MC police pick up ESS 5 year old; harass & assault him

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disturbing. Let's hope that fact finding is happening in a real way so that any adult is held to task for this child.

This child is in need of care and comfort. I hope that Child Services is involved and taking a hard look at home life as well.

Based on these facts, there is no reason whatsoever for Child Services to be “taking a hard look at home life.” Invoking CPS as a tool to intimidate non-white parents is some really classless behavior, fellow poster.

We don't know the race of the child but if anything the school should be doing a 504 or IEP (and they may have) with an evaluation or the parent should be getting an outside behavior. CPS isn't there to intimidate parents. You have good workers and bad ones. They don't want to be in your life any more than you want them there.

But, eloping from school is not normal in a 5 year old. Usually when this happens its ASD/ADHD or something else undiagnosed or bullying or something else bad happening in that school. It may or may not have to do with the home life but parent needs to figure it out and if the school is the issue get that child out of there and into a better school.

Nobody cares about your imaginary story about the child.

No matter the issue with this 40lb child ... screaming in their face and telling them they need to be beaten is abuse and the police officer should be fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this PP harping on "special needs" a police officer? A family member of one of the officers? Posters are repeatedly asking you why you think it's appropriate to cuff a kid and tell him his mom should whoop his @ass.

There are a lot of weird angles floating around in this thread.

FWIW I don't know the race of the student, but at least one of the officers is POC.

Of course it is either a cop or a wife of a cop.

It’s pathetic what has happened to our police force. Deflect, red herring, anything to not take responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The kid didn’t wander off he intentionally chose to leave school because he wanted to leave. Schools aren’t jails so when kids want to intentionally leave some kids will. It is really hard for school staff to drop everything and get a kid back to school especially kids who are used to being in charge at home and are never disciplined. Instead of the mom being mad at her kid for leaving school she is suing. It could be the officers were talking amongst themselves saying if they had done that as kids they would have been beaten.

That might be true for older kids, but this kid is 5. He should be supervised at all times.

And even if he displayed poor judgment by leaving -- he is, after all, 5, and 5 year olds have poor judgment and limited impulse control -- that's still no excuse for the officers to yell and threaten him.

Nah, barring no special needs, five year olds know they shouldn’t leave a classroom.

"He's no angel." - weirdo DCUM poster

Name calling, are you the kid’s parent or lawyer? You’re posting throughout this thread as if it’s personal to you.

So can we presume that you are an interested party? Why do you care so much? It seems very personal to you in a way that is very unhealthy and honestly slightly racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Disturbing. Let's hope that fact finding is happening in a real way so that any adult is held to task for this child.

This child is in need of care and comfort. I hope that Child Services is involved and taking a hard look at home life as well.

^^^ hey wacko you don’t investigate the victim of a crime. The cop is the criminal plain and simple.

This is definitely a cop posting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The kid didn’t wander off he intentionally chose to leave school because he wanted to leave. Schools aren’t jails so when kids want to intentionally leave some kids will. It is really hard for school staff to drop everything and get a kid back to school especially kids who are used to being in charge at home and are never disciplined. Instead of the mom being mad at her kid for leaving school she is suing. It could be the officers were talking amongst themselves saying if they had done that as kids they would have been beaten.

That might be true for older kids, but this kid is 5. He should be supervised at all times.

And even if he displayed poor judgment by leaving -- he is, after all, 5, and 5 year olds have poor judgment and limited impulse control -- that's still no excuse for the officers to yell and threaten him.

Nah, barring no special needs, five year olds know they shouldn’t leave a classroom.

"He's no angel." - weirdo DCUM poster

Name calling, are you the kid’s parent or lawyer? You’re posting throughout this thread as if it’s personal to you.

So can we presume that you are an interested party? Why do you care so much? It seems very personal to you in a way that is very unhealthy and honestly slightly racist.

Everybody in a community that had a child in their community abused by a police officer takes it personally, if you are human.

You really need to see the county therapist ... you’ve lost perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son was in a 1st grade class with a boy who would regularly walk out of class and yell at the teacher she couldn’t touch him as he kicked her shins and threw things at her. He thought it was funny to hide after recess so the teacher and playground aides had to go looking for him. He was a really smart but incredibly defiant kid and he sucked up half of the teacher’s time. His mother would blame everyone for not understanding her spirited child and complained about poor supervision. She was talking to someone at pickup and her child approached her and gave her his backpack. The mom kept talking and the boy took off. She couldn’t find him and loudly blamed the school for losing him. She posted on social media about the poor supervision but left out the fact she was at the school and he should have been under her supervision. My son learned very little that year. And neither did his classmates.

