What is MCPS doing to make schools safer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gun control

Gun control has nothing to do with making MCPS safer. MCPS is doing nothing. Most parents wanted them to remove SRO's and police from the schools. They did.

How did the police do in Uvalde? Or Parkland?

Don’t get me wrong, I support having SROs in schools. I just think it is ridiculous to think they’d stop school shootings.

They didn't do well but that's not a justification to not have them. If they did their job they would have gone in, killed the killer and got those kids medical attention and that is the point.

If these incidents are representative, SROs will stand around, run away or arrest parents.

There have been SRO's who have also saved lives.

Neat. What percentage of the very, very long list of school shootings in the US since the 90s were stopped by SROs?

Hint: damn few.

Here’s a report with some statistics for you:
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-w0903-pub.pdf

It highlights 236 cases, of which 168 were adverted. It also contains twelve case studies of SRO-related events. On a personal level, I witnessed the SRO at my high school remove three knives and one gun from students, all taken without incident. He did a lot more than that, but those are the incidences I witnessed with my own eyes. The simple truth is there are many of us who have seen the value of SROs.

We all know the MoCo council pulled SROs without actually surveying the community. Instead, they listened to a small, yet vocal group. We also know that the principals were unanimous in wanting them to remain.

In almost every case in that truth the situation was diverted by a student, teacher, principal or behavioral specialist.

Having an armed guard at a school is the #1 reason a psycho thinks they need an AR15.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7887654/

SROs make schools less safe.

You are welcome to hate SROs, but you are also going to have to accept facts. If you actually look at that report, you’ll realize you are incorrect. As for being “diverted by a student,” I have personally witnessed how that actually happens… 4 times. Students don’t disarm their peers. Students tell adults, who get the SRO to do the disarming. If that’s what you mean by “divert,” then I think we would both have to agree SROs are still necessary.

Again… you may hate SROs all you want. I suspect the majority of MCPS is in support of them, but we won’t know until the BOE or the council decides to send out a survey. I doubt they will since they may not like the results.

I don’t hate SROs my family has many police officers, lawyers and judges. I know SROs never disarm a gunman, never… not once. They are ineffective window dressing.

They call for real police just like a teacher, student or principal can do. They are a useless step in the process.

You can love window dressing all you want but your ignorant anecdotes don’t mean SROs help with shootings. Gun control does.

My statistics and real-world anecdotes were countered with insults. When you can back up your beliefs with something other than hate, we may get somewhere. Until then, I’ll just be thankful that logic is prevailing and SROs are being reinstated.

You don’t have statistics and if you’ve seen 4 SROs disarm students you are delusion and need therapy.

Being ignorant is not an insult it’s a call to educate yourself.

If a farmer told me I was ignorant about farming it would be a correct statement not an insult and I’d listen Instead of talk.

SRO reinstatement is a.waste of money and a call to a psycho they need more fire power. Enjoy your future AR15 day.

Once again, you bring nothing but insults to the table. Your absurd comments regarding ignorance are highly ironic; you refuse to listen to somebody who has presented statistics (see link above) and true anecdotal evidence. 18 years in a high school? I’ve seen A LOT.

I have yet to see you present anything but denial. At this point, I recognize I’m arguing with someone incapable of having a logical discussion about school safety. (Actually, I figured that out already…)

I ousted the student and links to organizations that have a sole purpose of protecting the world from gun violence.

All you presented was uneducated teachers/students/parents with no background or knowledge of how to keep schools safe.

Do you have A real study that shows 1x an SRO stopped a gun from coming to school because they intercepted it from coming into the school? One?

This is the last time I’m responding because I’m tired of repeating myself. I posted pages of case studies earlier in this thread. Also, you are going to call teachers and others who work directly with students “uneducated”? Even if you meant educated specifically about student safety, you are *still* wrong. Teachers undergo regular training and work daily to create safe environments.

