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

[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.

So in other words yes the police did place handcuffs on a 5 year old's wrist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So in other words yes the police did place handcuffs on a 5 year old's wrist.

NP, but Yup.

[Anonymous]

What a mess on so many levels. Obviously there was a failure at the school as a 5 year old should not be able to 2andee off the grounds.

I don't have a problem with police putting the kid in the squad car. I could even see a misguided but well-meaning attempt to "scare" the kid to keep him from trying to run off again, by telling him bad things could happen. But handcuffs and yelling about being beaten?!? No.

[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.

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.

I admittedly have not seen the BWC footage in this case, but if this was as cut and dried as police threatening and screaming at a terrified 5 year old, this would have been settled before the suit was filed. I am not saying there is any justification to threaten a 5 year old, but there is more to this story if it hasn’t already settled out of public view.

-a civil defense attorney

[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.

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.

I admittedly have not seen the BWC footage in this case, but if this was as cut and dried as police threatening and screaming at a terrified 5 year old, this would have been settled before the suit was filed. I am not saying there is any justification to threaten a 5 year old, but there is more to this story if it hasn’t already settled out of public view.

-a civil defense attorney

You must not work in moco

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.”
So in MoCo their attorneys aren’t savvy enough to settle cases that are cut and dried and will certainly bring a storm of negative publicity if they play out publicly in court?
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.

I admittedly have not seen the BWC footage in this case, but if this was as cut and dried as police threatening and screaming at a terrified 5 year old, this would have been settled before the suit was filed. I am not saying there is any justification to threaten a 5 year old, but there is more to this story if it hasn’t already settled out of public view.

-a civil defense attorney

You must not work in moco

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”
So in MoCo their attorneys aren’t savvy enough to settle cases that are cut and dried and will certainly bring a storm of negative publicity if they play out publicly in court?
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.

I admittedly have not seen the BWC footage in this case, but if this was as cut and dried as police threatening and screaming at a terrified 5 year old, this would have been settled before the suit was filed. I am not saying there is any justification to threaten a 5 year old, but there is more to this story if it hasn’t already settled out of public view.

-a civil defense attorney

You must not work in moco

Are you saying the MoCo attorneys aren’t savvy enough to try and negotiate an early settlement of a cut and dried case of police baselessly yelling at and threatening a 5 year old that will certainly lead to negative publicity if allowed to proceed through the court system?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”
So in MoCo their attorneys aren’t savvy enough to settle cases that are cut and dried and will certainly bring a storm of negative publicity if they play out publicly in court?
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.

I admittedly have not seen the BWC footage in this case, but if this was as cut and dried as police threatening and screaming at a terrified 5 year old, this would have been settled before the suit was filed. I am not saying there is any justification to threaten a 5 year old, but there is more to this story if it hasn’t already settled out of public view.

-a civil defense attorney

You must not work in moco

Are you saying the MoCo attorneys aren’t savvy enough to try and negotiate an early settlement of a cut and dried case of police baselessly yelling at and threatening a 5 year old that will certainly lead to negative publicity if allowed to proceed through the court system?

No I’m saying they are smarter and know how to get top $$ out of the county.

[Anonymous]

Sounds to me like the plaintiffs want folks to know about this. In their shoes I would not take money to keep quiet. You do that to my kid and I am out for blood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”
So in MoCo their attorneys aren’t savvy enough to settle cases that are cut and dried and will certainly bring a storm of negative publicity if they play out publicly in court?
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.

I admittedly have not seen the BWC footage in this case, but if this was as cut and dried as police threatening and screaming at a terrified 5 year old, this would have been settled before the suit was filed. I am not saying there is any justification to threaten a 5 year old, but there is more to this story if it hasn’t already settled out of public view.

-a civil defense attorney

You must not work in moco

Are you saying the MoCo attorneys aren’t savvy enough to try and negotiate an early settlement of a cut and dried case of police baselessly yelling at and threatening a 5 year old that will certainly lead to negative publicity if allowed to proceed through the court system?

No I’m saying they are smarter and know how to get top $$ out of the county.

What I will say is this, when there are cases in which the defense (county) is going to be a giant loser and take a beating if a suit is filed, every reasonable effort is made to settle the case before a suit is filed. So either the mother’s settlement demand was completely outrageous, or there is more to this story than meets the eye. You would be surprised at what goes into court complaints that clearly won’t hold up after a case goes through discovery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds to me like the plaintiffs want folks to know about this. In their shoes I would not take money to keep quiet. You do that to my kid and I am out for blood.

Winner winner chicken dinner!

They offered $ to go away but refused to fire the cop.

Now they are going for more $ plus the public outrage and cop fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So in other words yes the police did place handcuffs on a 5 year old's wrist.

Maybe. I haven't seen the footage. But, even if that part is true, that is hardly the most salacious part of the complaint. It is conceivable there could be a rationale basis for handcuffing a kid and, even if that action itself was improper, that is a far cry from assaulting him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds to me like the plaintiffs want folks to know about this. In their shoes I would not take money to keep quiet. You do that to my kid and I am out for blood.

It was a year ago. They want money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So in other words yes the police did place handcuffs on a 5 year old's wrist.

Maybe. I haven't seen the footage. But, even if that part is true, that is hardly the most salacious part of the complaint. It is conceivable there could be a rationale basis for handcuffing a kid and, even if that action itself was improper, that is a far cry from assaulting him.

If the child was out of control hitting and kicking the only option would be handcuffs or physically restrain. Most parents would have a bigger fit if their child was physically restrained.

The cops were probably inappropriate but lets see the footage. There should have been a camera in the police car and in the office of the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”
So in MoCo their attorneys aren’t savvy enough to settle cases that are cut and dried and will certainly bring a storm of negative publicity if they play out publicly in court?
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.

I admittedly have not seen the BWC footage in this case, but if this was as cut and dried as police threatening and screaming at a terrified 5 year old, this would have been settled before the suit was filed. I am not saying there is any justification to threaten a 5 year old, but there is more to this story if it hasn’t already settled out of public view.

-a civil defense attorney

You must not work in moco

Are you saying the MoCo attorneys aren’t savvy enough to try and negotiate an early settlement of a cut and dried case of police baselessly yelling at and threatening a 5 year old that will certainly lead to negative publicity if allowed to proceed through the court system?

No I’m saying they are smarter and know how to get top $$ out of the county.

The mother is asking over $1 million. Thats a bit absurd.