6 year old charged with felony for throwing temper tantrum

[GAC]

Kids aren't much different these days then they were "in the good old days." The primary difference is the magnification of every community's dirty laundry via the intarweb tubes. 20 years ago this would have happened and you would have never heard about it because it didn't happen in your community

I beg to differ with you on that aspect.... and I bet that a majority of those on this thread who grew up in what you call "the good old days" would also disagree with you. You're relatively a young man. I'd guess mid-late 20's? So from an experiential perspective, you really have no common frame of reference to compare it to. Except the last 20 years. But those of us who are in our late 40's-mid 50's, who grew up in the 50s/60s, will tell you that while it obviously wasn't Ozzie & Harriet or Leave It To Beaver, comparing then to now is the difference between night and day. There wasn't alot of the stuff we see with kids today, going on with kids then.

[GAC]

I was never struck by parents. Not once.

I have two advanced degrees, a career I love, a beautiful wife, and two beautiful daughters.

Wha happuhn?

And no one said there aren't/weren't exceptions. Or that if EVERYONE isn't out there spanking their kids they aren't very good parents, or that these kids are going to grow up int a life of crime. Just like its not true that people who spank a child are uninformed or abusive parents. My older sister never got spanked either. But then, she was always a goodie two-shoes too. :

We can spend all day sighting examples, while also extremes, in both cases.

What stood out to me in this situation, and IMHO, really revealed a lot about this Mother, was when she started screaming about her child's "rights" being violated? What rights would that be Mom? The right to throw a violent temper tantrum, disrupt class, and physically attack others?

I have yet to hear any explanation as to WHY she was having this violent tantrum??

They did right in isolating her. They then should have called the parent(s) and told them that they have a serious situation and one (or both) of you need to come to school. They then need to privately inform any parent. Whatever the "root" problem may be, parents need to be held accountable, and schools should not tolerate such behavior. And parents need to be told this.

But if the parents shirk that responsibility, then what is the school then suppose to do when a child behaves this way, and that behavior is repetitive while at school? Keep sending the kid home? Does the school have the right to then involve outside agencies/insitutions (not necessarily police) in order to help this child/family?

How far are school allowed to go without it being an invasion of privacy?

[Chip R]

What stood out to me in this situation, and IMHO, really revealed a lot about this Mother, was when she started screaming about her child's "rights" being violated? What rights would that be Mom? The right to throw a violent temper tantrum, disrupt class, and physically attack others?

And I'm fairly sure if your 6 year old daughter was arrested for throwing a tantrum at school you'd be screaming bloody murder.

It's irrelevant why the kid was throwing a tantrum and it's irrelevant what the situation of the kid was. What is relevant is that this school was so ill-equipped to handle a little girl throwing a fit that they decided that the kid had to be arrested. A school full of adults couldn't figure out how to defuse this kid without resorting to corporal punishment? What's next, the death penalty for running in the halls?

There are many, many kids who are from a bad environment. Maybe that's a reason why she threw the tantrum. But why should that make any difference? You're looking into reasons why the kid threw the tantrum. But the point is that the kid threw a tantrum and was arrested. It doesn't matter if the kid is from the meanest ghetto or the richest subdivision, they are going to throw tantrums. But it doesn't mean they need to be arrested and charged with felonies.

[MaineRed]

And I'm fairly sure if your 6 year old daughter was arrested for throwing a tantrum at school you'd be screaming bloody murder.

It's irrelevant why the kid was throwing a tantrum and it's irrelevant what the situation of the kid was. What is relevant is that this school was so ill-equipped to handle a little girl throwing a fit that they decided that the kid had to be arrested. A school full of adults couldn't figure out how to defuse this kid without resorting to corporal punishment? What's next, the death penalty for running in the halls?

And I'm sure if your kid got injured by some other kid who had repeated issues that you'd be screaming bloody murder that harsher steps should have been taken to deal with this child during previous incidents.

Where do you get the idea that the death penalty is going to be used for culprits caught running the halls based on this? Are you so sure of your stance that you have to resort to as bad as it gets exaggerations?

Perhaps you should criticize the police who could have handled this differently. Schools call the cops a lot more often that you think. Cuffing her and taking her downtown IS excessive. But all I see here is complaints about how incompetent the school and the teachers are. They called public safety officers because they had a public safety issue.

I don't see what the school did wrong.

[minus5]

And I'm fairly sure if your 6 year old daughter was arrested for throwing a tantrum at school you'd be screaming bloody murder.

I'm dead certain that I would have said to my kid after the fact "Well, I bet you don't do that again, will you?" Then they would have to go to school and apologize.

[Puffy]

I was never struck by parents. Not once.

