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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to see the body cam as you are just getting the parents side who was not there. That kid needs a SN child care setting if they are eloping. There is far more to this story.

A 5 year old taking off—especially if his house is near school—is not so far outside the norm that it suggests “special
needs.” This does raise the question of how he was supervised when he took off, though.

At any rate, needing a special needs child care setting does not mean the cops get to talk about beating you incessantly.

There were two kids at our elementary who left school grounds around that age. I think it was 1st and 2nd grade. They do not have special needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I doubt there is a written policy saying that. The policy on behavior management doesn't say that (https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=282&policyID=JGA-RA§ionID=10) and it addresses use of physical restraint by staff. I wouldn't be surprised if teachers THINK that's the policy though; communication of what laws and policies actually say to teachers is often very poor.

Generally, schools only want CPI certified staff to physically restrain kids, and even then only rarely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How on the hell could a SCHOOL have a “policy” that staff are not allowed to stop a FIVE YEAR OLD who is attempting to leave its campus? If I had that policy in my house it would be called child abuse, and rightly so. This idea is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard here. Someone post a link to this alleged policy.

There are good reasons for this policy. I have seen this turn out badly at my workplace. A 5 year old at our school was upset and not leaving the playground during recess. The counselor forcibly moved this child inside, and injured him in the process. The counselor was disciplined. She found another job and they encouraged her to take it. I don't know if she was trained or not but she made a very bad call. The school was lucky the parents didn't sue. The district attorneys were very nervous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to see the body cam as you are just getting the parents side who was not there. That kid needs a SN child care setting if they are eloping. There is far more to this story.

A 5 year old taking off—especially if his house is near school—is not so far outside the norm that it suggests “special
needs.” This does raise the question of how he was supervised when he took off, though.

At any rate, needing a special needs child care setting does not mean the cops get to talk about beating you incessantly.

There were two kids at our elementary who left school grounds around that age. I think it was 1st and 2nd grade. They do not have special needs.

Ditto, one just wanted a slurpee. I’m friends with him moms boys are just often idk, idiots.

[Anonymous]

As a follow up, the following year a different child also about that age was upset and walked off school grounds. A staff member followed while the administration called the police and the parents. The parents were home or maybe just one but the conclusion was they were able to meet up with the staff member and police who had eyes on the child and the parent got the child and took the child home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How on the hell could a SCHOOL have a “policy” that staff are not allowed to stop a FIVE YEAR OLD who is attempting to leave its campus? If I had that policy in my house it would be called child abuse, and rightly so. This idea is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard here. Someone post a link to this alleged policy.

There is no such policy. There is a cop or a cop supporter just putting BS red herrings in the thread.

They realized he was gone, they called the police. Period.

If there is a defiant teen you can’t restrain him, but if a 5 yo is walking away you can stop him, you can follow him, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a follow up, the following year a different child also about that age was upset and walked off school grounds. A staff member followed while the administration called the police and the parents. The parents were home or maybe just one but the conclusion was they were able to meet up with the staff member and police who had eyes on the child and the parent got the child and took the child home.

This is what normally happens but this case they list the kid and called the police.

[Anonymous]

I don't know about MCPS but there are no touch rules in many districts.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna19293872#.VLqWXi7F_xg

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a follow up, the following year a different child also about that age was upset and walked off school grounds. A staff member followed while the administration called the police and the parents. The parents were home or maybe just one but the conclusion was they were able to meet up with the staff member and police who had eyes on the child and the parent got the child and took the child home.

This is what normally happens but this case they list the kid and called the police.

Do you have personal information on the case? Because no one except the family and the school has this information right now based on the public record.

[Anonymous]

Wrong link. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/01/the-benefits-of-touch/384706/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know about MCPS but there are no touch rules in many districts.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna19293872#.VLqWXi7F_xg

I believe you may be right generally but if in a field trip a kid is about to call off a cliff I believe the teacher should reach out and save them. A five year old child out wandering the streets with no supervision is also an emergency. Obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How on the hell could a SCHOOL have a “policy” that staff are not allowed to stop a FIVE YEAR OLD who is attempting to leave its campus? If I had that policy in my house it would be called child abuse, and rightly so. This idea is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard here. Someone post a link to this alleged policy.

There is no such policy. There is a cop or a cop supporter just putting BS red herrings in the thread.

They realized he was gone, they called the police. Period.

If there is a defiant teen you can’t restrain him, but if a 5 yo is walking away you can stop him, you can follow him, etc.

This may be the part of the regulation (linked above) to which staff are referring:

"Under no circumstances are MCPS staff members permitted to physically escort
students for non-compliant or provocative behavior unless it is physically
aggressive and causes a safety issue that significantly disrupts school operations. In
the case of physical aggression or safety issues, the designated trained MCPS staff
member must follow all procedures set forth in this regulation and Maryland law."

I could see people having different interpretations of "significantly disrupts school operations."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a follow up, the following year a different child also about that age was upset and walked off school grounds. A staff member followed while the administration called the police and the parents. The parents were home or maybe just one but the conclusion was they were able to meet up with the staff member and police who had eyes on the child and the parent got the child and took the child home.

This is what normally happens but this case they list the kid and called the police.

Do you have personal information on the case? Because no one except the family and the school has this information right now based on the public record.

Let it go copper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You could write the whole history of the racist construction of “childhood” and who is entitled to have one by reference to this thread.

do you know the race of the officers?

It's irrelevant. The thread is the story.

well it is relevant. if it was black officers mistreating a black child, that changes the narrative.

It doesn't change the way this kid has been adultified in this thread. That's happening because he is assumed to be black, not because of anyone's particular belief about the race of the police.

+100.

+200

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m trying to put myself in their shoes. So the gist of it, if my 5 1/2 year old eloped from school, and school employees were unable to stop him at the school property line and had to call the police. Then if it took officers 50 minutes and a bunch of “your mom is going to spank you when you get home” and a ride in the cruiser back to school...

I’d be angry... not at the school or police officers but at my child. I can’t imagine ever thinking I was entitled to money because of this. Without seeing the video, I may have a different opinion but I’m not going to take the lawyer’s play by play.

Well, there are terrible parents and you sound like one. If you have kids snd you think it’s okay to tell a kid they deserve to be beaten get therapy.

We haven’t seen the recordings to know what was said.

We have quotes from the video and you can lie in a suit.

Listen miss blue lives matter, you should want better coworkers, stop defending these horrible cops. Clean house and be better.

We have "quotes" as summarized by the family's lawyer. That's not an objective source at all. And you are right (although I assume it was a typo) you can lie -- or at least greatly distort -- is a lawsuit.

Let me put it this way, if in an answer to the complaint, the cop's attorney provides his own, very different, summary of the video will you take that as gospel as well? You wouldn't, nor should you. Your error is in treating any lawyer's rendition of facts as necessarily accurate.

Generally I agree with you that you can’t take on side of the story. But I just can’t imagine any defense for the specific facts cited. And there are serious consequences for a lawyer who misrepresents facts to the Court, so I can’t believe the Complaint misquotes the video.
The stuff about raised voices and manhandling the child, I’ll give you, as that’s pretty subjective. But the specific words used referencing beating the child just are not acceptable and don’t appear to be lawyerly shading of facts.

This. It's very very very very likely that the officers were way out of pocket based on the suit alone. Extremely unlikely that there is no basis whatsoever for this claim.