This kid's problem is not his (alleged) autism.
His problem is his enabling mother.
1 posted on
11/17/2011 9:34:20 AM PST by
Altariel
To: Altariel
The kid is not socially able to be in a public school.
2 posted on
11/17/2011 9:41:10 AM PST by
MrEdd
(Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
To: Altariel
you'll find as the leftist continue to take over, that the sick,the weak, the elderly, and the disabled will be routinely treated with Nazi like punishments.....
expediency of course....
3 posted on
11/17/2011 9:41:38 AM PST by
cherry
To: Altariel
Agree, but don a flame suit for those very same enablers who believe that their "precious little autistic angels" should be accommodated by allowing them to slow down learning and cause outbursts when they should be in special education.
Mainstreaming is feel good liberal PC idiocy that harms both the mentally disabled and functional children.
4 posted on
11/17/2011 9:47:07 AM PST by
Clemenza
("History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil governm)
To: Altariel
"Under absolutely no circumstances it is appropriate to handcuff an elementary aged child in this school district. Period," Brooks stated.
Really? And you'd rather have the kid loose and unrestrained so that he does further harm to himself and others?
Good to know. Now go away. You're fired.
5 posted on
11/17/2011 9:54:16 AM PST by
Responsibility2nd
(NO LIBS! This means liberals AND libertarians (same thing) NO LIBS!)
To: Altariel
The mom’s right. He shouldn’t have been handcuffed. He should have been hog tied so he couldn’t continue kicking people.
7 posted on
11/17/2011 10:21:09 AM PST by
bgill
(The Obama administration is staging a coup. Wake up, America, before it's too late.)
To: Altariel
. . . the boy was out of control and unplugging cords from outlets, throwing chairs and kicking a teacher and a police officer . . . We can handcuff him and get blamed for that, or we can physically restrain him and get compared to Penn State's issue with young boys. Once the situation reached that level, handcuffs were not out of line. The correct answer would be for the enabling mom to teach her child that actions have consequences, even for him, and that he needs to learn coping mechanisms. The correct answer for the school would have been to distract him before he reached that level. I don't have much hope that common sense will break out on either side of the school-family divide in this situation.
8 posted on
11/17/2011 10:22:51 AM PST by
Pollster1
(Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
To: Altariel
Quesada said she does not think the 4-foot tall, 50-pound boy deserved to be handcuffed.Right...he deserved a damn good "smack"!!
9 posted on
11/17/2011 10:40:04 AM PST by
GoldenPup
To: Altariel
>>>This kid’s problem is not his (alleged) autism.
His problem is his enabling mother. <<<
And you know this, how?
The kid clearly needed to be disciplined, but handcuffing a 7 year old is unnecessary, idiotic and abusive.
To: Altariel
APS superintendent says handcuffing boy, 7, was inappropriate I agree. It sounds like a streight jacket would have been more appropriate.
20 posted on
11/17/2011 12:46:40 PM PST by
Harmless Teddy Bear
(*Philosophy lesson 117-22b: Anyone who demands to be respected is undeserving of it.*)
To: Altariel
"Under absolutely no circumstances it is appropriate to handcuff an elementary aged child in this school district. Period," Brooks stated."Just leave them be to do physical harm to the rest of the children present. Brilliant reasoning Mr. Brooks.

24 posted on
11/17/2011 6:11:37 PM PST by
ex91B10
(We've tried the Soap Box,the Ballot Box and the Jury Box; one box left.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson