[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Grojlach: quote: Originally posted by John D. Harris: There's a reason that the arrested are handcuffed. 2-3 weeks ago one of those sweet young thangs killed 2 officers and a 911 phone operator in Fayette, Alabama. While he was being finger printed and the cuffs removed, a stugle insued and the arrested child got one of the officers guns then killed three humans. All the "feelings" and righious indignation won't bring those three lives back or stop the sorrow of the families of the three people killed. So I would like to see the mental gymnastics of how not handcuffing an arrested person can possibly be squared with the if it saves one life logic so prevalant with the "feeling" crowd.

Ah yes, and one out of 5000 "snapping" surely is justification enough to treat the other 4999 as adult criminals. The fact that at the same time they're violating the same human rights agreements from which they expect that the entire world abides by them and which usually sets the "evil" countries apart from the "good" countries hardly matters, er? [img]graemlins/1disgust.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]You're right, Grojlach. The "other 4,999" may not represent a significant threat. So I tell you what..we'll just have the Immigration Dept. send a photo of all 5,000 to you and you can circle the ONE person in the crowd they need to be wary of.

The fact is that physical restraint is Standard Operating Procedure for police in any situation regarding the transport of a person. These children are not shackled 24/7. They are only put in restraints when being transported to court appearances or other meetings. That might seem cruel to some, but I'm sure it seems like common sense to the officers doing the transportation.

I worked at a convenience store several years ago. One night, a man came in very distraught. He was homeless and hitchhiking through the area. According to his story, a local family had met him and offered to let him stay at their house for the night before moving on. Suddenly, after eating dinner, the man of the house physically attacked the guy without provocation and the man barely escaped without receiving serious physical harm. He was very upset and needed a place to stay for the night. Since our small town has no official homeless shelter, the only other option was to spend the night in jail. The man said that was fine with him, he just wanted someplace safe to stay. I called the police and a deputy was dispatched to the store. Upon arriving, he listened to the man's story and offered to give him a ride to the jail where he could spend the night. HOWEVER, even though the man was very cooperative and offered no resistance, the deputy told him he would have to place him in handcuffs until they reached the jail. It is nothing more than a safety precaution meant to protect the police..because as the situation described by John Harris illustrates, they never know when a person is going to "snap" on them.

Also, the article doesn't list the ages of the children...the reason is that most the word "children" conjures up images of innocent-eyed 5-year-olds. The fact is, many of these "children" are actually teenagers - who could reasonably be assumed to represent a far more potential threat than the toddler most people picture when reading this story.