Which doesn't solve the immediate problem of the violent and/or disruptive behavior and its effects on other children. Which is where things like protective orders are required if the school fails to act, which in turn is where police involvement is needed if for no other reason than to gather necessary data (names, addresses, DOBs, etc. for service of papers).

There's an awful lot of folks in this thread with opinions on what "should" or "ought" to happen, who have obviously never actually tried to make any of these things happen. It is a bureaucratic slog of epic proportions.

From my dealings with CPS they would want the cop to bring the kid to their office, or they’d ask for a report number to follow up later.
I’ve never been able to call CPS, tell them “bitches it’s yours” and just leave the situation.

The thing is we have heard it is arrest or do nothing and the arrest caused the cop to get fired so that leaves what?

We only know what we are told by the experts.

I got my meal paid for once because I told a mom that wasn't appropriate and explained why. Another patron bought my crews meals

That said I've started telling folks who do that off, and then telling the kids that isnt my role in their lives

pussy ass cop is probably a pedo...  Likes to restrain 6 y.o. kids?  Cuts his nuts off.

To be fair, he was a reserve officer.  In many places reserves can fall into an "at will" status.

Come on now.....There are a few of us that understand it here.

Is there a minimum age to arrest someone or something?

Sometimes kids are little shits too

In CO you cannot be culpable until you are 10

Lame

This sounds like the correct answer.

So why are people so upset?

Zip ties come in all sizes....

ETA: Obviously this was a joke. But I don't really have a problem with the story in the OP.

They tried to pass a law.  I don't know its status.

Well once I went with 99.9, there was no wiggle room.

No, but after reading your post I'm tossing a C clamp in the car so I can clamp 2 flippers together.

At what age can we start arresting people for assault?

do we have to wait until they're 18?

10 years old?

who knows?!?!

I already went over that - like, in my very first post in this thread.

It's just terrible that he doesn't have a union to protect him from poor decision making.

I don't know about this story, but, several years ago one of the notorious local jurisdictions had an incident where a mother took her 8 year old and 11 year old daughters to the park. The kids got into a fight and someone called the police and the police came on scene and arrested the 8 year old for domestic violence and took her in. The mother went to the local news station and reported the arrest. The local station sent a reporter to the police dept. and a Lt. was interviewed outside the police dept. The Lt. said that when they are called to a domestic violence incident, "someone is going to jail." Even an 8 year old child.  The reporter then went to the District Attorney's office and an Assistant District Attorney advised that his office had not received a referral from that police dept. for the child's criminal prosecution and he would decline it even if they did. Unfortunately, this police dept. has a long and infamous history.

In E.W. v. Dolgos, (4th Cir. 2018), the Fourth Circuit looked at a child handcuffing case inside a school by a SRO.

The analysis fell under the regular Graham Factors for excessive force cases.

There are  three factors to the “Graham Factors”:

1. "the severity of the crime at issue;
2. whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others,
3.and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight."

Graham, 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865.

In E.W., it was a compliant 10 year old.  The Court wasn't happy about it. Other non-4th circuit authority they relied on:

The Ninth Circuit, applying the Graham factors, held that officers who handcuffed an eleven-year-old child used excessive force. Tekle v. United States , 511 F.3d 839, 846 (9th Cir. 2007) ("He was cooperative and unarmed and, most importantly, he was eleven years old."); see also Ikerd v. Blair , 101 F.3d 430, 435 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding that officer used excessive force against ten-year-old girl under Graham analysis). In addition, the Eleventh Circuit has held that "handcuffing was excessively intrusive given [the arrestee’s] young age." Gray ex rel. Alexander v. Bostic , 458 F.3d 1295, 1300–01, 1306 (11th Cir. 2006) (denying qualified immunity to SRO who handcuffed nine-year-old student for five minutes). Several district courts have similarly held that young age is a "uniquely" or "highly relevant" consideration under Graham . See Kenton II , 2017 WL 4545231, at *9 (holding that handcuffing eight-year-old child violated constitution); Hoskins v. Cumberland Cty. Bd. of Educ., No. 13-15, 2014 WL 7238621, at *7, 11 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 17, 2014) (noting that eight-year-old student "was a startlingly young child to be handcuffed"); see also James v. Frederick Cty. Pub. Sch., 441 F.Supp.2d 755, 757, 759 (D. Md. 2006) (concluding that handcuffing eight-year-old child suggested excessive force). Here, E.W. was only ten years old at the time of the arrest. She therefore falls squarely within the tender age range for which the use of handcuffs is excessive absent exceptional circumstances.

