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:Good lord this thread is depressing. Lots of excuses being made for appalling behavior by police. Unless the attorneys are literally lying about statements made on video by police (in which case they will be sanctioned), there are no valid excuses.

And your post exemplifies why it is reasonable to not jump to conclusions. The lawyers could be lying and it isn't unheard of to see lawyers sanctioned for that. It is also quite possible -- probably more likely than them outright lying -- that they are interpreting facts in the light most favorable to their client. That doesn't mean that those same facts (and the same video) could be reasonably interpreted differently by others. It is not at all uncommon for videos (and audio in video) to be ambiguous (because of what is and is not shown, and the quality of audio and video) and open to various interpretations.

I don't understand why you and others are so offended that we should wait until the evidence comes out, or at least a summary of the evidence is presented by someone objective, and not jump to absolute conclusions of who is right or wrong based on nothing but the description of events by one parties lawyer.

In any other context, would you be so willing to assume the guilt of the accused? I doubt you would generally be willing to assume the guilt of someone accused by the police merely on account of the accusation. You should completely change your worldview and your admiral belief in innocence until proven guilty and the possibility of biased reporting because the accused here is a cop.

In no universe is it okay to scream in a 5 year old's face, not if you are a parent but certainly not if you are a police officer in a county that constantly talks about all their deescalation training. That is what the complaint alleges a police officer did. So either the lawyer is lying and will get sanctioned, or the police's conduct was horrific. There is no alternative reasonable interpretation that does not amount to the lawyers lying about what is on the tape. They either yelled in his face, or they didn't.

I don't agree that yelling is necessarily as black and white as you say. What was said and the context is important. Also, yelling at the kid is far from the most egregious conduct alleged in the complaint. If the only thing the cop did was (allegedly) yell, this would not be a huge deal, even if you are right that yelling would have been poor form and not in keeping with best deescalation practices.

But, even accepting everything you said, you are still wrong that it is black and white and either the cops were wrong or the lawyer is "lying" and should be sanctioned. The audio on the tape my not be great. The lawyer may reasonably allege that the cop was yelling while someone else, perhaps a lawyer hired to defend the cop, would argue that he was not what happened based on the same audio. There might be plenty of gray that would allow the lawyer to allege what he did in a non-sanctionable manner and yet have others who viewed the tape disagree.

Finally, the fact that you admit that it is possible (maybe not likely, but possible) that the lawyer is simply making up facts would be reason enough not to jump to conclusions based on what is publicly known at this point.

I mean a lot of people on this thread are jumping to conclusions that the five year old child is at fault. Is that okay with you?

So two wrongs make a right?

NP.

You are irredeemable.

Toddler steals cookie, dad beats him with a belt

Teen gets a bad grade, parents kick him out of the house

Man sells loose cigarettes, police kill him

Both parties did something wrong, real important to focus on the wrongness on both sides, right? An important use of our time here.

I am disgusted.

I'm disgusted by your lack of reading comprehension ability. I haven't said both sides did something wrong. I've said that we don't know what happened (or which side(s) committed a wrong) so we should withhold judgment until we have more than one side's lawyers account of what occurred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread, but are they also suing the school for letting the child leave? Why was nobody paying attention?

We don't have all the details. We don't know. Either child walked out of the school or playground. Adults are not allowed to stop kids but they could have followed him.

of course they could have stopped him. he was FIVE. do you think they can’t stop a 5 year old from walking into traffic?

They can block him but if he walks around the adults the adults legally cannot put hands on or restrain the child.

That is not what the above-linked MCPS regulation states. They in fact *can* touch the child to escort them for safety reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good lord this thread is depressing. Lots of excuses being made for appalling behavior by police. Unless the attorneys are literally lying about statements made on video by police (in which case they will be sanctioned), there are no valid excuses.

And your post exemplifies why it is reasonable to not jump to conclusions. The lawyers could be lying and it isn't unheard of to see lawyers sanctioned for that. It is also quite possible -- probably more likely than them outright lying -- that they are interpreting facts in the light most favorable to their client. That doesn't mean that those same facts (and the same video) could be reasonably interpreted differently by others. It is not at all uncommon for videos (and audio in video) to be ambiguous (because of what is and is not shown, and the quality of audio and video) and open to various interpretations.

