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:

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.

Sorry, this is a five year old. Why do we need cops to physically restrain or handcuff him? This is not normal.

[Anonymous]

The article isn't saying the entire situation. Why were the cops with the child for 50 minutes? Either child wouldn't calm down and get it together or they were waiting for the mother to arrive to get the child as it was a safety issue to leave the child there.

[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.

This. If I had to guess, the video footage shows the kid’s behavior as well as the officers, which probably shows the kid was not just sitting there terrified. This does not mean it was appropriate for grown ass police officers to threaten a 5 year old, but probably gives some context for why the officers did what they did.

[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.”

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.

Sorry, this is a five year old. Why do we need cops to physically restrain or handcuff him? This is not normal.

Lots of reasons and we don't have the entire story. If the child was being violent or refusing to cooperate, its appropriate to use minimal force. If the child is hitting the police or staff, restraint to calm down is appropriate. They probably did handcuffs vs. physically touching.

[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: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.

I wonder what the mother demanded to settle pre-suit. It was definitely less than a million. The actual settlement value of a case is never the amount demanded in the complaint.

[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: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.

I wonder what the mother demanded to settle pre-suit. It was definitely less than a million. The actual settlement value of a case is never the amount demanded in the complaint.

Who knows, she could have demanded more? But, she's basically upset that the police took her child that ran away from school and returned him to school. Their comments may have been inappropriate but it also sounds like from the article that the child was out go control in terms of his behavior. Its a bit ironic to blame the police to say the child needs counseling when there was clearly something far more going on prior to this that lead to the behavior. It sounds like a money grab.

[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.”

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.

Sorry, this is a five year old. Why do we need cops to physically restrain or handcuff him? This is not normal.

Depending on what the kid was doing, restraining him might have been the safest option for him. It is also conceivable that the cop thought he would be safer that way. (I have a five year old -- they can hurt you. The cop likely couldn't have been in enough fear to warrant deadly force, or even something like mace or a taser. But simply restraining is a far lesser action than any of those other things.) Even if you think the cop was wrong for cuffing the kid -- and that certainly could be true -- that's not necessarily an egress act. Beating the kid, as seems was also alleged, is a whole different story.

[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: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.

Sorry, this is a five year old. Why do we need cops to physically restrain or handcuff him? This is not normal.

Depending on what the kid was doing, restraining him might have been the safest option for him. It is also conceivable that the cop thought he would be safer that way. (I have a five year old -- they can hurt you. The cop likely couldn't have been in enough fear to warrant deadly force, or even something like mace or a taser. But simply restraining is a far lesser action than any of those other things.) Even if you think the cop was wrong for cuffing the kid -- and that certainly could be true -- that's not necessarily an egress act. Beating the kid, as seems was also alleged, is a whole different story.

There is something wrong with you. Please just stop posting here.

[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: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.

Sorry, this is a five year old. Why do we need cops to physically restrain or handcuff him? This is not normal.

Depending on what the kid was doing, restraining him might have been the safest option for him. It is also conceivable that the cop thought he would be safer that way. (I have a five year old -- they can hurt you. The cop likely couldn't have been in enough fear to warrant deadly force, or even something like mace or a taser. But simply restraining is a far lesser action than any of those other things.) Even if you think the cop was wrong for cuffing the kid -- and that certainly could be true -- that's not necessarily an egress act. Beating the kid, as seems was also alleged, is a whole different story.

There is something wrong with you. Please just stop posting here.

That's a lovely invitation, but I decline. Why exactly is there something wrong with me? What have a said that you think is so offensive? I think my post was quite measured and was open to either side being correct and acknowledging that I don't have enough facts to come to a definitive conclusion. I guess you just prefer to immediately assume that one side is at fault based on nothing more than a lawyer's characterization of what occurred.

Also, that is only my second post on this thread, so there must be other similar people that haves something wrong with them for keeping an open mind and not jumping to conclusions.

[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: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.