I suspect you are also the poster upthread who told me I am “delusional and need therapy” if I believe I’ve witnessed SROs take weapons from students. You don’t get to change reality. I’ve seen it multiple times, as have scores of other teachers. That, in a way, was also an education for me. I’ve seen SROs in action. This isn’t some simple theoretical exercise to me, which is why I get rather annoyed when people post unsupported claims and blanked statements.

I will repeat myself all day long. Teachers and students and parents are not educated on tactical methods and security measure to prevent violent crimes.

I work in security, my family is in law enforcement, etc.

You keep saying I hate cops I hate SROs so yes you are delusional and uneducated. Stick to what you know. SROs are not effective. Just like stop and frisk and 3 strikes youre out. All dreamed up by well meaning parents who were uneducated, wrong and had dangerous laws put in place.

I said I wouldn’t post again, and here I am. Sigh.

You *still* haven’t anything productive. You merely throw insults. When you can post FACTS and PROOF rather than a vague “SROs are not effective,” then we can get somewhere. Right now, I’ve seen more validated proof in favor of SROs on this thread than not. You can throw “uneducated” around all you want. Right now, the “uneducated” have provided far better arguments than you have.

https://www.amazon.com/Guidelines-Responding-Student-Threats-Violence/dp/1593185022

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2776515

https://www.edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai21-476.pdf

https://momsdemandaction.org/

https://giffords.org/about/gabbys-story/

Educate yourself

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gun control

Gun control has nothing to do with making MCPS safer. MCPS is doing nothing. Most parents wanted them to remove SRO's and police from the schools. They did.

How did the police do in Uvalde? Or Parkland?

Don’t get me wrong, I support having SROs in schools. I just think it is ridiculous to think they’d stop school shootings.

They didn't do well but that's not a justification to not have them. If they did their job they would have gone in, killed the killer and got those kids medical attention and that is the point.

If these incidents are representative, SROs will stand around, run away or arrest parents.

There have been SRO's who have also saved lives.

Neat. What percentage of the very, very long list of school shootings in the US since the 90s were stopped by SROs?

Hint: damn few.

Here’s a report with some statistics for you:
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-w0903-pub.pdf

It highlights 236 cases, of which 168 were adverted. It also contains twelve case studies of SRO-related events. On a personal level, I witnessed the SRO at my high school remove three knives and one gun from students, all taken without incident. He did a lot more than that, but those are the incidences I witnessed with my own eyes. The simple truth is there are many of us who have seen the value of SROs.

We all know the MoCo council pulled SROs without actually surveying the community. Instead, they listened to a small, yet vocal group. We also know that the principals were unanimous in wanting them to remain.

In almost every case in that truth the situation was diverted by a student, teacher, principal or behavioral specialist.

Having an armed guard at a school is the #1 reason a psycho thinks they need an AR15.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7887654/

SROs make schools less safe.

You are welcome to hate SROs, but you are also going to have to accept facts. If you actually look at that report, you’ll realize you are incorrect. As for being “diverted by a student,” I have personally witnessed how that actually happens… 4 times. Students don’t disarm their peers. Students tell adults, who get the SRO to do the disarming. If that’s what you mean by “divert,” then I think we would both have to agree SROs are still necessary.

Again… you may hate SROs all you want. I suspect the majority of MCPS is in support of them, but we won’t know until the BOE or the council decides to send out a survey. I doubt they will since they may not like the results.

I don’t hate SROs my family has many police officers, lawyers and judges. I know SROs never disarm a gunman, never… not once. They are ineffective window dressing.

They call for real police just like a teacher, student or principal can do. They are a useless step in the process.

You can love window dressing all you want but your ignorant anecdotes don’t mean SROs help with shootings. Gun control does.

My statistics and real-world anecdotes were countered with insults. When you can back up your beliefs with something other than hate, we may get somewhere. Until then, I’ll just be thankful that logic is prevailing and SROs are being reinstated.

You don’t have statistics and if you’ve seen 4 SROs disarm students you are delusion and need therapy.

Being ignorant is not an insult it’s a call to educate yourself.

If a farmer told me I was ignorant about farming it would be a correct statement not an insult and I’d listen Instead of talk.

SRO reinstatement is a.waste of money and a call to a psycho they need more fire power. Enjoy your future AR15 day.

Once again, you bring nothing but insults to the table. Your absurd comments regarding ignorance are highly ironic; you refuse to listen to somebody who has presented statistics (see link above) and true anecdotal evidence. 18 years in a high school? I’ve seen A LOT.

I have yet to see you present anything but denial. At this point, I recognize I’m arguing with someone incapable of having a logical discussion about school safety. (Actually, I figured that out already…)

I ousted the student and links to organizations that have a sole purpose of protecting the world from gun violence.

All you presented was uneducated teachers/students/parents with no background or knowledge of how to keep schools safe.

Do you have A real study that shows 1x an SRO stopped a gun from coming to school because they intercepted it from coming into the school? One?

This is the last time I’m responding because I’m tired of repeating myself. I posted pages of case studies earlier in this thread. Also, you are going to call teachers and others who work directly with students “uneducated”? Even if you meant educated specifically about student safety, you are *still* wrong. Teachers undergo regular training and work daily to create safe environments.

I suspect you are also the poster upthread who told me I am “delusional and need therapy” if I believe I’ve witnessed SROs take weapons from students. You don’t get to change reality. I’ve seen it multiple times, as have scores of other teachers. That, in a way, was also an education for me. I’ve seen SROs in action. This isn’t some simple theoretical exercise to me, which is why I get rather annoyed when people post unsupported claims and blanked statements.

This is all good and well but not of it really matters unless the GOP stops blocking common sense gun reform.

Agreed. Honestly you all are like obese patients after a heart attack requesting the best cardiac surgeon to perform your bypass. You wouldn't be in this predicament (SROs, CEOs, armed trachers???) If there weren't so many guns around. Prevention will stop most heart attacks,not a good cardiologist..

Sure, but we still have cardiologists for the times when prevention didn’t stop the heart attack.

Gun reform is clearly needed and is part of the prevention we need, but in a nation that has more guns than people we ALSO need security. That’s why the above conversation is necessary.

Sadly, they need to start using metal detectors as well.

Yeah. With all the ring binders and phones, everyone will set it off.

What is your solution?

Intervention before an active shooter situation. Accepting that there isn't a good one once a person decides to bring a gun in.

[Anonymous]

Someone keeps asking for facts and proof - I'm not a PP but I also like those things so here ya go.

https://reason.com/2021/10/20/new-research-says-police-in-schools-dont-reduce-shootings-but-they-do-increase-expulsions-and-arrests/

Rather than assume anyone will actually read that, here are some takeaways.

Using national school-level data from 2014 to 2018 collected by the U.S. Department of Education, the paper found that while SROs "do effectively reduce some forms of violence in schools," they do not prevent school shootings or gun-related incidents.

"We also find that SROs intensify the use of suspensions, expulsions, police referrals, and arrests of students," researchers wrote. "These effects are consistently over two times larger for Black students than White students."

The study further found that SROs increase chronic absenteeism, especially for students with disabilities.

Other recent research has come to similar conclusions as the new working paper. For example, a study published last August by researchers at the University of Maryland and the firm Westat found that increasing the number of police in schools doesn't make school safer and leads to harsher discipline for infractions. The study found that increasing the number of SROs led to both immediate and persistent increases in the number of drug and weapon offenses and the number of exclusionary disciplinary actions against students.

After Florida mandated that all K-12 schools have at least one SRO or armed guardian following the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, a study found that the number of school arrests—which had been declining for years—suddenly started to rise. There was also a sharp increase in the use of physical restraint against students.

I'm not arguing with anyone who feels they've had positive experiences with SROs in MoCo. I have no doubt you did. But the information we have so far, and we have a lot of it, points to SROs as coming with some major downsides. Pair that with the fact that they are associated with increased casualties in mass school shooting events (cited earlier by PP, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7887654/) and it's pretty hard for me to see any justification for them. If kids need mentors and role models, I really can't imagine why that person needs to be armed. And if the gun is to protect us from other guns, that is demonstrably not working - the previous article mentions knowing there is an armed guard at school may actually incentivize suicidal shooters rather than deter them.