This happens more than people realize. Its very frustrating as the parents are 1/2 the problem and the child is the other 1/2. They both need help - parents with parenting and child with behavior/mental health or it only gets worse.

no, the schools are the problem for sitting on their hands and pretending that there is nothing they can do without an IEP for disruptive behavior and eloping. There is a LOT they can do, but they don’t - out of laziness or (I suspect) and institutional approach of letting the situation escalate until it creates its own solution (kid gets suspended, assigned to a contained classroom, leaves school, etc). Wash rinse and repeat until kid gets old enough to arrest, expell, or drops out.

Even with an IEP, schools only can do so much if parents don't agree. A school can fast track an IEP to get a child a specialize placement and parents can refuse the placement. We had that several times at our school where child would be better served elsewhere and parents refused. Sadly, one of the paraprofessionals was a huge gossip.

It's maddening. There was one kid who needed an IEP and every time the school tried to start one the mom would pull him out homeschool him for a month and then have him switch schools. She would just always blame the teachers for her son's behavior

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find this really confusing. It's hard to know what happened. I am always suspicious when there is just one side, especially when that side is the lawyers representing one person.

One one hand, the kid ran away from school. One of the things that the article objects to seems to be that the police picked up the kid, put him in the car and drove him back to school. To me, that's what I'd expect. The police's first job in that circumstance is definitely to get the kid back to the adults who are caring for him. Yes, being "placed in a squad car" (one of the things they object to) is scary, but I'm not sure how else they should get the child back to school

It sounds like some of the things they said while they were doing it were out of line, but honestly without the other side it's just hard to say.

Quoting here “ the complaint was written based on body camera footage of the incident from one officer. The other officer’s camera was not on, they said.”

That’s a wrap!

The quote was written by the attorney, who claims to have seen the body camera footage. The journalist did not see the body camera footage. Big difference.

Until footage is presented in court you mean.

Sure, but that footage could support either side, or be open to differing interpretations. I'm certainly not going to take an attorney's description of what the body camera footage shows as gospel given his obvious self-interest in the matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son was in a 1st grade class with a boy who would regularly walk out of class and yell at the teacher she couldn’t touch him as he kicked her shins and threw things at her. He thought it was funny to hide after recess so the teacher and playground aides had to go looking for him. He was a really smart but incredibly defiant kid and he sucked up half of the teacher’s time. His mother would blame everyone for not understanding her spirited child and complained about poor supervision. She was talking to someone at pickup and her child approached her and gave her his backpack. The mom kept talking and the boy took off. She couldn’t find him and loudly blamed the school for losing him. She posted on social media about the poor supervision but left out the fact she was at the school and he should have been under her supervision. My son learned very little that year. And neither did his classmates.

This happens more than people realize. Its very frustrating as the parents are 1/2 the problem and the child is the other 1/2. They both need help - parents with parenting and child with behavior/mental health or it only gets worse.

no, the schools are the problem for sitting on their hands and pretending that there is nothing they can do without an IEP for disruptive behavior and eloping. There is a LOT they can do, but they don’t - out of laziness or (I suspect) and institutional approach of letting the situation escalate until it creates its own solution (kid gets suspended, assigned to a contained classroom, leaves school, etc). Wash rinse and repeat until kid gets old enough to arrest, expell, or drops out.

Even with an IEP, schools only can do so much if parents don't agree. A school can fast track an IEP to get a child a specialize placement and parents can refuse the placement. We had that several times at our school where child would be better served elsewhere and parents refused. Sadly, one of the paraprofessionals was a huge gossip.

It's maddening. There was one kid who needed an IEP and every time the school tried to start one the mom would pull him out homeschool him for a month and then have him switch schools. She would just always blame the teachers for her son's behavior

Maybe we can ask the police to verbally abuse that child for 50 minutes and see if that makes anything better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find this really confusing. It's hard to know what happened. I am always suspicious when there is just one side, especially when that side is the lawyers representing one person.

One one hand, the kid ran away from school. One of the things that the article objects to seems to be that the police picked up the kid, put him in the car and drove him back to school. To me, that's what I'd expect. The police's first job in that circumstance is definitely to get the kid back to the adults who are caring for him. Yes, being "placed in a squad car" (one of the things they object to) is scary, but I'm not sure how else they should get the child back to school

It sounds like some of the things they said while they were doing it were out of line, but honestly without the other side it's just hard to say.

