Yes, that is what I’m saying. Curfews based on age are a form of unfair discrimination, and if adults are allowed out at 2:00 AM, then 15 year olds should be too. Most people don’t care about ageism, it’s true, but that doesn’t mean it’s any better than any other form of prejudice.
I haven’t watched the video, but from what I’ve heard, I have no complaint about the cop’s response to being bitten.
When someone says that he shouldn’t have punched a child, however, it’s hypocritical to respond “she isn’t a child” when the law clearly treats her as one.
Hey, it’s not my argument. Tell it to Phase42 and Zoggie. They’re the ones justifying a curfew based on the fact that they can’t think of a legitimate reason for minors to be out at night - I’m just showing what happens when you follow that logic to the natural next step.
If you want to discuss those, start a new thread. I’m sure you’ll be amused by my hilarious beliefs about the rights of young people. I’m just full of 'em!
You’ll chortle out loud as I argue that they should be given basic human rights even though they’re obviously nothing more than talking pets, and you may even wet yourself with laughter as I treat discrimination against young people as if it were remotely comparable to the real forms of discrimination, such as the very serious and harmful problem of discrimination against old people.
You won’t know whether to laugh or cry when, at the very climax of this tragic comedy, I put forth the misguided notion that rights like driving should be handed out based on the results of a so-called “driving test” – as if there were actually a way to test a person’s driving skill – instead of the scientifically proven process of counting the number of candles on their birthday cake.
Yes, that must be it. No one could actually be opposed to age discrimination. It must be an act.
Oh I’ve heard these kinds of beliefs before so don’t hold yourself up too high for your progressive thinking. NAMBLA members also have these opinions of how the number of candles on a birthday cake have little to do with what should and shouldn’t be law.
I don’t think people need a good reason to be out if they are of the proper age. If they’re adolescents or children, then yes, it’s probably a bad idea because, as others have said, we don’t trust children/teens the same way we trust adults.
[quote[I hope I don’t need to remind you of all the things that were “widely accepted” about other minority groups in the past.
Furthermore, adults sometimes don’t consider the consequences of their actions either, and everyone is impulsive from time to time. And impulsiveness isn’t a good reason to take away someone’s freedom anyway. If what you’re getting at is the idea that young people might be more likely to commit crimes than the average adult, check out the crime statistics by race and income and see where that logic leads.[/QUOTE]
What’s your point? That just because some adults are impulsive and some kids are responsible, that we should treat kids as though they’re adults? By that rationale, you should let kids vote, drink and do whatever they like.
Good for them - a stopped clock is right twice a day. So far they’re doing half as well as a stopped clock, I guess.
None of those rights, or any others, should be withheld from anyone based on their age. In most cases, that means the age restriction should be replaced with an individual test of skills or knowledge (like we already have for driving), or perhaps with a legal document saying “I accept rights XYZ and the responsibilities ABC that come with them”.
Well, a lot of people don’t. But then, it wasn’t too long ago that a lot of people didn’t trust minorities the same way they trusted white folks, and a lot of them probably still don’t.
That impulsive and shortsighted people should be treated the same no matter how old they are.
Mr2001, do you seriously believe children and teenagers shouldn’t have protected status? That if a 12 year old wants to slip out of the house and walk the streets at 3am, it’s ok? That if a 25 year old guy convinces a 15 year old girl to have sex, her consent is valid?
That status seems a lot more “subjugated” than “protected”, but yes, I think they should be treated the same as anyone else who wants to slip out and walk the streets at 3 AM.
I recognize that there are legitimate concerns about their safety, but there are legitimate concerns about other groups’ safety too (based on gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. depending on the area), and I wouldn’t deny those groups the freedom to walk outdoors at night either.
No less valid than if he convinces a 16, 21, or 53 year old to have sex. (The age of consent is already 16 or lower in most states.) Of course, if she doesn’t know what she’s agreeing to, or if she’s drugged or coerced, then her consent isn’t valid no matter how old she is. A naive adult’s consent is no better than a naive teenager’s.
Perhaps not, but you know as well as I do that an adult has a differing legal status. If you want to attempt to change the boundaries that society has set, be my guest. Fight the power.
Yeah, that’s the easy way out, and most people take it: just grit your teeth for a few years, put it behind you, and then inflict the same things on a new generation because “it was good enough for me”. But not everyone is resigned to being helpless, and not everyone forgets about ageism once they turn 16 or 18 or 21. That’s why there are organizations like NYRA.
The idea that a child would bite a police officer is not appalling to you?
Being bit to the point of bleeding by my 2 year old, I could attest that being bit even by a child can insight a reaction of pushing away. If it were a large piece of flesh or not, biting is not a reasonable reaction to being detained.
Is she not liable at all for her actions? I understand that in some peoples worldview cops are evil and cannot be trusted, but that does not excuse people from obeying the law. If a police officer is arresting you then submit to authority and fight what for what you believe in a court of law.
