For everyone insisting MCPS reinstate SROs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most cops never fire their gun in their careers against a criminal. The focus on the SRO having a gun is a distraction issue. Properly trained SROs are very valuable in schools. That is why most want them back. The purpose is to deter crime and violence.

Yes SROs are necessary and they don’t need to be cops with guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most cops never fire their gun in their careers against a criminal. The focus on the SRO having a gun is a distraction issue. Properly trained SROs are very valuable in schools. That is why most want them back. The purpose is to deter crime and violence.

Yes SROs are necessary and they don’t need to be cops with guns.

Not sure that's true especially when they run away when their needed most like the one from Parkland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most cops never fire their gun in their careers against a criminal. The focus on the SRO having a gun is a distraction issue. Properly trained SROs are very valuable in schools. That is why most want them back. The purpose is to deter crime and violence.

Were the officers involved in the murder of George Floyd properly trained? This seems like a bad idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most cops never fire their gun in their careers against a criminal. The focus on the SRO having a gun is a distraction issue. Properly trained SROs are very valuable in schools. That is why most want them back. The purpose is to deter crime and violence.

Were the officers involved in the murder of George Floyd properly trained? This seems like a bad idea.

There are 800,000 police officers in the United States. Are we going to hold 799,996 of them responsible for the actions of the men there that day? If we are going to do that, then we must vilify all doctors for the very few who have killed patients through neglect, all teachers for the very few who sexually assault students, etc. I will not disparage an entire group of people for the actions of very few, nor (I’m sure) will the majority of people on this thread.

I suspect you’re a troll looking to ruffle feathers. In that case, I know I just wasted my time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most cops never fire their gun in their careers against a criminal. The focus on the SRO having a gun is a distraction issue. Properly trained SROs are very valuable in schools. That is why most want them back. The purpose is to deter crime and violence.

Were the officers involved in the murder of George Floyd properly trained? This seems like a bad idea.

There are 800,000 police officers in the United States. Are we going to hold 799,996 of them responsible for the actions of the men there that day? If we are going to do that, then we must vilify all doctors for the very few who have killed patients through neglect, all teachers for the very few who sexually assault students, etc. I will not disparage an entire group of people for the actions of very few, nor (I’m sure) will the majority of people on this thread.

I suspect you’re a troll looking to ruffle feathers. In that case, I know I just wasted my time.

Since these incidents occur almost daily it's hard not to. We have a real problem. Pretending this is an isolated incident is also not. helping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most cops never fire their gun in their careers against a criminal. The focus on the SRO having a gun is a distraction issue. Properly trained SROs are very valuable in schools. That is why most want them back. The purpose is to deter crime and violence.

Yes SROs are necessary and they don’t need to be cops with guns.

Not sure that's true especially when they run away when their needed most like the one from Parkland.

Cops run away in parkland and Texas.

But regular people ran in.

So yes we need SROs but they should NOT be cops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most cops never fire their gun in their careers against a criminal. The focus on the SRO having a gun is a distraction issue. Properly trained SROs are very valuable in schools. That is why most want them back. The purpose is to deter crime and violence.

Were the officers involved in the murder of George Floyd properly trained? This seems like a bad idea.

There are 800,000 police officers in the United States. Are we going to hold 799,996 of them responsible for the actions of the men there that day? If we are going to do that, then we must vilify all doctors for the very few who have killed patients through neglect, all teachers for the very few who sexually assault students, etc. I will not disparage an entire group of people for the actions of very few, nor (I’m sure) will the majority of people on this thread.

I suspect you’re a troll looking to ruffle feathers. In that case, I know I just wasted my time.

So only 4 people were bad cops that day? Are you sure?

The teacher in this thread even admitted her h (a ver admirable man) sees bad cops do bad things and has never once turned them in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most cops never fire their gun in their careers against a criminal. The focus on the SRO having a gun is a distraction issue. Properly trained SROs are very valuable in schools. That is why most want them back. The purpose is to deter crime and violence.

Were the officers involved in the murder of George Floyd properly trained? This seems like a bad idea.

There are 800,000 police officers in the United States. Are we going to hold 799,996 of them responsible for the actions of the men there that day? If we are going to do that, then we must vilify all doctors for the very few who have killed patients through neglect, all teachers for the very few who sexually assault students, etc. I will not disparage an entire group of people for the actions of very few, nor (I’m sure) will the majority of people on this thread.

I suspect you’re a troll looking to ruffle feathers. In that case, I know I just wasted my time.

So only 4 people were bad cops that day? Are you sure?

The teacher in this thread even admitted her h (a ver admirable man) sees bad cops do bad things and has never once turned them in.

I am that teacher. Give it a rest! Nowhere did I say that or even remotely hint that. You asked me if I thought police are perfect and I responded of course not. You fabricated the nonsense above and nobody here is going to fall for it.

You’ve been called out by other posters already for being blanketly anti-police. Most of this thread agrees that SROs are positive additions to schools. You won’t change minds, particularly not with the methods you have chosen to use. I don’t feel particularly compelled to change your mind since you don’t appear to respond to statistics or real-world experiences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most cops never fire their gun in their careers against a criminal. The focus on the SRO having a gun is a distraction issue. Properly trained SROs are very valuable in schools. That is why most want them back. The purpose is to deter crime and violence.

Yes SROs are necessary and they don’t need to be cops with guns.

Not sure that's true especially when they run away when their needed most like the one from Parkland.