Quoting here “ the complaint was written based on body camera footage of the incident from one officer. The other officer’s camera was not on, they said.”

That’s a wrap!

The quote was written by the attorney, who claims to have seen the body camera footage. The journalist did not see the body camera footage. Big difference.

Until footage is presented in court you mean.

Sure, but that footage could support either side, or be open to differing interpretations. I'm certainly not going to take an attorney's description of what the body camera footage shows as gospel given his obvious self-interest in the matter.

Why would the attorney lie about something that can be verified? I'm no experts but I think there are consequences for attorneys that lie in court documents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find this really confusing. It's hard to know what happened. I am always suspicious when there is just one side, especially when that side is the lawyers representing one person.

One one hand, the kid ran away from school. One of the things that the article objects to seems to be that the police picked up the kid, put him in the car and drove him back to school. To me, that's what I'd expect. The police's first job in that circumstance is definitely to get the kid back to the adults who are caring for him. Yes, being "placed in a squad car" (one of the things they object to) is scary, but I'm not sure how else they should get the child back to school

It sounds like some of the things they said while they were doing it were out of line, but honestly without the other side it's just hard to say.

Quoting here “ the complaint was written based on body camera footage of the incident from one officer. The other officer’s camera was not on, they said.”

That’s a wrap!

The quote was written by the attorney, who claims to have seen the body camera footage. The journalist did not see the body camera footage. Big difference.

Until footage is presented in court you mean.

Sure, but that footage could support either side, or be open to differing interpretations. I'm certainly not going to take an attorney's description of what the body camera footage shows as gospel given his obvious self-interest in the matter.

It's really telling when your reaction to a description of a police officer handcuffing a 5 year old is that you think there could be "differing interpretations".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find this really confusing. It's hard to know what happened. I am always suspicious when there is just one side, especially when that side is the lawyers representing one person.

One one hand, the kid ran away from school. One of the things that the article objects to seems to be that the police picked up the kid, put him in the car and drove him back to school. To me, that's what I'd expect. The police's first job in that circumstance is definitely to get the kid back to the adults who are caring for him. Yes, being "placed in a squad car" (one of the things they object to) is scary, but I'm not sure how else they should get the child back to school

It sounds like some of the things they said while they were doing it were out of line, but honestly without the other side it's just hard to say.

Quoting here “ the complaint was written based on body camera footage of the incident from one officer. The other officer’s camera was not on, they said.”

That’s a wrap!

The quote was written by the attorney, who claims to have seen the body camera footage. The journalist did not see the body camera footage. Big difference.

Until footage is presented in court you mean.

Sure, but that footage could support either side, or be open to differing interpretations. I'm certainly not going to take an attorney's description of what the body camera footage shows as gospel given his obvious self-interest in the matter.

Why would the attorney lie about something that can be verified? I'm no experts but I think there are consequences for attorneys that lie in court documents.

I am an attorney and "lie" is quite strong. Yes, you cannot knowingly make a false statement in a pleading. You absolutely can and many do shade the facts in the absolute most favorable light to your client.

Playing fast and loose with facts can be a strategic mistake, but most plaintiff's side lawyers aren't known for their discretion and tend to like a flair for the dramatic, particularly when there is an ability to get favorable press. But it is going to take quite a lot for an attorney to actual face an ethical issue if there is even a chance the video could be interpreted as he described.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find this really confusing. It's hard to know what happened. I am always suspicious when there is just one side, especially when that side is the lawyers representing one person.

One one hand, the kid ran away from school. One of the things that the article objects to seems to be that the police picked up the kid, put him in the car and drove him back to school. To me, that's what I'd expect. The police's first job in that circumstance is definitely to get the kid back to the adults who are caring for him. Yes, being "placed in a squad car" (one of the things they object to) is scary, but I'm not sure how else they should get the child back to school

It sounds like some of the things they said while they were doing it were out of line, but honestly without the other side it's just hard to say.

Quoting here “ the complaint was written based on body camera footage of the incident from one officer. The other officer’s camera was not on, they said.”

That’s a wrap!

The quote was written by the attorney, who claims to have seen the body camera footage. The journalist did not see the body camera footage. Big difference.

Until footage is presented in court you mean.

Sure, but that footage could support either side, or be open to differing interpretations. I'm certainly not going to take an attorney's description of what the body camera footage shows as gospel given his obvious self-interest in the matter.

It's really telling when your reaction to a description of a police officer handcuffing a 5 year old is that you think there could be "differing interpretations".