I have two advanced degrees, a career I love, a beautiful wife, and two beautiful daughters.

Wha happuhn?

Yeah, and it all made you a Cardinals fan.

[zombie-a-go-go]

I beg to differ with you on that aspect.... and I bet that a majority of those on this thread who grew up in what you call "the good old days" would also disagree with you. You're relatively a young man. I'd guess mid-late 20's? So from an experiential perspective, you really have no common frame of reference to compare it to. Except the last 20 years. But those of us who are in our late 40's-mid 50's, who grew up in the 50s/60s, will tell you that while it obviously wasn't Ozzie & Harriet or Leave It To Beaver, comparing then to now is the difference between night and day. There wasn't alot of the stuff we see with kids today, going on with kids then.

Your thoughts on this matter, while interesting, are ultimately irrelevant. The testimonial of those who grew up in the 50s/60s can only be anecdotal, as they did not have easy means of access to local news stories from across the world as we do today. Anecdotes =/= fact, and so your opinion here can not in any real way be accepted as an authority.

[vaticanplum]

What stood out to me in this situation, and IMHO, really revealed a lot about this Mother, was when she started screaming about her child's "rights" being violated? What rights would that be Mom? The right to throw a violent temper tantrum, disrupt class, and physically attack others?

How about her right not to be arrested when she hasn't committed a crime?

I have yet to hear any explanation as to WHY she was having this violent tantrum??

Once again, why does it make a difference? Unless she's throwing a tantrum because she's just killed, maimed or stolen, then the reason for her tantrum doesn't have any bearing on the fact that she was arrested.

They did right in isolating her. They then should have called the parent(s) and told them that they have a serious situation and one (or both) of you need to come to school. They then need to privately inform any parent. Whatever the "root" problem may be, parents need to be held accountable, and schools should not tolerate such behavior. And parents need to be told this.

I agree with all this 100%. Still don't see why this warrants her arrest, or why any of this needs to involve law enforcement.

But if the parents shirk that responsibility, then what is the school then suppose to do when a child behaves this way, and that behavior is repetitive while at school? Keep sending the kid home? Does the school have the right to then involve outside agencies/insitutions (not necessarily police) in order to help this child/family?

That's the school's call, and possibly social services. I'll tell you whose call it isn't: the police's. Everything you suggest there suggests addressing the child's situation, which is the prudent thing to do. The police didn't address the child's situation. They addressed the child.

The police are there to stop people who break laws. No law was being broken here. That's pretty much the end of the story for me...oh, except for the part where the kid was six and involving the police in this served no purpose to her, to her parents, to her school or her community.

Beyond just the absolute absurdity of the situation, GAC, if things in your community are so rosy that the police can really afford to take the time to deal with temper tantrums -- or, conversely, if the temper tantrums in your community are becoming such a public nuisance that they must involve the police to deal with them -- then I don't know whether to be jealous of your community or pity it. Suffice it to say that the police in my neighborhood have slightly more pressing matters to address.

[Yachtzee]

How about her right not to be arrested when she hasn't committed a crime?



Once again, why does it make a difference? Unless she's throwing a tantrum because she's just killed, maimed or stolen, then the reason for her tantrum doesn't have any bearing on the fact that she was arrested.



I agree with all this 100%. Still don't see why this warrants her arrest, or why any of this needs to involve law enforcement.



That's the school's call, and possibly social services. I'll tell you whose call it isn't: the police's.

The police are there to stop people who break laws. No law was being broken here. That's pretty much the end of the story for me...oh, except for the part where the kid was six and involving the police in this served no purpose to her, to her parents, to her school or her community.

Beyond just the absolute absurdity of the situation, GAC, if things in your community are so rosy that the police can really afford to take the time to deal with temper tantrums -- or, conversely, if the temper tantrums in your community are becoming such a public nuisance that they must involve the police to deal with them -- then I don't know whether to be jealous of your community or pity it. Suffice it to say that the police in my neighborhood have slightly more pressing matters to address.

Actually, it depends on how the "Battery of a School Employee" statute is written as to whether a crime has been committed. Battery usually occurs when someone engages in unwanted physical contact of another person. Criminal battery usually requires some kind of intent to do harm. If she struck or kicked a teacher, that may well be a crime, even if she is only six years old. The question is really whether the a six year old can have the required mental state to commit a felony-level battery.

I suspect the law was enacted and made a felony-level offense to deal with the high school situation where many students are large enough to cause serious injury. However, unless there is some age requirement, the police officer's hands may well be tied. Even if they don't want to charge the kid, they may have to, especially if the teacher or the school is adamant about pressing charges.

Personally, I think that once they put the girl in the school office, they should have just kept her there and kept an eye on her while trying to contact her parents without getting the police involved. The school made the choice to involve the police. It's not like the police are staking out the local elementary schools looking for vicious six-year-olds.