[Anonymous]

Oh more facts - I read through the other link from a PP with the 12 case studies of where SROs were helpful in preventing a shooting incident. Of those 12 studies, which the authors apparently found to be the best 12 examples they could find, only 3 of them had the SRO in any sort of physical role during the event, such as defending someone or apprehending a suspect. The others were mostly cited as being involved because students told them about planned attacks, and they then told other law enforcement and helped with the investigation. Reading the narratives, administrators, custodial staff, and students were at least as helpful in preventing tragedy during almost every incident as the SRO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh more facts - I read through the other link from a PP with the 12 case studies of where SROs were helpful in preventing a shooting incident. Of those 12 studies, which the authors apparently found to be the best 12 examples they could find, only 3 of them had the SRO in any sort of physical role during the event, such as defending someone or apprehending a suspect. The others were mostly cited as being involved because students told them about planned attacks, and they then told other law enforcement and helped with the investigation. Reading the narratives, administrators, custodial staff, and students were at least as helpful in preventing tragedy during almost every incident as the SRO.

I am the PP who posted the link to the case studies. Let me start by saying a sincere "thank you" for providing facts and for typing in such a reasoned manner. I am very pro-SRO, but I am always willing to listen to opposing viewpoints. Hopefully I have time to comment on the post above later, but to start with the 12 case studies:

I don't think we can discredit SROs of the 9 case studies in which they did not have a direct, physical role. SROs work as part of a team. I am also the poster above who wrote about having direct interactions with SROs. Yes, I have seen SROs remove weapons from students four times, one of which was a massive butcher knife taken from a backpack during my class. I am also aware that sometimes SROs call in other officers who then intervene. My husband, a LEO, was one who was called in at a local school. He removed a gun from a student who, from the student's own admission, brought it school in order to solve a disagreement with another student. The SRO in that case was a vital connection between the school and the squad that patrols the surrounding area. An SROs presence in the school can mean that information gets communicated immediately and in proper protocol to local law enforcement.

Schools are communities and they work best when people have defined roles. The counselors are there to provide social / emotional support, teachers provide instruction, etc. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the social / emotional needs of our students blur those lines. Whether or not that is because of Covid, video games, working parents, etc.... I'm not sure that matters. As a teacher, I spend a considerably higher percentage of my day counseling students. That scares me because I am not trained in that area, so I want to fall back on a team of people who have a ton of different specialities. I want to know that I can reach out to the counselor, provided they aren't too over-burdened since their caseloads are criminally too large. I want to reach out to a health team, like the nurse who helped me when I found a student cutting herself at school. Yes, I also want to know that I can reach out to an SRO, somebody who is present and (most importantly) trained for those real, terrifying threats. What statistics can't show clearly is how many times SROs actually stopped threats. The four I mention above? I'm very certain they never made it into a case study or report. How many more thwarted attempts at violence happen that never get reported? How can we accurately report what does *not* happen? All I have to go on is my lived experience.

Again... thank you. I see the concerns you raise and I respect them. It's conversations like these that will get us somewhere.

[Anonymous]

A teacher with a 4 year degree and trained to deal with children is worried they are not “trained” to counsel children but support cops with no 4 year degree and <2 weeks of “training” counseling and mentoring children. SMFH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A teacher with a 4 year degree and trained to deal with children is worried they are not “trained” to counsel children but support cops with no 4 year degree and <2 weeks of “training” counseling and mentoring children. SMFH

I have a Masters plus 39 credits and almost 2 decades of teaching experience. My expertise is in my subject matter, as it should be. It may surprise you to find out that an SRO still has more training than I do in social / emotional needs. Again… we all have our roles to play. You can “SMFH” all you want, but I would prefer it if you constructively contribute to the conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A teacher with a 4 year degree and trained to deal with children is worried they are not “trained” to counsel children but support cops with no 4 year degree and <2 weeks of “training” counseling and mentoring children. SMFH

I have a Masters plus 39 credits and almost 2 decades of teaching experience. My expertise is in my subject matter, as it should be. It may surprise you to find out that an SRO still has more training than I do in social / emotional needs. Again… we all have our roles to play. You can “SMFH” all you want, but I would prefer it if you constructively contribute to the conversation.