E.W. v. Dolgos, 884 F.3d 172 , 182 (4th Cir. 2018)

Here's the kicker, lol.

Even though the Court found an excessive force civil rights violation under the facts presented in E.W. v. Dolgos, given that none of the lawyers or judges involved found precedent sufficiently similar to the conduct involved, the Court granted qualified immunity to the police officer, but warned that “our excessive force holding is clearly established for any future qualified immunity cases involving similar circumstances. Id., 884 F.3d at 187.

Well then.  Fuck that guy and his bill.

So what is the point? That a regular full time police officer can arrest 6 year olds because a union will protect their jobs? Is that really an argument any of you want to make?

If so... .

If not, explain yourselves. Thanks.

But the union. And all the cops here saying this was appropriate.

As long as the 11th hasn't said the same thing it's like it never happened.

Look at what I posted above.  This is Florida, right? That's 11th Circuit I believe:

Gray ex rel. Alexander v. Bostic , 458 F.3d 1295, 1300–01, 1306 (11th Cir. 2006) (denying qualified immunity to SRO who handcuffed nine-year-old student for five minutes).

Someone should probably read that.

BRB.

Off to a third world country to recruit a team of 9 year old bank robbers.

Ah, right in the feels.  Wait, like me and the majority of cops he had no union.

How many cops have unions?  Is it 60 some percent or 30 some percent?

I can't wait for all the police officers to come back and admit they were wrong and this was a clear civil rights violation.

You brought up the union aspect of this...

Do I need to get your quote from earlier to remind you?

Then it should also be addressed by state statute.  I get the issue before the court, but there is also legal precedence for when determining if someone was under arrest if they new they were under arrest and if their liberty to go was restricted.  The ultimate common standard for determining if a subject was under arrest is if they were in restraints and if they were advised they were under arrest.

I get what the court is saying, but the argument swings the other way in court arguments.  Perhaps they should legislate what age is the minimum standard for criminal intent and arrest.

You should bring that up with Miami_JBT
Or the union president...

Please do bring up where I "brought up the union aspect of this"?

I'll be waiting a while to see where I introduced this subject to this topic...

As a disclaimer here, I haven't read the 11th circuit case. But I have read the 4th Circ. case.  It doesn't say that police can never handcuff a child of X age.  It just says you better have a good reason. Doing it just to scare the kid isn't gonna do it.  PC for an arrest? I would take that to mean that would be the same. So for future guidance, maybe don't arrest 6 year olds unless they're wielding nunchucks or something. And they're really big for their age.

What does the opposite of at will mean in the context of being fired.

What EXACTLY did you mean by this post if you didn't mean a union would have likely protected him if he were full time?

Take your time. I have several hours of nothing to do.

What I EXACTLY meant was this:  In Florida, reserve and auxiliary officers are at will employees, in that they are working of their own volition.  "At-will" in my state means in this case, with no long term contractual obligation in place for either the officer or the agency.  The volunteer may leave at their choosing and the agency may terminate their relationship without cause.

My original comment was directed at the fact that I was not surprised he was fired, as their is no necessity to have cause to "fire" the reserve and their is no appeal process for the reserve either.   It is very easy and can be common to see "at-will" employees or volunteers terminated at the blink of an eye if they are involved in a controversial situation or incident in my area.

Imagine the PR when the kid says the cop touched her private parts during transport

It takes a village to raise a child.

I believe if they can walk they can be cuffed and stuffed

I would wait until they are out of diapers to use a taser though