Once the police get the call, it is not always in their discretion whether to charge or not to charge. Even if they do have discretion, they may err on the side of safety. Put yourself in the shoes of the officer. You're called to the scene where a school employee claims to have been battered by a student. The student is throwing what you see to be just a temper tantrum, but the school officials who deal with her on a daily basis say she's a danger to herself and others. You've heard the stories of kids as young as kindergartners using weapons on teachers and playmates. In that situation, do you brush off the school employees, or do you err on the side of safety, charge the kid, take her in to the station until her parents can pick her up, and then hand things over to the prosecutor to determine whether to go forward or drop the charges?

[oneupper]

Here's a blog entry with a little more info:

http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogs...er-arrest.html

I like the quote by the officer: "Do You think this is first 6-Year-Old we've arrested?"

Unfortunately a society where a six year old blows a classmate's brains out with a 9 mm, is going to err on the side of caution.

Kid hit a teacher. Teacher can't hit back. I'm guessing these people just followed procedure.

It may seem extreme, but welcome to America in the 21st century.

[GAC]

And I'm fairly sure if your 6 year old daughter was arrested for throwing a tantrum at school you'd be screaming bloody murder.

I'm not saying I wouldn't be upset Chip. I'm just saying I'm getting tired of people, in instances like this, screaming about rights being violated. What rights were violated? Was it wrong for the school to call the police? We all agree it was. Give the school hell for a rash act. But don't scream about rights being violated.

But I'd also be dealing with my child AT HOME too for such a dreadful, and embarassing, peformance at school. Believe me. I wonder if these parents did?

It's irrelevant why the kid was throwing a tantrum and it's irrelevant what the situation of the kid was.

My asking the question was not in reference to, or justification for, calling police. Simply - why was the little girl throwing the temper tantrum in the first place? Yes, I think it is a relevant question that the school has a right to ask. It happened AT SCHOOL. Their domain.

There are many, many kids who are from a bad environment. Maybe that's a reason why she threw the tantrum. But why should that make any difference? You're looking into reasons why the kid threw the tantrum. But the point is that the kid threw a tantrum and was arrested. It doesn't matter if the kid is from the meanest ghetto or the richest subdivision, they are going to throw tantrums. But it doesn't mean they need to be arrested and charged with felonies.

Again - you're addressing my question from the standpoint that I agreed with the school calling the police and being arrested. I have already stated previously that it was a dumb move by the school.

I am simply trying to move past that, go somewhat deeper, and say the school should have called the parents in, had a serious private talk with them as to why this child had the violent tantrum, offered any assistance they could to help (without stepping over boundaries obviously); but still let the parents know that this type of behavior will not be tolerated.

If they don't make efforts to address it, even make offers to help, then what is to stop this little girl from continuing such behavior in the future?

[GAC]

Your thoughts on this matter, while interesting, are ultimately irrelevant. The testimonial of those who grew up in the 50s/60s can only be anecdotal, as they did not have easy means of access to local news stories from across the world as we do today. Anecdotes =/= fact, and so your opinion here can not in any real way be accepted as an authority.

Hardly irrelevant because we didn't have internet then. We didn't live in caves, and there was plenty of access to world news on a daily basis via the TV, newspapers, radio, and other forms of mass media.

Don't take just my word on it. Ask anyone from my age group and they'll tell you that experientially (being there/growing up). And I am not saying that it didn't exist.... just not as prolific, widespread, and tolerated/condoned as we are seeing it today.

[GAC]

How about her right not to be arrested when she hasn't committed a crime?.....The police are there to stop people who break laws. No law was being broken here.

It's not the police's fault they were called. They have a responsibility to answer/respond - whether its a domestic disturbance at home, a public disturbance, or even a disturbance at an elementary school involving a student.

And technically speaking, there were probably some misdemeanor laws violated. How about creating a public disturbance, assault (on the teachers and administrators), and possibly a few other very minor charges. Again - I didn't agree with, nor advocate, this little girl being arrested. Read my previous posts. But shouldn't she, or even her parents, be somehow held accountable for her actions?

Everyone is all upset at the police and these school administrators, while completely overlooking the reason why they were called to begin with... a child throwing a very violent tantrum in school in which she attacked teachers.

What if this had been a somewhat older child? What is the protocol then?

Once again, why does it make a difference? Unless she's throwing a tantrum because she's just killed, maimed or stolen, then the reason for her tantrum doesn't have any bearing on the fact that she was arrested.