I don't understand why you and others are so offended that we should wait until the evidence comes out, or at least a summary of the evidence is presented by someone objective, and not jump to absolute conclusions of who is right or wrong based on nothing but the description of events by one parties lawyer.

In any other context, would you be so willing to assume the guilt of the accused? I doubt you would generally be willing to assume the guilt of someone accused by the police merely on account of the accusation. You should completely change your worldview and your admiral belief in innocence until proven guilty and the possibility of biased reporting because the accused here is a cop.

In no universe is it okay to scream in a 5 year old's face, not if you are a parent but certainly not if you are a police officer in a county that constantly talks about all their deescalation training. That is what the complaint alleges a police officer did. So either the lawyer is lying and will get sanctioned, or the police's conduct was horrific. There is no alternative reasonable interpretation that does not amount to the lawyers lying about what is on the tape. They either yelled in his face, or they didn't.

I don't agree that yelling is necessarily as black and white as you say. What was said and the context is important. Also, yelling at the kid is far from the most egregious conduct alleged in the complaint. If the only thing the cop did was (allegedly) yell, this would not be a huge deal, even if you are right that yelling would have been poor form and not in keeping with best deescalation practices.

But, even accepting everything you said, you are still wrong that it is black and white and either the cops were wrong or the lawyer is "lying" and should be sanctioned. The audio on the tape my not be great. The lawyer may reasonably allege that the cop was yelling while someone else, perhaps a lawyer hired to defend the cop, would argue that he was not what happened based on the same audio. There might be plenty of gray that would allow the lawyer to allege what he did in a non-sanctionable manner and yet have others who viewed the tape disagree.

Finally, the fact that you admit that it is possible (maybe not likely, but possible) that the lawyer is simply making up facts would be reason enough not to jump to conclusions based on what is publicly known at this point.

I mean a lot of people on this thread are jumping to conclusions that the five year old child is at fault. Is that okay with you?

So two wrongs make a right?

That's not what I said or what I asked. Which tells me you are okay with people assuming the five year old was at fault, but not okay with people assuming the complaint is accurate and the police acted improperly. Please correct me if I am wrong. Because you originally responded to me saying this thread is depressing, and the assumptions being made about the child are the main thing that is depressing about it.

[Anonymous]

In other words, you seem to be reacting specifically to protect the police, and not to protect the child. If you think the child deserves the benefit of the doubt, then say so. It doesn't seem like you do.

[Anonymous]

If, what the family claims is true, that is horrible and they are likely entitled to some damages. I would disagree that they are owed $1 million, even though I am sure it was difficult for the little boy, since Brianna Taylor's family only got a $12 million settlement.


Brianna Taylor's family was robbed. So what now.

Honestly, I am sure her family knew its own situation, was represented by counsel, and made the best decision for themselves accordingly. Why would you presume to know what was better for them than they do? That seems horribly arrogant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good lord this thread is depressing. Lots of excuses being made for appalling behavior by police. Unless the attorneys are literally lying about statements made on video by police (in which case they will be sanctioned), there are no valid excuses.

And your post exemplifies why it is reasonable to not jump to conclusions. The lawyers could be lying and it isn't unheard of to see lawyers sanctioned for that. It is also quite possible -- probably more likely than them outright lying -- that they are interpreting facts in the light most favorable to their client. That doesn't mean that those same facts (and the same video) could be reasonably interpreted differently by others. It is not at all uncommon for videos (and audio in video) to be ambiguous (because of what is and is not shown, and the quality of audio and video) and open to various interpretations.

I don't understand why you and others are so offended that we should wait until the evidence comes out, or at least a summary of the evidence is presented by someone objective, and not jump to absolute conclusions of who is right or wrong based on nothing but the description of events by one parties lawyer.

In any other context, would you be so willing to assume the guilt of the accused? I doubt you would generally be willing to assume the guilt of someone accused by the police merely on account of the accusation. You should completely change your worldview and your admiral belief in innocence until proven guilty and the possibility of biased reporting because the accused here is a cop.