So is he suppose to refrain from detaining her altogether and allow her to leave while waiting for the other female officer to arrive or what is it that you are proposing? Resisting arrest is a good enough reason to pepper spray, it’s non-lethal and she will have a hot face for a couple hours, which is reasonable when dealing with someone acting hysterically.
She looked scared and hysterical in the video to me, but my pity for her doesn’t make the officer’s actions wrong. The smack was a legitimate reaction to being bitten, the pepper spray was to render her incapable of a repetition, end of story. I’m sorry, but if you haven’t learned by age fifteen that you don’t bite people unless it’s life or death, chances are you’re going to learn the hard way, and it might as well be by a police officer who’s obliged to record the incident and justify himself through official channels.
And, of course, her reason for being scared and hysterical could perfectly well be “OMG I am so busted!”.
Oh, and Honesty, when you said “pendantry” I believe you meant “pedantry”.
Note: the following bears no personal animosity towards any other poster.
All of the posts in this thread submitted by Honesty give support to my long held belief that the SDMB should change its’ motto from “fighting ignorance” to “EXPOSING ignorance”.
Stating that the cop “had no idea what he was doing” reveals that Honesty has no idea what a cops job entails and the extensive training that the cop in the video demonstrated in his handling of the girl; he does have an OPINION about it but that opinion is not based in reality. By the time of the punch, the officer had repeatedly asked for the girl’s compliance and she escalated her resistance. The officer had no choice but to escalate his efforts until compliance was achieved. If she experienced ANY pain or damage it was by her own actions!
Also, an average human can exert about 2000 lbs. of pressure while biting. That’s why you do NOT put your finger in a persons mouth who is choking/responsive or having convulsions/seizures. (You want a cite? Take a class! I teach First Aid and CPR.) People have lost fingers or sustained permanent nerve damage when the victim has bitten down, either by reflex or deliberate action. If 1 ton of pressure is enough to sever a finger, what damage could be sustained by soft tissue? And it’s already been mentioned how great the risk of infestion from a human bite can be.
If Honesty or anyone else thinks or believes that a human bite is trivial or no big deal, I suggest they submit themselves to an experiment… stand and be bitten until BOTH parties are satisfied that it’s a big deal or no.
I don’t expect anyone to change their opinions about this incident because of my post in this thread; I just want to go on record as a non-knee jerker in regards to debates of this sort.
Sorry. This makes no practical sense in a real society. Traditions change and different societies have different lines drawn. There’s no doubt in my mind that some kids are more capable of making sound judgments and parents may adjust their household rules based on what decision making skills the child demonstrates. That’s assuming the adults have learned how to make responsible decisions and in many cases they haven’t.
I told my kids that I knew I wasn’t always right but it was my job as parent to make the call. Personally I think in many cases we expect too little maturity and responsibility from our kids. I think a teenager is a young adult and should begin to act like one instead of being excused under the “he, she, is just a child”
My info came from the Red Cross… I think the manual was a 1987 edition??
If I am misqouting/ misremembering the actual pressure, my apologies. I still maintain that a human bite is not a small thing and stand by my invitation for anyone who thinks otherwise to stand and see how much biting they can endure.
My Dad’s friend bit off his own cousin’s ear in a bar fight. He then spat it out and handed it back to his cousin. My Dad got jumped in a pool hall in Michigan and wound up biting a chunk out of his assailant’s chest area; the part where the arm meets the chest. The chunk came completely off… and this was through a shirt and tee shirt!
Unlike my Dad and his old friends, I try to avoid confrontation. But, if someone tries to bite me, I’m going ballistic on them. The cop showed remarkable restraint with only one punch. He handled it just fine regardless of the cry-baby positions by some of the posters in this thread.
I have no dog in this fight, but for all you all insisting that the officer’s punch was an instinctive reflex, I encourage you all to think a little harder. Honesty is more correct than you guys are.
If something is biting/burning/stinging/scratching my hand, what’s my first impulse? *It’s to motherfucking withdraw my hand from the thing that is inflicting the pain. * It makes no sense to think I would actually bring my hand closer to the source of pain by hitting it. That would not be in my hand’s best interest. That is foolishness from an instinctual point of view. If anything, instinct would cause my non-bit hand to hit the biter before doing anything else. I can’t imagine leading a reflex-driven defense with an injured body part.
I’ve been bit and scratched by many cats while attempting to restrain them in much the same way that the cop was restraining the girl, and I’ve always somehow managed to not punch or slap them. The time it takes for an animal to bite me and illicit my withdraw reflex is plenty of time for my neocortex to kick in and guide my subsequent actions.
I think some of you are going overboard defending the cop. I don’t think his actions were unforgivable, but I don’t think he handled things well at all. Her arm was cranked at a ridiculous looking angle. If she was in pain, that may be why she was resisting. She was stupid for putting up a fight, yes.
