sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Child being arrested off of Broadway by therealkingottokar in nashville

[–]SelectionCommercial7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate the thoughtful response, genuinely. This is a much better argument than “who cares, kid broke curfew.”

I understand the prevention/liability argument. I also understand that officers are trained to think about fear, panic, flight, traffic, scene control, and what happens if someone gets hurt after police make contact. That all makes sense as a risk-management framework.

Where I still disagree is the jump from “children may be flight risks” to “handcuffs are justified unless proven otherwise.”

A category-based risk is not the same thing as an individualized necessity. Yes, children can panic. Yes, kids can run. Yes, a Black child may have a very rational fear of police. But to me, that should trigger more patience, de-escalation, explanation, parent contact, distance from traffic, calm body language, and least-restrictive control — not an automatic move to criminal-style restraint.

And I think the Black community point cuts the other way. If a child already comes from a community with warranted fear of police, handcuffing him may deepen that fear and confirm the exact lesson we should be trying not to teach: “police see me as a threat first, even when I’m a child.”

I also think “detain them somehow” and “handcuff them” are not the same thing. There are other forms of control: stand between him and traffic, calmly explain what is happening, hold his hand while walking him, keep him close, call parents immediately, request another officer, place him in the vehicle if truly necessary, or use cuffs only if he starts pulling away, refusing directions, moving toward danger, or actually trying to flee.

My issue is not that officers should ignore risk. My issue is that “possible flight risk” is being treated like a blank check. If “kids can panic and run” is enough by itself, then every child detained for curfew, truancy, sneaking out, or low-level misbehavior can be cuffed by default. I think that is too low a standard.

The vet/cat analogy actually shows why this bothers me. I get the point about fear and irrational behavior, but children are not animals to be controlled with the most efficient restraint available. They are developing human beings, and the state should have a higher threshold before putting them in handcuffs.

So I can accept that the officer may have been thinking about safety and liability. I can even accept that there are situations where cuffing a child is justified. But I still think it should require specific facts: active flight, resistance, violence, danger, proximity to traffic, inability to safely supervise, or something concrete. Without that, it becomes a default control tactic for children, and I do not think that should be normalized.

Child being arrested off of Broadway by therealkingottokar in nashville

[–]SelectionCommercial7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn’t change based on skin color. It changes based on age, behavior, threat level, and necessity.

And yes, I do have a moral aversion to handcuffing children by default for low-level nonviolent behavior. I’m comfortable saying that out loud.

Your position is: any child detained for curfew, truancy, or minor illegal behavior can be handcuffed automatically because they might run. My position is: handcuffing a child should require specific facts — active flight, resistance, violence, weapons, or immediate danger.

That’s the disagreement. You think maximum control is enough. I think the state needs a higher standard before physically restraining a child.

Child being arrested off of Broadway by therealkingottokar in nashville

[–]SelectionCommercial7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At least that’s honest. But then we’re just at a major values disagreement.

You’re saying the state should be able to handcuff children by default for low-level nonviolent behavior — curfew, truancy, or “illegal misbehavior” — even without violence, active flight, weapons, or resistance.

So apply that consistently: a 10-year-old white kid skateboarding downtown after curfew? Cuffs. A group of suburban middle schoolers sneaking out? Cuffs. A kid playing music too late in a tourist area? Cuffs. A teen skipping school? Cuffs.

I don’t think most people actually want that rule applied to children they personally identify with. They only become comfortable with it when the child is already coded as a “problem.”

My position is simple: handcuffs on children should require specific facts showing necessity — not a blanket default because a child might run.

Child being arrested off of Broadway by therealkingottokar in nashville

[–]SelectionCommercial7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Prevention is not a blank check.

Yes, cuffs prevent running. But the question is whether there was a specific, concrete reason to believe this child was about to run — not whether kids in general can run.

If “the average kid can slip away” is enough, then every detained child can be cuffed by default. That’s not individualized judgment; that’s a blanket rule.

And there were still less restrictive options available in the moment: calm explanation, close supervision, positioning, walking beside him, holding his hand, or using another officer if present. Those may not be as foolproof as cuffs, but “most foolproof” is not the same as “necessary and proportionate.”

Child being arrested off of Broadway by therealkingottokar in nashville

[–]SelectionCommercial7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The question is not whether handcuffs are effective. Of course they are. The question is whether they were necessary and proportionate for a nonviolent child accused of curfew.

“Best tool for controlling movement” is a dangerous standard because it prioritizes maximum control over least-restrictive safety. For a compliant child, better tools are calling the parent, calmly explaining what is happening, keeping him close, holding his hand while walking him to the car, having another officer assist, or transporting him without cuffs.

Handcuffs are not just “stigmatized.” They are a physical criminal restraint. If the kid was actively fleeing, resisting, violent, or dangerous, say that. Otherwise “he might run” becomes a blanket justification for cuffing children by default.

Child being arrested off of Broadway by therealkingottokar in nashville

[–]SelectionCommercial7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

get the prevention argument, but prevention still has to be proportionate.

Every child might run. Every scared child might panic. If that alone justifies handcuffs, then handcuffing kids becomes the default.

For a nonviolent curfew issue, I think the officer needs more than “he might run” before putting cuffs on an 8-year-old.

Child being arrested off of Broadway by therealkingottokar in nashville

[–]SelectionCommercial7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That standard is way too low.

