THERE was a recent headline in a NY newspaper. It read something like this: “Cuff kid sues police.” I did not need to read the story, as I know many of them already. It happens on an irregular, but frequent, basis. Some young kid gets in trouble, maybe at school, maybe shoplifting, maybe on the school bus. The police are called and the kid is taken into custody. And the police handcuff him. This is the core of the TV broadcast.
Your first reaction is that this is ridiculous. Your second reaction is the same. The child is always under 12 years old, small, and often a girl, for otherwise there would be no story. The normal American viewer thinks, or says, “What kind of police officer is it who can not handle a 50 pound girl?” Sometimes the story has video, and often the child criminal does not resist being handcuffed. So this use of “excessive” force, or excessive use of force, leads to general disgust with the police and their procedures, and maybe a lawsuit.
This is a very good example of how to misrepresent a news story without actual open deception. I have had a lot of experience with police, and know about these things. Consider what would happen if the police officer had acted like some old time “friendly cop on the beat.” He escorts, without physical contact, the child towards the police car. The child now panics and runs off… into the street and is hit by a car. Or the child decides that (s)he is not getting into the car, and attacks the police officer. The officer needs to do something, and will probably injure the child in defense. Suppose that the child willingly gets into the car, but then removes his seat belt, and is injured in an accident. What if he bolts from the car at a red light? What if he tries to grab the wheel, and/or attacks the driver? These things could, and do, happen. What if the officer sits next to her and holds her? This could be an approximate incident of improper contact. Hands may move, unintentionally, when a car moves. Lawsuits would be filed by outraged parents.
Keep in mind that the ONLY reason why the police are involved is that the child has already shown himself to be a trouble maker. He may be violent, or close to it. She may be unstable and hysterical. He may be mentally disturbed. If the child is handcuffed behind his back, then he can be handled in a way that, as much as possible, ensures his own safety, as well as that of the officers, and anyone and everyone else. No one, not even a child, can be handcuffed against his will. That is, this can not then be done without using some overwhelming physical force or pain compliance. The image of an adult police officer "handling" a child to cuff him looks terrible, but is necessary, prudent and proper.
My point is this. Any police officer knows these factors. Any reporter could demonstrate them, as background to any of these children in custody stories. Once a police officer is officially involved he has to behave in certain ways---again, for maximum safety, for himself and others! Yet the tone of these stories is that the police are sadistic brutes or incompetent fools, or both.
In this case, as with many others, half the story, or “just the facts,” are pretty much the same as a lie. Keep this in mind as you watch and listen to the Mass Media. It is a good rule to reason all the way to a final conclusion before you determine a conclusion.
You are invited to visit my other blog: Wildeandtwain.blogspot.com
let's join our hands together to stop this kind of wrong doings. It may risk lives in the future if we just let them continue.
Posted by: Louis Vuitton Diaper | March 08, 2012 at 02:57 PM
Thank you for taking the time to leave a comment. I apologize for the delay in responding to you.
Posted by: Vincent Lewis | March 20, 2012 at 06:59 PM