[Brenda]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Brenda Brenda:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

There have been things that I've only done once because of the consequences, as have lots of people. The chances are this kid will likely not be a problem in the future as he's been 'scared straight'. The ones pushing this entire matter seem to be the parents because they were shown, publicly, to be negligent in their supervision of their child. One kid at home for a few hours is fine....a group of kids....well many lack the experience and good judgement to know when enough is enough and all it takes is one. Will the kid learn from this? Likely. Will the parents learn? Doubtful, and if they continue in their current path, their kid won't benefit from this entire experience.

The first part is speculation, but I agree with the second part...
I hope the kid is "scared straight", but still, i think it was abuse of power. The parents are airheads, blaming the wrong people, imo...

Scared Straight from what though?

He wasn't caught shoplifiting or vandalizing or doing drugs.

He was horsing around with his friends.

Given the reality of what some kids are doing I would think that would be cause for celebration that they weren't out hopped up on crack and shoplifting to support it.

Yeah, true too... I am glad at least someone has his head straight on his shoulders

[DerbyX]

mikewood86 mikewood86:

DerbyX DerbyX:

mikewood86 mikewood86:

$1:

Yes it was heavy handed. No 10 year old deserves that and I doubt it happened to you despite the almost certainty you did exactly what this kid did.

Why not have the cops pistol whip him then? Really drive the point home.

BTW, if your theory had any validity then there would be no such thing as recidivism.

I just don't see how you draw comparisons to pistol whipping, and handcuffing, regardless of age. Why not get the UN to pass a resolution barring this apalling form of torture called handcuffs.

You want the police to diffuse the situation, handcuffs are a tool at the officers disposal capable of doing so. There are numerous other tools (batons, tazers, pepper spray, and their pistol) but I think the handcuffs are the way to go. Easier on the eyes and central nervous system IMO.

As stated, handcuffs are used for the safety of:
1)The Police officer(s)
2)The Suspect(s)
3)The Public

At any point, despite age, are any one of these threatend, they are allowed to put them to use. No matter what you think, this is the reality. This is why it's a policy; so officers don't have to make the personal call or let their personal opinion/public opinion sway their actions in the moment.

Nothing excuses handcuffing a ten year old in thsi case.

Despite what you have heard the handcuffs are only ever for the protection of the police. The line about protecting the person being handcffed is BS. Ask a cop for a truthful answer.

Regardless, it is very apparent that these cops did not have even that to support their treatment.

Despite age?

Would they handcuff an infant? How about a 2 year old? Think that would be excessive even if they state "regardless of age".

Unreal how you take it to the extreme to try and prove a point when such a situation would never happen. It proves your weakness in your arguments because you make it seem like others are going to the extreme, while you are the only one doing so. You claim to have won, but I haven't been dancing around your rebuttles at all. I have stuck to every single point made, while de-bunking yours.

You need to be handcuffed immediatley so you can't type anymore bullshit.

Oh, as I stated, my father was Toronto Police (13 division) for 30 years, and grandfather (who has passed on) for 35 years. So as you said, I asked a Police Officer (already knowing the answer), and he agreed 100% with me. You lose.

Take it too extreme?

It was the cops saying that regardless af age they treat everybody equal.

Their words not mine.

If you want to drawn the line at an age then where is it? 8?

You have not debunked a single point.

If you have then prove it. List the points and your rebuttal.

I expect cops to protect their own. Thats understandable.

They serve the public though so what we find acceptable is what is at issue.

[Wally_Sconce]

Moral of story: if you don't like to be handcuffed at the age of 10, then don't be a shit head around cops.

[Heavy_Metal]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:

just read your 'continuation' man you are a piece of work, i am reminded of a quote....never argue with an idiot....so i'm going to stop arguing with an idiot...


got a sign for you brenda aaahhhh...enjoy

It was too easy to defeat your arguements, such as they were.

I get the feeling that you hate this kid because he beat you up on the playground.

Its the only reasonable explanation for your hatred of him and your piss-poor showing in the debate.

Don't worry. Your teachers will be able to help you out. Just go up to them and remind them that you are an idiot and you need their help to overcome it.

you've got NOTHING!!!
freggen air head

In short you lost and can't admit it.

On yer bike skippy. I've defeated every argument you made and quite easily I might add.

Given your reputation I expected a poor showing but not this poor.