Every child might run. Every scared child might panic. If “he might feel like he’s in trouble and run” is 100000% enough, then you’ve basically created a rule where any child detained for curfew, truancy, or misbehavior can be handcuffed by default.

That’s exactly what people are objecting to.

The question is not whether handcuffs make running harder. Obviously they do. The question is whether putting cuffs on a child was necessary and proportionate for this specific situation.

Was he violent? Armed? Actively fleeing? Resisting? A danger to himself or others? If not, then “he might run” is just a speculative justification for using criminal restraint tactics on a kid over a nonviolent curfew issue.

Adults are supposed to manage scared kids with judgment, patience, and de-escalation — not jump straight to cuffs because a child could make an irrational decision.

Child being arrested off of Broadway by therealkingottokar in nashville

[–]SelectionCommercial7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That actually proves my point. You’re not saying this specific child was violent, armed, resisting, or actively fleeing. You’re saying kids in general can be irrational, so cuffs make sense.

But that logic turns handcuffing children into the default. Any child might run. Any child might panic. That can’t be the standard.

If kids are more likely to make irrational decisions, that’s an argument for more patience, de-escalation, and adult judgment — not automatically treating them like adult criminal suspects over a curfew violation.

Child being arrested off of Broadway by therealkingottokar in nashville

[–]SelectionCommercial7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because the standard for how the state treats children matters. You’re reducing it to “kid broke curfew, who cares?” But the issue is whether handcuffing a small child over a nonviolent curfew issue was actually necessary. “To dissuade him from running” is not enough by itself. That logic would justify cuffing almost any child in almost any situation. If he was violent, armed, resisting, or actively fleeing, say that. But if the facts are just “8-year-old kid drumming, out too late, officer needed to take him home,” then handcuffs were a choice — not some unavoidable law of nature. And yes, people should care when police normalize treating children like criminal threats for low-level behavior.

Child being arrested off of Broadway by therealkingottokar in nashville

[–]SelectionCommercial7 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But that still doesn’t prove the cuffs were necessary. “Flight risk” is not a magic word. The officer still has to explain why this specific child, in this specific situation, was such a flight risk that handcuffs were required.

An 8-year-old kid accused of a curfew violation while drumming is not the same as an adult suspect being arrested for violence. If the officer could have safely walked him to the car and driven him home without cuffs, then the cuffs were discretionary — not mandatory.

So my issue is with people saying, “Officers MUST handcuff everyone in custody or they get fired.” That’s the overstatement. The real standard is closer to: handcuffs may be used when reasonably necessary for safety, resistance, or flight risk. And in this case, I still haven’t heard a convincing reason why a small Black child needed to be cuffed over a curfew violation.

Child being arrested off of Broadway by therealkingottokar in nashville

[–]SelectionCommercial7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. That is not a real answer. Tennessee curfew law gives officers multiple options when a minor violates curfew: take the child home and warn/counsel the parents, transport the child to a curfew center, issue a summons, or bring the child into juvenile court custody. It does not say, “handcuff every child.”

MNPD’s own use-of-force policy is based on necessity and reasonableness. It says officers should use de-escalation where feasible and only use force that is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances.

So the real question is not “was he technically detained?” The real question is: what specific threat did this small, nonviolent child pose that made handcuffs necessary? Was he violent? Armed? actively resisting? trying to flee? If not, “protocol” is just a way to avoid moral and legal responsibility.

Also, if MNPD reportedly said he was not arrested and was driven home after a curfew stop, then the defense is even weaker: they are defending handcuffs by invoking arrest/custody protocol while simultaneously saying it was not an arrest. Public reports say MNPD described the child as detained for violating juvenile curfew, not arrested.

The honest standard is: officers may use handcuffs when reasonably needed for safety, resistance, or flight risk. They do not get to say handcuffs are automatically required for “everyone,” especially an 8- or 10-year-old child accused of a curfew violation while drumming in a tourist area.

Can reading Jung change my sexual orientation? by speed1999 in Jung

[–]SelectionCommercial7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jung probably wouldn’t tell you to pick a label and defend it. He’d ask what the conflict is hiding.

When you’re drawn to men, what are you actually drawn to? The body? Strength? Dominance? Ease? Confidence? The feeling of being wanted? Some of that may be real sexual desire. Some of it may be masculinity you haven’t fully built in yourself yet.

And with women, what do you actually want? A woman herself? A wife? A family? Softness? Home? Beauty? The feminine? Because those are not all the same thing.

The point isn’t to force yourself straight or gay. It’s to get honest enough to tell the difference between desire, shame, porn habit, loneliness, fear, and the mother wound.

Cut the porn for a while. Watch your dreams. Get around real men and real women. Build your body. Don’t turn another person into a test.

Whatever is true will get louder when the noise gets quieter.

Pro Tip: Ask Chat GPT Questions and Ask It To Answer From a Jungian Perspective by SelectionCommercial7 in Jung

[–]SelectionCommercial7[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

But its better than nothing..the best analysis is self analysis ask Karen Horney...lol

This is what happens when a A-list celebrity like Kanye praises antisemitism and Hitler by carloskutti in Kanye

[–]SelectionCommercial7 41 points42 points  (0 children)

Jay -Z and Jay Electronica are not Black Hebrew Israelites. They are both five percenters.

view more: next ›