• MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    It was strange to me the article had nothing about why the girl needed to be physically restrained.

    It clearly says why, whether or not you agree it was necessary.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Stating she wasn’t allowed to leave is not a reason, why she wasn’t allowed to leave would be the reason.
      But trying to leave a house is not basis at all for restraining a person, even if you are told not to.
      Sounds like a power-trip to me.

      • TheMinister@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        If it’s a school for troubled kids, it could very well be to protect the student during the hours they’re supposed to be there, and to protect people outside from them. Letting a raging and troubled person out into the world does not seem healthy or safe. Seems logical to me. They were doing their jobs: protecting the students and other people from the students.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          My guess is the grounds around a “residential therapeutic school” are owned by the school.
          That would generally be pretty standard for that kind of place.