third-grader, and not a huge third-grader, either, but he was fighting like the dickens, and trying to get away. If he’d gotten either over or under the fence he would almost certainly have continued straight into the street. He was completely out of control.
I don’t know about using the Baker Act on a kid. But the kid I saw, I’d be reluctant to have in my kid’s classes after that. Talk about disruptive. And this one did get help. He had to go to another school, though.
Seems to me the thing they did wrong was not letting the mother see the kid during the investigation.