I think you are making assumptions based on facts not in evidence. Part of that is presuming that MoCo has competent counsel and makes wise decisions regarding litigation. I have a friend that was hit on his bike by a MoCo employee driving a MoCo vehicle. They were not seriously injured so they did not pursue the matter. 6 months later they were contacted by the county requesting compensation for damage to the vehicle. As a result of that, they got a lawyer and sued the county and won a 5 figure award in settlement.

[Anonymous]

A similar situation happened at a private school in Prince George's County about 14 years ago. Luckily, another parent from the school spotted the kindergartener walking alone on a major road. This parent happened to be the spouse of a police officer. She called the police right away and stayed with the child until they came. As far as I know, the story had a happy ending. The school did make a few security changes afterwards.

[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: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.

Sorry, this is a five year old. Why do we need cops to physically restrain or handcuff him? This is not normal.

Depending on what the kid was doing, restraining him might have been the safest option for him. It is also conceivable that the cop thought he would be safer that way. (I have a five year old -- they can hurt you. The cop likely couldn't have been in enough fear to warrant deadly force, or even something like mace or a taser. But simply restraining is a far lesser action than any of those other things.) Even if you think the cop was wrong for cuffing the kid -- and that certainly could be true -- that's not necessarily an egress act. Beating the kid, as seems was also alleged, is a whole different story.

There is something wrong with you. Please just stop posting here.

That's a lovely invitation, but I decline. Why exactly is there something wrong with me? What have a said that you think is so offensive? I think my post was quite measured and was open to either side being correct and acknowledging that I don't have enough facts to come to a definitive conclusion. I guess you just prefer to immediately assume that one side is at fault based on nothing more than a lawyer's characterization of what occurred.

Also, that is only my second post on this thread, so there must be other similar people that haves something wrong with them for keeping an open mind and not jumping to conclusions.

This is just clown shoes all the way down. Who do you think you are arguing with and what point are you trying to prove?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A similar situation happened at a private school in Prince George's County about 14 years ago. Luckily, another parent from the school spotted the kindergartener walking alone on a major road. This parent happened to be the spouse of a police officer. She called the police right away and stayed with the child until they came. As far as I know, the story had a happy ending. The school did make a few security changes afterwards.

It probably really helped in the situation that a kind mom was the one who found him.

[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: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.

Sorry, this is a five year old. Why do we need cops to physically restrain or handcuff him? This is not normal.

Depending on what the kid was doing, restraining him might have been the safest option for him. It is also conceivable that the cop thought he would be safer that way. (I have a five year old -- they can hurt you. The cop likely couldn't have been in enough fear to warrant deadly force, or even something like mace or a taser. But simply restraining is a far lesser action than any of those other things.) Even if you think the cop was wrong for cuffing the kid -- and that certainly could be true -- that's not necessarily an egress act. Beating the kid, as seems was also alleged, is a whole different story.

There is something wrong with you. Please just stop posting here.

That's a lovely invitation, but I decline. Why exactly is there something wrong with me? What have a said that you think is so offensive? I think my post was quite measured and was open to either side being correct and acknowledging that I don't have enough facts to come to a definitive conclusion. I guess you just prefer to immediately assume that one side is at fault based on nothing more than a lawyer's characterization of what occurred.

Also, that is only my second post on this thread, so there must be other similar people that haves something wrong with them for keeping an open mind and not jumping to conclusions.

This is just clown shoes all the way down. Who do you think you are arguing with and what point are you trying to prove?

That's two posts in a row where you have insulted me, but you haven't actually addressed the substance of my post and why you believe it is beyond the pale. I've addressed the topic in a serious, substantive manner. If you want to do the same, great. If you want to just lash out and hear nothing but an echo chamber that agrees with you (of course I don't really now what part of my post you so object to), then I have no need to engage further.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The article isn't saying the entire situation. Why were the cops with the child for 50 minutes? Either child wouldn't calm down and get it together or they were waiting for the mother to arrive to get the child as it was a safety issue to leave the child there.

Or, more like what would happen with any 5 year old subjected to this, cops harangued kid into a state where he could not be calmed down. If you put cuffs on my kid, who is totally normal and has no behavioral problems, that is what I would expect to happen.