No, the reason for the tanturm doesn't have any bearing on why she was arrested, and I never said it did or should. It was just a "side" question on my part, wondering if the teachers, in trying to calm her down, tried to find that out. Usually, when a child is throwing such a violent temper tantrum, doesn't an adult try to find out why, and if possible rectify it?

Beyond just the absolute absurdity of the situation, GAC, if things in your community are so rosy that the police can really afford to take the time to deal with temper tantrums -- or, conversely, if the temper tantrums in your community are becoming such a public nuisance that they must involve the police to deal with them -- then I don't know whether to be jealous of your community or pity it. Suffice it to say that the police in my neighborhood have slightly more pressing matters to address.

If this had happened in a home, or maybe in a department store or other public place - where a child went amok and people were trying to control them, and having a hard time doing so - would a store manager, or someone in that home, be stupid for calling the police?

The police don't always respond to make an arrest; but to take control of a situation and bring order/calm. That is part of their job too.

I don't hear the police in this situation being upset, or chastising the school, for being called. Or saying it was a waste of their time. And I doubt very much that any charges at all will be brought on this little girl.

But to be honest with you..... if one of my kids did something like that in school, the police would be the least of their problems - and they know it.

[Chip R]

I'm not saying I wouldn't be upset Chip. I'm just saying I'm getting tired of people, in instances like this, screaming about rights being violated. What rights were violated? Was it wrong for the school to call the police? We all agree it was. Give the school hell for a rash act. But don't scream about rights being violated.

I don't know if any rights were violated. If the parents believe they were, that's their business, not ours. Back when I was in high school, my older sister went to a party in a private house with other kids in her class where alcohol was served with the knowledge and presence of the parents who owned that house. The cops found out and broke the party up and the school punished my sister and her classmates for it. My parents - and other parents - raised holy hell with the school. Contacted lawyers, even a reporter from the Des Moines Register was in our house once - and we lived a good hour away from Des Moines in a town of about 1,000. My point is that it doesn't matter if the parents think that their kids' rights were violated. They are defending their kids just like you or any other parent would.

But I'd also be dealing with my child AT HOME too for such a dreadful, and embarassing, peformance at school. Believe me. I wonder if these parents did?

I'm not sure if my parents punished my sister but they would have been within their rights to do so as would any parent for what happened. The kid threw a fit. She was wrong to do so and the school handled it poorly. Even if one were to concede that the cops should have been called, the kid didn't need to have been booked for 2 felonies. Perhaps keeping her at the station till her folks arrived would have been sufficient to throw a scare into her so she wouldn't do it again. I wonder if they put her in a cell with other prisoners? That certainly would have been a good influence on her.

My asking the question was not in reference to, or justification for, calling police. Simply - why was the little girl throwing the temper tantrum in the first place? Yes, I think it is a relevant question that the school has a right to ask. It happened AT SCHOOL. Their domain.

Why does it matter why the kid threw a fit? Maybe she didn't get a toy she wanted at recess. Maybe she's a spoiled brat. Maybe someone called her a name. It doesn't matter why she threw the fit. That is something for her parents to handle. Good kids - as well as bad kids - throw fits. I have 2 nephews and a niece and I have seen them all throw fits before. Doesn't mean their parents are bad parents or they are bad kids. They threw fits because they were kids and were mad at something or someone. To my knowledge, no one has had them arrested for doing so.

Again - you're addressing my question from the standpoint that I agreed with the school calling the police and being arrested. I have already stated previously that it was a dumb move by the school.

You also said, "What else could they do?" You may not have agreed with it but you certainly condoned it.

I am simply trying to move past that, go somewhat deeper, and say the school should have called the parents in, had a serious private talk with them as to why this child had the violent tantrum, offered any assistance they could to help (without stepping over boundaries obviously); but still let the parents know that this type of behavior will not be tolerated.

Hopefully they will do this but the behavior of the child is not the issue here. It is what the school did when the child misbehaved. As a parent, I'm sure you have different levels of discipline for your kids when they misbehave just like society has. If I get nailed for speeding, I know I'm not going to be put to death. If I rob a bank, I'm probably going to do some time but I'm not going to be put to death. If I kill someone, there's a good chance I'll be put to death. I'd like to know what this school considers a more heinous crime than throwing a fit and what their punishment is for it.

If they don't make efforts to address it, even make offers to help, then what is to stop this little girl from continuing such behavior in the future?

I agree, but since this school doesn't seem to care if a little girl is arrested for just throwing a fit, I wouldn't think they care about the kid's behavior a whole lot. But to answer your question, I would hope her parents would address the kid's behavior and act accordingly. Maybe they will ground her or give her a spanking. I just hope they don't send her to jail.

[GAC]

They should have tasered the little brat, called the parents, and when they showed up.... "We don't know why she is twitching like that. That's why we called. Is she having a seizure?"