Cops run away in parkland and Texas.

But regular people ran in.

So yes we need SROs but they should NOT be cops.

This is dumb. It's like saying "some people abuse welfare programs so we should get rid of it", or "more gun laws won't prevent criminals from committing crime so we shouldn't have more gun laws".

No system, program, law is perfect, but we don't get rid of it because of a few bad apples.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most cops never fire their gun in their careers against a criminal. The focus on the SRO having a gun is a distraction issue. Properly trained SROs are very valuable in schools. That is why most want them back. The purpose is to deter crime and violence.

Yes SROs are necessary and they don’t need to be cops with guns.

We aready have security guards at md and hs. It’s not enough. The use police as it does not come out of mcps funds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most cops never fire their gun in their careers against a criminal. The focus on the SRO having a gun is a distraction issue. Properly trained SROs are very valuable in schools. That is why most want them back. The purpose is to deter crime and violence.

Yes SROs are necessary and they don’t need to be cops with guns.

Not sure that's true especially when they run away when their needed most like the one from Parkland.

Cops run away in parkland and Texas.

But regular people ran in.

So yes we need SROs but they should NOT be cops.

This is dumb. It's like saying "some people abuse welfare programs so we should get rid of it", or "more gun laws won't prevent criminals from committing crime so we shouldn't have more gun laws".

No system, program, law is perfect, but we don't get rid of it because of a few bad apples.

People who do not follow welfare rules can be prosecuted. People who break gun laws can be prosecuted. Police that violate the rules get a pension. Increase police accountability and you'll see more support for police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most cops never fire their gun in their careers against a criminal. The focus on the SRO having a gun is a distraction issue. Properly trained SROs are very valuable in schools. That is why most want them back. The purpose is to deter crime and violence.

Yes SROs are necessary and they don’t need to be cops with guns.

Not sure that's true especially when they run away when their needed most like the one from Parkland.

Cops run away in parkland and Texas.

But regular people ran in.

So yes we need SROs but they should NOT be cops.

This is dumb. It's like saying "some people abuse welfare programs so we should get rid of it", or "more gun laws won't prevent criminals from committing crime so we shouldn't have more gun laws".

No system, program, law is perfect, but we don't get rid of it because of a few bad apples.

People who do not follow welfare rules can be prosecuted. People who break gun laws can be prosecuted. Police that violate the rules get a pension. Increase police accountability and you'll see more support for police.

Done:
https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/hb0670/?ys=2021rs

Do they have your support now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most cops never fire their gun in their careers against a criminal. The focus on the SRO having a gun is a distraction issue. Properly trained SROs are very valuable in schools. That is why most want them back. The purpose is to deter crime and violence.

Yes SROs are necessary and they don’t need to be cops with guns.

Not sure that's true especially when they run away when their needed most like the one from Parkland.

Cops run away in parkland and Texas.

But regular people ran in.

So yes we need SROs but they should NOT be cops.

This is dumb. It's like saying "some people abuse welfare programs so we should get rid of it", or "more gun laws won't prevent criminals from committing crime so we shouldn't have more gun laws".

No system, program, law is perfect, but we don't get rid of it because of a few bad apples.

Actually the statistics are not in your favor. Most SROs do not stop crime. So conversely, just because 1 SRO in 50,000 did 1 good thing doesn’t mean we should have SROs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most cops never fire their gun in their careers against a criminal. The focus on the SRO having a gun is a distraction issue. Properly trained SROs are very valuable in schools. That is why most want them back. The purpose is to deter crime and violence.

Yes SROs are necessary and they don’t need to be cops with guns.

Not sure that's true especially when they run away when their needed most like the one from Parkland.

Cops run away in parkland and Texas.

But regular people ran in.

So yes we need SROs but they should NOT be cops.

This is dumb. It's like saying "some people abuse welfare programs so we should get rid of it", or "more gun laws won't prevent criminals from committing crime so we shouldn't have more gun laws".

No system, program, law is perfect, but we don't get rid of it because of a few bad apples.

Actually the statistics are not in your favor. Most SROs do not stop crime. So conversely, just because 1 SRO in 50,000 did 1 good thing doesn’t mean we should have SROs.

DP.. If that 1 SRO stopped a crime that would've hurt my kids, I would support it.

Even so, what is your answer to reducing violence in our schools? Because nothing MCPS has done has helped. And don't just blame the pandemic. The "soft on crime" RJ is BS and doing nothing to reduce violent behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most cops never fire their gun in their careers against a criminal. The focus on the SRO having a gun is a distraction issue. Properly trained SROs are very valuable in schools. That is why most want them back. The purpose is to deter crime and violence.

Yes SROs are necessary and they don’t need to be cops with guns.

Not sure that's true especially when they run away when their needed most like the one from Parkland.

Cops run away in parkland and Texas.

But regular people ran in.

So yes we need SROs but they should NOT be cops.

This is dumb. It's like saying "some people abuse welfare programs so we should get rid of it", or "more gun laws won't prevent criminals from committing crime so we shouldn't have more gun laws".

No system, program, law is perfect, but we don't get rid of it because of a few bad apples.

Actually the statistics are not in your favor. Most SROs do not stop crime. So conversely, just because 1 SRO in 50,000 did 1 good thing doesn’t mean we should have SROs.

Do you have actual statistics to share? Real ones? I doubt there are 50,000 SROs in the nation, and even if that’s the case, I suspect more than one did a “good thing.”