My bad.

bike...bike....humm sounds familiar...oohh right, just another useless regurgitation of a lost circular argument...
...the only thing you've defeated is yourself, your roundabout rehtorical arguments are just a repitition of the arguments that have been defeated by ummm...1...2...3...4...people and counting.....


lol, man it must have been a poor showing if you the master of poor showings (refer to this thread for prime example) called me on it

i reiterate.....your argument is a LOST CAUSE

[Brenda]

Who says he was a shithead?

According to the article he was shaken up...

[Wally_Sconce]

Brenda Brenda:

Who says he was a shithead?

According to the article he was shaken up...

Oh, I'm certain that he gave the cops some attitude. yes sir and no sir can go a long ways when you're only 10 years old

[mikewood86]

DerbyX DerbyX:

mikewood86 mikewood86:

DerbyX DerbyX:

mikewood86 mikewood86:

$1:

Yes it was heavy handed. No 10 year old deserves that and I doubt it happened to you despite the almost certainty you did exactly what this kid did.

Why not have the cops pistol whip him then? Really drive the point home.

BTW, if your theory had any validity then there would be no such thing as recidivism.

I just don't see how you draw comparisons to pistol whipping, and handcuffing, regardless of age. Why not get the UN to pass a resolution barring this apalling form of torture called handcuffs.

You want the police to diffuse the situation, handcuffs are a tool at the officers disposal capable of doing so. There are numerous other tools (batons, tazers, pepper spray, and their pistol) but I think the handcuffs are the way to go. Easier on the eyes and central nervous system IMO.

As stated, handcuffs are used for the safety of:
1)The Police officer(s)
2)The Suspect(s)
3)The Public

At any point, despite age, are any one of these threatend, they are allowed to put them to use. No matter what you think, this is the reality. This is why it's a policy; so officers don't have to make the personal call or let their personal opinion/public opinion sway their actions in the moment.

Nothing excuses handcuffing a ten year old in thsi case.

Despite what you have heard the handcuffs are only ever for the protection of the police. The line about protecting the person being handcffed is BS. Ask a cop for a truthful answer.

Regardless, it is very apparent that these cops did not have even that to support their treatment.

Despite age?

Would they handcuff an infant? How about a 2 year old? Think that would be excessive even if they state "regardless of age".

Unreal how you take it to the extreme to try and prove a point when such a situation would never happen. It proves your weakness in your arguments because you make it seem like others are going to the extreme, while you are the only one doing so. You claim to have won, but I haven't been dancing around your rebuttles at all. I have stuck to every single point made, while de-bunking yours.

You need to be handcuffed immediatley so you can't type anymore bullshit.

Oh, as I stated, my father was Toronto Police (13 division) for 30 years, and grandfather (who has passed on) for 35 years. So as you said, I asked a Police Officer (already knowing the answer), and he agreed 100% with me. You lose.

Take it too extreme?

It was the cops sayinf that regardless af age they treat everybody equal.

Their words not mine.

If you want to drawn the line at an age then where is it? 8?

You have not debunked a single point.

If you have then prove it. List the points and your rebuttal.

I expect cops to protect their own. Thats understandable.

They serve the public though so what we find acceptable is what is at issue.

Lets start with a recent one. You told me to ask a cop what handcuffs are for. When I did, and gave the response that doesn't fit your argument, you slide into the "they're protecting their own" comment. -1 for you.

You were heatedly against them kicking down the door, guns drawn, because you insisted they responded to a noise complaint, and not the cleaver.
Then you said:
"All the cleaver story does is possibly justify the intial door kick and guns drawn not the real complaint and thats the subsequent treatment." (somewhere on page 10)

-2 for you.

Do you honestly think they would respond to a simple noise complaint like that? That's rhetorical, so don't bother defending yourself on it.

You have lost the point about handcuffing and age, and your petty rebuttles are a desperate attempt to cling to some pride. If you think in your right mind a Canadian Police Officer would handcuff an infant, and go so far as to skew their words to believe so, then you must be on drugs.

[DerbyX]

Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:

just read your 'continuation' man you are a piece of work, i am reminded of a quote....never argue with an idiot....so i'm going to stop arguing with an idiot...


got a sign for you brenda aaahhhh...enjoy

It was too easy to defeat your arguements, such as they were.

I get the feeling that you hate this kid because he beat you up on the playground.

Its the only reasonable explanation for your hatred of him and your piss-poor showing in the debate.

Don't worry. Your teachers will be able to help you out. Just go up to them and remind them that you are an idiot and you need their help to overcome it.

you've got NOTHING!!!
freggen air head

In short you lost and can't admit it.

On yer bike skippy. I've defeated every argument you made and quite easily I might add.

Given your reputation I expected a poor showing but not this poor.