1000000%. There is not any ‘great people on both sides’. Just 2 cops vs a terrified 5 year old. What is wrong with you people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find this really confusing. It's hard to know what happened. I am always suspicious when there is just one side, especially when that side is the lawyers representing one person.

One one hand, the kid ran away from school. One of the things that the article objects to seems to be that the police picked up the kid, put him in the car and drove him back to school. To me, that's what I'd expect. The police's first job in that circumstance is definitely to get the kid back to the adults who are caring for him. Yes, being "placed in a squad car" (one of the things they object to) is scary, but I'm not sure how else they should get the child back to school

It sounds like some of the things they said while they were doing it were out of line, but honestly without the other side it's just hard to say.

Quoting here “ the complaint was written based on body camera footage of the incident from one officer. The other officer’s camera was not on, they said.”

That’s a wrap!

The quote was written by the attorney, who claims to have seen the body camera footage. The journalist did not see the body camera footage. Big difference.

Until footage is presented in court you mean.

Sure, but that footage could support either side, or be open to differing interpretations. I'm certainly not going to take an attorney's description of what the body camera footage shows as gospel given his obvious self-interest in the matter.

At any time in the last year the police and MCPS could have come forward and presented "their side". They chose not to and there is a strong chance you will never hear "their side" because what happens next is that in the county will negotiate a settlement before this case goes to depositions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find this really confusing. It's hard to know what happened. I am always suspicious when there is just one side, especially when that side is the lawyers representing one person.

One one hand, the kid ran away from school. One of the things that the article objects to seems to be that the police picked up the kid, put him in the car and drove him back to school. To me, that's what I'd expect. The police's first job in that circumstance is definitely to get the kid back to the adults who are caring for him. Yes, being "placed in a squad car" (one of the things they object to) is scary, but I'm not sure how else they should get the child back to school

It sounds like some of the things they said while they were doing it were out of line, but honestly without the other side it's just hard to say.

Quoting here “ the complaint was written based on body camera footage of the incident from one officer. The other officer’s camera was not on, they said.”

That’s a wrap!

The quote was written by the attorney, who claims to have seen the body camera footage. The journalist did not see the body camera footage. Big difference.

Until footage is presented in court you mean.

Sure, but that footage could support either side, or be open to differing interpretations. I'm certainly not going to take an attorney's description of what the body camera footage shows as gospel given his obvious self-interest in the matter.

It's really telling when your reaction to a description of a police officer handcuffing a 5 year old is that you think there could be "differing interpretations".

1000000%. There is not any ‘great people on both sides’. Just 2 cops vs a terrified 5 year old. What is wrong with you people?

Don't forget the MCPS staff standing by.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find this really confusing. It's hard to know what happened. I am always suspicious when there is just one side, especially when that side is the lawyers representing one person.

One one hand, the kid ran away from school. One of the things that the article objects to seems to be that the police picked up the kid, put him in the car and drove him back to school. To me, that's what I'd expect. The police's first job in that circumstance is definitely to get the kid back to the adults who are caring for him. Yes, being "placed in a squad car" (one of the things they object to) is scary, but I'm not sure how else they should get the child back to school

It sounds like some of the things they said while they were doing it were out of line, but honestly without the other side it's just hard to say.

Quoting here “ the complaint was written based on body camera footage of the incident from one officer. The other officer’s camera was not on, they said.”

That’s a wrap!

The quote was written by the attorney, who claims to have seen the body camera footage. The journalist did not see the body camera footage. Big difference.

Until footage is presented in court you mean.

Sure, but that footage could support either side, or be open to differing interpretations. I'm certainly not going to take an attorney's description of what the body camera footage shows as gospel given his obvious self-interest in the matter.

Why would the attorney lie about something that can be verified? I'm no experts but I think there are consequences for attorneys that lie in court documents.

I am an attorney and "lie" is quite strong. Yes, you cannot knowingly make a false statement in a pleading. You absolutely can and many do shade the facts in the absolute most favorable light to your client.

Playing fast and loose with facts can be a strategic mistake, but most plaintiff's side lawyers aren't known for their discretion and tend to like a flair for the dramatic, particularly when there is an ability to get favorable press. But it is going to take quite a lot for an attorney to actual face an ethical issue if there is even a chance the video could be interpreted as he described.

if the objective facts in the video do not meet the characterizations by the attorney, the case won't survive summary judgement - or at least the claims based on those "facts" will get tossed. So at the very least it is safe to assume that the claims are considered a matter of controversy that should be brought to a jury which lends the claims an adequate amount of credibility, particularly where it is directly quoting officer statements.