In no universe is it okay to scream in a 5 year old's face, not if you are a parent but certainly not if you are a police officer in a county that constantly talks about all their deescalation training. That is what the complaint alleges a police officer did. So either the lawyer is lying and will get sanctioned, or the police's conduct was horrific. There is no alternative reasonable interpretation that does not amount to the lawyers lying about what is on the tape. They either yelled in his face, or they didn't.

I don't agree that yelling is necessarily as black and white as you say. What was said and the context is important. Also, yelling at the kid is far from the most egregious conduct alleged in the complaint. If the only thing the cop did was (allegedly) yell, this would not be a huge deal, even if you are right that yelling would have been poor form and not in keeping with best deescalation practices.

But, even accepting everything you said, you are still wrong that it is black and white and either the cops were wrong or the lawyer is "lying" and should be sanctioned. The audio on the tape my not be great. The lawyer may reasonably allege that the cop was yelling while someone else, perhaps a lawyer hired to defend the cop, would argue that he was not what happened based on the same audio. There might be plenty of gray that would allow the lawyer to allege what he did in a non-sanctionable manner and yet have others who viewed the tape disagree.

Finally, the fact that you admit that it is possible (maybe not likely, but possible) that the lawyer is simply making up facts would be reason enough not to jump to conclusions based on what is publicly known at this point.

I mean a lot of people on this thread are jumping to conclusions that the five year old child is at fault. Is that okay with you?

So two wrongs make a right?

That's not what I said or what I asked. Which tells me you are okay with people assuming the five year old was at fault, but not okay with people assuming the complaint is accurate and the police acted improperly. Please correct me if I am wrong. Because you originally responded to me saying this thread is depressing, and the assumptions being made about the child are the main thing that is depressing about it.

I never said anything about this thread being depressing, nor have I made any assumptions about the child.

You have absolutely no basis to deduce that I am ok with assuming the five year old was at fault.

My point has been that we do not know what has occurred and we should not jump to conclusions as to who was at a fault based on what someone's attorney recounts as what happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this whole thread, but are they also suing the school for letting the child leave? Why was nobody paying attention?

We don't have all the details. We don't know. Either child walked out of the school or playground. Adults are not allowed to stop kids but they could have followed him.

of course they could have stopped him. he was FIVE. do you think they can’t stop a 5 year old from walking into traffic?

They aren’t allowed to block the child from exiting the door, and can’t restrain the child.

Again, please link to the place in the policy that has been shared here that says this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good lord this thread is depressing. Lots of excuses being made for appalling behavior by police. Unless the attorneys are literally lying about statements made on video by police (in which case they will be sanctioned), there are no valid excuses.

And your post exemplifies why it is reasonable to not jump to conclusions. The lawyers could be lying and it isn't unheard of to see lawyers sanctioned for that. It is also quite possible -- probably more likely than them outright lying -- that they are interpreting facts in the light most favorable to their client. That doesn't mean that those same facts (and the same video) could be reasonably interpreted differently by others. It is not at all uncommon for videos (and audio in video) to be ambiguous (because of what is and is not shown, and the quality of audio and video) and open to various interpretations.

I don't understand why you and others are so offended that we should wait until the evidence comes out, or at least a summary of the evidence is presented by someone objective, and not jump to absolute conclusions of who is right or wrong based on nothing but the description of events by one parties lawyer.

In any other context, would you be so willing to assume the guilt of the accused? I doubt you would generally be willing to assume the guilt of someone accused by the police merely on account of the accusation. You should completely change your worldview and your admiral belief in innocence until proven guilty and the possibility of biased reporting because the accused here is a cop.

In no universe is it okay to scream in a 5 year old's face, not if you are a parent but certainly not if you are a police officer in a county that constantly talks about all their deescalation training. That is what the complaint alleges a police officer did. So either the lawyer is lying and will get sanctioned, or the police's conduct was horrific. There is no alternative reasonable interpretation that does not amount to the lawyers lying about what is on the tape. They either yelled in his face, or they didn't.

I don't agree that yelling is necessarily as black and white as you say. What was said and the context is important. Also, yelling at the kid is far from the most egregious conduct alleged in the complaint. If the only thing the cop did was (allegedly) yell, this would not be a huge deal, even if you are right that yelling would have been poor form and not in keeping with best deescalation practices.

But, even accepting everything you said, you are still wrong that it is black and white and either the cops were wrong or the lawyer is "lying" and should be sanctioned. The audio on the tape my not be great. The lawyer may reasonably allege that the cop was yelling while someone else, perhaps a lawyer hired to defend the cop, would argue that he was not what happened based on the same audio. There might be plenty of gray that would allow the lawyer to allege what he did in a non-sanctionable manner and yet have others who viewed the tape disagree.

Finally, the fact that you admit that it is possible (maybe not likely, but possible) that the lawyer is simply making up facts would be reason enough not to jump to conclusions based on what is publicly known at this point.

I mean a lot of people on this thread are jumping to conclusions that the five year old child is at fault. Is that okay with you?

So two wrongs make a right?

That's not what I said or what I asked. Which tells me you are okay with people assuming the five year old was at fault, but not okay with people assuming the complaint is accurate and the police acted improperly. Please correct me if I am wrong. Because you originally responded to me saying this thread is depressing, and the assumptions being made about the child are the main thing that is depressing about it.

I never said anything about this thread being depressing, nor have I made any assumptions about the child.

You have absolutely no basis to deduce that I am ok with assuming the five year old was at fault.

My point has been that we do not know what has occurred and we should not jump to conclusions as to who was at a fault based on what someone's attorney recounts as what happened.

Yet you've now refused twice to say that you're not okay with it. Which tells me that you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good lord this thread is depressing. Lots of excuses being made for appalling behavior by police. Unless the attorneys are literally lying about statements made on video by police (in which case they will be sanctioned), there are no valid excuses.

And your post exemplifies why it is reasonable to not jump to conclusions. The lawyers could be lying and it isn't unheard of to see lawyers sanctioned for that. It is also quite possible -- probably more likely than them outright lying -- that they are interpreting facts in the light most favorable to their client. That doesn't mean that those same facts (and the same video) could be reasonably interpreted differently by others. It is not at all uncommon for videos (and audio in video) to be ambiguous (because of what is and is not shown, and the quality of audio and video) and open to various interpretations.

I don't understand why you and others are so offended that we should wait until the evidence comes out, or at least a summary of the evidence is presented by someone objective, and not jump to absolute conclusions of who is right or wrong based on nothing but the description of events by one parties lawyer.

In any other context, would you be so willing to assume the guilt of the accused? I doubt you would generally be willing to assume the guilt of someone accused by the police merely on account of the accusation. You should completely change your worldview and your admiral belief in innocence until proven guilty and the possibility of biased reporting because the accused here is a cop.

In no universe is it okay to scream in a 5 year old's face, not if you are a parent but certainly not if you are a police officer in a county that constantly talks about all their deescalation training. That is what the complaint alleges a police officer did. So either the lawyer is lying and will get sanctioned, or the police's conduct was horrific. There is no alternative reasonable interpretation that does not amount to the lawyers lying about what is on the tape. They either yelled in his face, or they didn't.

I don't agree that yelling is necessarily as black and white as you say. What was said and the context is important. Also, yelling at the kid is far from the most egregious conduct alleged in the complaint. If the only thing the cop did was (allegedly) yell, this would not be a huge deal, even if you are right that yelling would have been poor form and not in keeping with best deescalation practices.

But, even accepting everything you said, you are still wrong that it is black and white and either the cops were wrong or the lawyer is "lying" and should be sanctioned. The audio on the tape my not be great. The lawyer may reasonably allege that the cop was yelling while someone else, perhaps a lawyer hired to defend the cop, would argue that he was not what happened based on the same audio. There might be plenty of gray that would allow the lawyer to allege what he did in a non-sanctionable manner and yet have others who viewed the tape disagree.

Finally, the fact that you admit that it is possible (maybe not likely, but possible) that the lawyer is simply making up facts would be reason enough not to jump to conclusions based on what is publicly known at this point.

I mean a lot of people on this thread are jumping to conclusions that the five year old child is at fault. Is that okay with you?

So two wrongs make a right?

That's not what I said or what I asked. Which tells me you are okay with people assuming the five year old was at fault, but not okay with people assuming the complaint is accurate and the police acted improperly. Please correct me if I am wrong. Because you originally responded to me saying this thread is depressing, and the assumptions being made about the child are the main thing that is depressing about it.

I never said anything about this thread being depressing, nor have I made any assumptions about the child.

You have absolutely no basis to deduce that I am ok with assuming the five year old was at fault.

My point has been that we do not know what has occurred and we should not jump to conclusions as to who was at a fault based on what someone's attorney recounts as what happened.

Yet you've now refused twice to say that you're not okay with it. Which tells me that you are.

That tell me you are an idiot if you are jumping to the conclusion from my posts.

[Anonymous]

I don't care if the child is Charles Manson. The police need to act professionally and compassionately. If they did not, this is on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if the child is Charles Manson. The police need to act professionally and compassionately. If they did not, this is on them.

I'm not sure people are debating that. The question is IF the police failed to do that in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That tell me you are an idiot if you are jumping to the conclusion from my posts.

Don't worry, the message you are sending is pretty clear.

[Anonymous]

We don't know how the chid walked out of school but this child did. From the limited comments in the artifice, we can deduct that that there were academic and behavioral issues with this child. We know the child eloped from school and since school personal cannot leave the school, police looked and found the child. We know it took 50 minutes for the parent to get to school and during that time there were some more behavioral issues with the child who was upset. We know from the article that the police asked the child how they were disciplined and child said that physical discipline was used. The police were wrong to threaten the child but clearly that is the method of discipline at home. There is way more to this story.

Teachers and staff at a regular elementary cannot restrain children. They are not trained and approved. If a child fights them and walks out (or doesn't fight them and walks out) the best they can do is follow the child to keep them safe. They need to call police to get them. And, those screaming call the counselor or social worker, those folks cannot hands on a child either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good lord this thread is depressing. Lots of excuses being made for appalling behavior by police. Unless the attorneys are literally lying about statements made on video by police (in which case they will be sanctioned), there are no valid excuses.

And your post exemplifies why it is reasonable to not jump to conclusions. The lawyers could be lying and it isn't unheard of to see lawyers sanctioned for that. It is also quite possible -- probably more likely than them outright lying -- that they are interpreting facts in the light most favorable to their client. That doesn't mean that those same facts (and the same video) could be reasonably interpreted differently by others. It is not at all uncommon for videos (and audio in video) to be ambiguous (because of what is and is not shown, and the quality of audio and video) and open to various interpretations.

I don't understand why you and others are so offended that we should wait until the evidence comes out, or at least a summary of the evidence is presented by someone objective, and not jump to absolute conclusions of who is right or wrong based on nothing but the description of events by one parties lawyer.

In any other context, would you be so willing to assume the guilt of the accused? I doubt you would generally be willing to assume the guilt of someone accused by the police merely on account of the accusation. You should completely change your worldview and your admiral belief in innocence until proven guilty and the possibility of biased reporting because the accused here is a cop.

In no universe is it okay to scream in a 5 year old's face, not if you are a parent but certainly not if you are a police officer in a county that constantly talks about all their deescalation training. That is what the complaint alleges a police officer did. So either the lawyer is lying and will get sanctioned, or the police's conduct was horrific. There is no alternative reasonable interpretation that does not amount to the lawyers lying about what is on the tape. They either yelled in his face, or they didn't.

I don't agree that yelling is necessarily as black and white as you say. What was said and the context is important. Also, yelling at the kid is far from the most egregious conduct alleged in the complaint. If the only thing the cop did was (allegedly) yell, this would not be a huge deal, even if you are right that yelling would have been poor form and not in keeping with best deescalation practices.

But, even accepting everything you said, you are still wrong that it is black and white and either the cops were wrong or the lawyer is "lying" and should be sanctioned. The audio on the tape my not be great. The lawyer may reasonably allege that the cop was yelling while someone else, perhaps a lawyer hired to defend the cop, would argue that he was not what happened based on the same audio. There might be plenty of gray that would allow the lawyer to allege what he did in a non-sanctionable manner and yet have others who viewed the tape disagree.

Finally, the fact that you admit that it is possible (maybe not likely, but possible) that the lawyer is simply making up facts would be reason enough not to jump to conclusions based on what is publicly known at this point.

I mean a lot of people on this thread are jumping to conclusions that the five year old child is at fault. Is that okay with you?

So two wrongs make a right?

That's not what I said or what I asked. Which tells me you are okay with people assuming the five year old was at fault, but not okay with people assuming the complaint is accurate and the police acted improperly. Please correct me if I am wrong. Because you originally responded to me saying this thread is depressing, and the assumptions being made about the child are the main thing that is depressing about it.

I never said anything about this thread being depressing, nor have I made any assumptions about the child.

You have absolutely no basis to deduce that I am ok with assuming the five year old was at fault.

My point has been that we do not know what has occurred and we should not jump to conclusions as to who was at a fault based on what someone's attorney recounts as what happened.

The five year old left their school with or without staff knowledge and without permission. That is a huge red flag. How many students do we have in MCPS in ES school that walk out of school on any given day?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good lord this thread is depressing. Lots of excuses being made for appalling behavior by police. Unless the attorneys are literally lying about statements made on video by police (in which case they will be sanctioned), there are no valid excuses.

And your post exemplifies why it is reasonable to not jump to conclusions. The lawyers could be lying and it isn't unheard of to see lawyers sanctioned for that. It is also quite possible -- probably more likely than them outright lying -- that they are interpreting facts in the light most favorable to their client. That doesn't mean that those same facts (and the same video) could be reasonably interpreted differently by others. It is not at all uncommon for videos (and audio in video) to be ambiguous (because of what is and is not shown, and the quality of audio and video) and open to various interpretations.

I don't understand why you and others are so offended that we should wait until the evidence comes out, or at least a summary of the evidence is presented by someone objective, and not jump to absolute conclusions of who is right or wrong based on nothing but the description of events by one parties lawyer.

In any other context, would you be so willing to assume the guilt of the accused? I doubt you would generally be willing to assume the guilt of someone accused by the police merely on account of the accusation. You should completely change your worldview and your admiral belief in innocence until proven guilty and the possibility of biased reporting because the accused here is a cop.

In no universe is it okay to scream in a 5 year old's face, not if you are a parent but certainly not if you are a police officer in a county that constantly talks about all their deescalation training. That is what the complaint alleges a police officer did. So either the lawyer is lying and will get sanctioned, or the police's conduct was horrific. There is no alternative reasonable interpretation that does not amount to the lawyers lying about what is on the tape. They either yelled in his face, or they didn't.

I don't agree that yelling is necessarily as black and white as you say. What was said and the context is important. Also, yelling at the kid is far from the most egregious conduct alleged in the complaint. If the only thing the cop did was (allegedly) yell, this would not be a huge deal, even if you are right that yelling would have been poor form and not in keeping with best deescalation practices.

But, even accepting everything you said, you are still wrong that it is black and white and either the cops were wrong or the lawyer is "lying" and should be sanctioned. The audio on the tape my not be great. The lawyer may reasonably allege that the cop was yelling while someone else, perhaps a lawyer hired to defend the cop, would argue that he was not what happened based on the same audio. There might be plenty of gray that would allow the lawyer to allege what he did in a non-sanctionable manner and yet have others who viewed the tape disagree.

Finally, the fact that you admit that it is possible (maybe not likely, but possible) that the lawyer is simply making up facts would be reason enough not to jump to conclusions based on what is publicly known at this point.

I mean a lot of people on this thread are jumping to conclusions that the five year old child is at fault. Is that okay with you?

So two wrongs make a right?

That's not what I said or what I asked. Which tells me you are okay with people assuming the five year old was at fault, but not okay with people assuming the complaint is accurate and the police acted improperly. Please correct me if I am wrong. Because you originally responded to me saying this thread is depressing, and the assumptions being made about the child are the main thing that is depressing about it.

I never said anything about this thread being depressing, nor have I made any assumptions about the child.

You have absolutely no basis to deduce that I am ok with assuming the five year old was at fault.

My point has been that we do not know what has occurred and we should not jump to conclusions as to who was at a fault based on what someone's attorney recounts as what happened.

The five year old left their school with or without staff knowledge and without permission. That is a huge red flag. How many students do we have in MCPS in ES school that walk out of school on any given day?

While not appropriate, I'm not sure a five year old wandering is a red flag, nor do I think that plenty of other five year olds might not have done the same.

But, even if that is true, why would a five year old wandering off be at "fault" in a way that would justify misconduct by the police, assuming arguendo that any such misconduct occurred.