I should add that I am in favor of more SEL training for teachers. What I get is often rushed and at the end of an exhausting school day. I would appreciate some long-term, comprehensive instruction that I can regularly incorporate into my normal instruction. I’m taking classes this summer (on my own dime), but I would love to see MSDE provide these opportunities to all state teachers. If you would like to help campaign for that, let’s do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A teacher with a 4 year degree and trained to deal with children is worried they are not “trained” to counsel children but support cops with no 4 year degree and <2 weeks of “training” counseling and mentoring children. SMFH

Why don't you try, I don't know, being an actual parent and provide your kid with what they need rather than blame other people on online message boards? The problem is, parents expect everyone else in the community to raise their kids without ever looking in the mirror.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A teacher with a 4 year degree and trained to deal with children is worried they are not “trained” to counsel children but support cops with no 4 year degree and <2 weeks of “training” counseling and mentoring children. SMFH

I have a Masters plus 39 credits and almost 2 decades of teaching experience. My expertise is in my subject matter, as it should be. It may surprise you to find out that an SRO still has more training than I do in social / emotional needs. Again… we all have our roles to play. You can “SMFH” all you want, but I would prefer it if you constructively contribute to the conversation.

You have no idea how cops are trained and SROs are not trained in the emotional/social needs of children.

I get it, your H is a cop, but you have no idea what SROs are trained to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A teacher with a 4 year degree and trained to deal with children is worried they are not “trained” to counsel children but support cops with no 4 year degree and <2 weeks of “training” counseling and mentoring children. SMFH

Why don't you try, I don't know, being an actual parent and provide your kid with what they need rather than blame other people on online message boards? The problem is, parents expect everyone else in the community to raise their kids without ever looking in the mirror.

I don’t expect teachers to counsel my children. I expect them to tell me if they see something that needs counseling.

I don’t want an SRO anywhere near my child during a time of emotional or social support. Stay away, get in your lane, you are not trained for that .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh more facts - I read through the other link from a PP with the 12 case studies of where SROs were helpful in preventing a shooting incident. Of those 12 studies, which the authors apparently found to be the best 12 examples they could find, only 3 of them had the SRO in any sort of physical role during the event, such as defending someone or apprehending a suspect. The others were mostly cited as being involved because students told them about planned attacks, and they then told other law enforcement and helped with the investigation. Reading the narratives, administrators, custodial staff, and students were at least as helpful in preventing tragedy during almost every incident as the SRO.

I am the PP who posted the link to the case studies. Let me start by saying a sincere "thank you" for providing facts and for typing in such a reasoned manner. I am very pro-SRO, but I am always willing to listen to opposing viewpoints. Hopefully I have time to comment on the post above later, but to start with the 12 case studies:

I don't think we can discredit SROs of the 9 case studies in which they did not have a direct, physical role. SROs work as part of a team. I am also the poster above who wrote about having direct interactions with SROs. Yes, I have seen SROs remove weapons from students four times, one of which was a massive butcher knife taken from a backpack during my class. I am also aware that sometimes SROs call in other officers who then intervene. My husband, a LEO, was one who was called in at a local school. He removed a gun from a student who, from the student's own admission, brought it school in order to solve a disagreement with another student. The SRO in that case was a vital connection between the school and the squad that patrols the surrounding area. An SROs presence in the school can mean that information gets communicated immediately and in proper protocol to local law enforcement.

