Replies

"reflects a new policy not to use restraints unless the child is armed or considered violent."

Ok, she hit a boy, and was tearing things from walls, standing on tables, and she had to be returned 3 weeks earlier because she had ran away from school. If this isn't violent, and possibly self destructive behavior, then I don't know what is...put the kid in cuffs and make her sit there until dad arrives. I think dad should be footing the bill for all the damage also.

This "let the storm play itself out" approach reminds me of the State Department's policy toward destructive demonstrators at US embassies when I was on Marine Security Guard (MSG) duty. (Now this was in the early 70's and the policy may have changed since then.) The logic was that the host government was responsible for the external security of the diplomatic mission and that it was also liable for any damage that demonstrators did to US property due to ineffective security or inaction. However, the host government's responsibility (and liability) was greatly reduced or abrogated entirely if an MSG injured or killed a demonstrator that was just - at that moment anyway - destroying US property. (We still had the right to defend anyone within the mission against personal attack.) So, as long as they were just destroying our "stuff," the MSGs were to standby and maintain watch on the incident while the local police, etc. restored order.

I get the sense that a similar logic is behind the orders to the police. As long as the young child is not a threat to others (i.e., has a weapon) or to themselves through self injury, let them act out, even destroy property - especially if it is all being recorded on video tape. No bad PR for the police, there is no doubt about who did what, and they know were to send the bill.

Hopefully, the parents will know what to do once they get it. (Although, with some, their first actions seem to be to deny the incident happened or to blame anyone and anything EXCEPT their out-of-control child.)