My bad.

bike...bike....humm sounds familiar...oohh right, just another useless regurgitation of a lost circular argument...
...the only thing you've defeated is yourself, your roundabout rehtorical arguments are just a repitition of the arguments that have been defeated by ummm...1...2...3...4...people and counting.....


lol, man it must have been a poor showing if you the master of poor showings (refer to this thread for prime example) called me on it

i reiterate.....your argument is a LOST CAUSE

If you think that a few fuckwits disagree with me constitutes defeat then you are sorely in need of an education especially since not one is even on the B list let alone the A list like I am.

I responded point by point and defeated your arguements and all any of you can do is resort to some report about a meat cleaver which look smore an more like it was false.

It is certainly a false argument that it supports handcuffing the kids since it was obvious he did not have one.

You guys are relying on the argument that he was waving it around and threatening the cops with it when the reality was that if it even existed he was using it during his playfighting.

A weak point for a weak argument and easily defeated.

No matter what you say you cannot escape the conclusion that if the cops were unable to handle a 10 year old without resorting to handcuffs then they obvuiously need additional training.

If they could handle the child then they needlessly handcuffed him for abusive reasons.

No matter how you slice it your argument has been defeated.

Sorry about your luck.

[ShepherdsDog]

A list??

Another Pyrrhic victory to be sure.

[DerbyX]

mikewood86 mikewood86:

DerbyX DerbyX:

mikewood86 mikewood86:

DerbyX DerbyX:

mikewood86 mikewood86:

$1:

Yes it was heavy handed. No 10 year old deserves that and I doubt it happened to you despite the almost certainty you did exactly what this kid did.

Why not have the cops pistol whip him then? Really drive the point home.

BTW, if your theory had any validity then there would be no such thing as recidivism.

I just don't see how you draw comparisons to pistol whipping, and handcuffing, regardless of age. Why not get the UN to pass a resolution barring this apalling form of torture called handcuffs.

You want the police to diffuse the situation, handcuffs are a tool at the officers disposal capable of doing so. There are numerous other tools (batons, tazers, pepper spray, and their pistol) but I think the handcuffs are the way to go. Easier on the eyes and central nervous system IMO.

As stated, handcuffs are used for the safety of:
1)The Police officer(s)
2)The Suspect(s)
3)The Public

At any point, despite age, are any one of these threatend, they are allowed to put them to use. No matter what you think, this is the reality. This is why it's a policy; so officers don't have to make the personal call or let their personal opinion/public opinion sway their actions in the moment.

Nothing excuses handcuffing a ten year old in thsi case.

Despite what you have heard the handcuffs are only ever for the protection of the police. The line about protecting the person being handcffed is BS. Ask a cop for a truthful answer.

Regardless, it is very apparent that these cops did not have even that to support their treatment.

Despite age?

Would they handcuff an infant? How about a 2 year old? Think that would be excessive even if they state "regardless of age".

Unreal how you take it to the extreme to try and prove a point when such a situation would never happen. It proves your weakness in your arguments because you make it seem like others are going to the extreme, while you are the only one doing so. You claim to have won, but I haven't been dancing around your rebuttles at all. I have stuck to every single point made, while de-bunking yours.

You need to be handcuffed immediatley so you can't type anymore bullshit.

Oh, as I stated, my father was Toronto Police (13 division) for 30 years, and grandfather (who has passed on) for 35 years. So as you said, I asked a Police Officer (already knowing the answer), and he agreed 100% with me. You lose.

Take it too extreme?

It was the cops sayinf that regardless af age they treat everybody equal.

Their words not mine.

If you want to drawn the line at an age then where is it? 8?

You have not debunked a single point.

If you have then prove it. List the points and your rebuttal.

I expect cops to protect their own. Thats understandable.

They serve the public though so what we find acceptable is what is at issue.

Lets start with a recent one. You told me to ask a cop what handcuffs are for. When I did, and gave the response that doesn't fit your argument, you slide into the "they're protecting their own" comment. -1 for you.

You were heatedly against them kicking down the door, guns drawn, because you insisted they responded to a noise complaint, and not the cleaver.
Then you said:
"All the cleaver story does is possibly justify the intial door kick and guns drawn not the real complaint and thats the subsequent treatment." (somewhere on page 10)

-2 for you.

Do you honestly think they would respond to a simple noise complaint like that? That's rhetorical, so don't bother defending yourself on it.

You have lost the point about handcuffing and age, and your petty rebuttles are a desperate attempt to cling to some pride. If you think in your right mind a Canadian Police Officer would handcuff an infant, and go so far as to skew their words to believe so, then you must be on drugs.

1) Then you were lied to. Nobody is more protected when they are handcuffed, the very definition of vulnerability. Thats he PR response.

fail.

2) They kicked down the door.

I thimnk they were wrong period. All I did was state that the cleaver incident at best supports that and not the handcuffing well afte rthe fact.

Again, fail.

Its honestly too easy defeated your arguments.

Do you want me to type with both hands tied behind my back? Just to even things up of course.

[Wally_Sconce]

sorry to hear about your point for point arguement. thats a lot of wasted writing to defend the actions of a 10 year old that obviously mouthed off to a police officer.

[mikewood86]

$1:

No matter what you say you cannot escape the conclusion that if the cops were unable to handle a 10 year old without resorting to handcuffs then they obvuiously need additional training.

If they could handle the child then they needlessly handcuffed him for abusive reasons.

So then they couldn't handle him and they handcuffed him. See now? Was that so bad? You still think handcuffs are abuse? Are his wrists broken, maybe some scars? Nope. Nothing there, kinda like your arguments.

[DerbyX]

mikewood86 mikewood86:

$1:

No matter what you say you cannot escape the conclusion that if the cops were unable to handle a 10 year old without resorting to handcuffs then they obvuiously need additional training.

If they could handle the child then they needlessly handcuffed him for abusive reasons.

So then they couldn't handle him and they handcuffed him. See now? Was that so bad? You still think handcuffs are abuse? Are his wrists broken, maybe some scars? Nope. Nothing there, kinda like your arguments.

Ever hear of mental abuse?

Don't answer because its enough that I mentioned it to defeat your point.

That fact that no lasting physical scars were left doesn't say anything and its akin to a rapist saying the same thing.

All it means is that as long as the cops leave no permenant or even visible temp marks its all kosher.

Waterboarding anybody?

Too easy.

Trauma can be mental just as easily as physical.

Of course none of this touches the point that even if they left no scars they were still in the wrong. This isn't the NHL no blood no foul rule.

[mikewood86]

$1:

1) Then you were lied to. Nobody is more protected when they are handcuffed, the very definition of vulnerability. Thats he PR response.

fail.

2) They kicked down the door.

I thimnk they were wrong period. All I did was state that the cleaver incident at best supports that and not the handcuffing well afte rthe fact.

Again, fail.

Its honestly too easy defeated your arguments.

Do you want me to type with both hands tied behind my back? Just to even things up of course.

I layed out what you have said right in front of you, your own words. You just can't take it can you?

So I pointed out that you said you were against the door being kicked in, guns drawn, and then you flipped on that and supported it. I never mentioned the handcuffing in my point, you did. You said one thing about the door, than another. That is de-bunking, and you have been de-bunked up and down this post. Your credibility is diminishing by the letter.

Now my dad is lieing to me? I know, it's because he's a cop, right? Maybe if he was 10 years old again we could believe him.

Not only am I killing your arguments, my jokes are better too.

[mikewood86]

DerbyX DerbyX:

mikewood86 mikewood86:

$1:

No matter what you say you cannot escape the conclusion that if the cops were unable to handle a 10 year old without resorting to handcuffs then they obvuiously need additional training.

If they could handle the child then they needlessly handcuffed him for abusive reasons.

So then they couldn't handle him and they handcuffed him. See now? Was that so bad? You still think handcuffs are abuse? Are his wrists broken, maybe some scars? Nope. Nothing there, kinda like your arguments.

Ever hear of mental abuse?

Don't answer because its enough that I mentioned it to defeat your point.

That fact that no lasting physical scars were left doesn't say anything and its akin to a rapist saying the same thing.

All it means is that as long as the cops leave no permenant or even visible temp marks its all kosher.

Waterboarding anybody?

Too easy.

Trauma can be mental just as easily as physical.

Of course none of this touches the point that even if they left no scars they were still in the wrong. This isn't the NHL no blood no foul rule.

Yet again, extremes and that's a sign of your desperation. You compare handcuffing to rapes and pistol whipping!!! COME ON!!!!! SERIOUSLY? Try and stay on topic please.

This wasn't like he was taken away to some secret prison, without trial, without parents, without knowing where he was. This was for 30 minutes, outside his home, in the back of a cruiser with handcuffs. I bet the cruiser even had windows that he could see out of. Must have been traumatic.

If he's old enough to play fight with a cleaver and not be traumatized, he can take a seat in a squad car for 30 minutes.

Hurry up so I can laugh at another one of your futile responses.