Schools are communities and they work best when people have defined roles. The counselors are there to provide social / emotional support, teachers provide instruction, etc. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the social / emotional needs of our students blur those lines. Whether or not that is because of Covid, video games, working parents, etc.... I'm not sure that matters. As a teacher, I spend a considerably higher percentage of my day counseling students. That scares me because I am not trained in that area, so I want to fall back on a team of people who have a ton of different specialities. I want to know that I can reach out to the counselor, provided they aren't too over-burdened since their caseloads are criminally too large. I want to reach out to a health team, like the nurse who helped me when I found a student cutting herself at school. Yes, I also want to know that I can reach out to an SRO, somebody who is present and (most importantly) trained for those real, terrifying threats. What statistics can't show clearly is how many times SROs actually stopped threats. The four I mention above? I'm very certain they never made it into a case study or report. How many more thwarted attempts at violence happen that never get reported? How can we accurately report what does *not* happen? All I have to go on is my lived experience.

Again... thank you. I see the concerns you raise and I respect them. It's conversations like these that will get us somewhere.

PP here. I don't think we have to discredit the SROs for their roles in the other 9 cases either (well, in the 1st one the only role the SRO is described as having was as a potential victim, so let's call it 8.) But the main role in several others was receiving tips from students and then conveying those tips to other law enforcement. This is described as being able to quickly determine the validity of the concern and act on it, but in the event there hadn't been an SRO on campus, I don't know why the students wouldn't have told someone else, like an administrator or teacher. The document didn't have enough detail to be convincing that the actions the SROs took were somehow unique to their role, and I'm sure shootings have been averted at schools without them, too.

I know the counselors are overburdened, but I don't understand why that means SROs should or can fill the void. My friend will be starting work as a counselor in MCPS in the fall and according to her there aren't that many job openings, and she'll be going in knowing her caseload will be immediately extremely heavy with only enough time for the kids in crisis. Why? And why would at-risk kids turn to the school cop for help?

I can appreciate the argument that not every contribution by SROs gets credited or documented, though a little skeptical. Maybe those incidents didn't make the news, but most professions are good at justifying their existence. Surely there are records concerning quantities of weapons removed, students diverted from violence, etc, that could be shared.

I also don't want to lose sight of the fact that this topic is being revisted today specifically in response to a mass shooting, the kind of event where SROs have been specifically shown not to be of any help. (I don't even really blame them, one person with a handgun up against someone with an AR 15, a million bullets, and no intention of getting out alive isn't a fair fight). If people want SROs back, they shouldn't point to these events as justification.

[Anonymous]

Now we know at least 1 Texas child was shot by a cop. Jeez.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh more facts - I read through the other link from a PP with the 12 case studies of where SROs were helpful in preventing a shooting incident. Of those 12 studies, which the authors apparently found to be the best 12 examples they could find, only 3 of them had the SRO in any sort of physical role during the event, such as defending someone or apprehending a suspect. The others were mostly cited as being involved because students told them about planned attacks, and they then told other law enforcement and helped with the investigation. Reading the narratives, administrators, custodial staff, and students were at least as helpful in preventing tragedy during almost every incident as the SRO.

So can I ask you something? Are you ok with invalidating the opinions of all 25 high school principals of MCPS because of a study or 2 that aren't relevant to MCPS? How about the data that points to the fact that only 3 percent of arrests made at MCPS schools when there were SROs were initiated by SROs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A teacher with a 4 year degree and trained to deal with children is worried they are not “trained” to counsel children but support cops with no 4 year degree and <2 weeks of “training” counseling and mentoring children. SMFH

I have a Masters plus 39 credits and almost 2 decades of teaching experience. My expertise is in my subject matter, as it should be. It may surprise you to find out that an SRO still has more training than I do in social / emotional needs. Again… we all have our roles to play. You can “SMFH” all you want, but I would prefer it if you constructively contribute to the conversation.

You have no idea how cops are trained and SROs are not trained in the emotional/social needs of children.

I get it, your H is a cop, but you have no idea what SROs are trained to do.

And it's all there for the public to see. She just chooses to be ignorant about it.