Reinstate School Resource Officers at MCPS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they probably need SROs. remember the locker room assault at Wooton by members of their varsity football team

https://wjla.com/news/local/thomas-wootton-high-school-rockville-montgomery-county-police-investigating-serious-incident-sexual-assault-varsity-football-team-locker-room

SRO’s don’t work after school or during games so no SRO’s would not have prevented this

Yep. So many clueless private schools parents trolling

You’re both incorrect. They are often asked by the schools to work OT or shift their shift time to cover things like games and dances because of the high risk of violence and drug dealing at those events. Otherwise the school has to hire security or a MCPD on a secondary employment shift—but then they get whoever is assigned rather than a SRO trained to deal with teens and who is familiar with and to the kids at their school. Getting rid of the program does not eliminate the need — it only eliminates the trained cadre of officers.

There have been several incidences at football games after school in the parking lot. I think having SROs work OT as "security guards" at school games is not a bad idea.

No. Cops work games and they should, SRO's are cops if they want to ask their boss to work OT they can.

Cops are not trolling the halls and locker rooms.

SROs should walk the halls (not locker rooms, though) and connect with kids.

RJ doesn't work.

Your answer is to do nothing. Shrug it off.. kids will be kids.. we can't stop the violence, so why bother having SROs that *may* make some kids feel uncomfortable even as other kids (and Principals) like having SROs.

Why don't you go walk the halls.

RJ is wonderful. SROs not so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they probably need SROs. remember the locker room assault at Wooton by members of their varsity football team

https://wjla.com/news/local/thomas-wootton-high-school-rockville-montgomery-county-police-investigating-serious-incident-sexual-assault-varsity-football-team-locker-room

SRO’s don’t work after school or during games so no SRO’s would not have prevented this

Yep. So many clueless private schools parents trolling

You’re both incorrect. They are often asked by the schools to work OT or shift their shift time to cover things like games and dances because of the high risk of violence and drug dealing at those events. Otherwise the school has to hire security or a MCPD on a secondary employment shift—but then they get whoever is assigned rather than a SRO trained to deal with teens and who is familiar with and to the kids at their school. Getting rid of the program does not eliminate the need — it only eliminates the trained cadre of officers.

There have been several incidences at football games after school in the parking lot. I think having SROs work OT as "security guards" at school games is not a bad idea.

No. Cops work games and they should, SRO's are cops if they want to ask their boss to work OT they can.

Cops are not trolling the halls and locker rooms.

SROs should walk the halls (not locker rooms, though) and connect with kids.

RJ doesn't work.

Your answer is to do nothing. Shrug it off.. kids will be kids.. we can't stop the violence, so why bother having SROs that *may* make some kids feel uncomfortable even as other kids (and Principals) like having SROs.

Why don't you go walk the halls.

RJ is wonderful. SROs not so much.

Let me guess. Your child is a bully and gets in trouble a lot. So, RJ is nice as you don't believe in punishments and let kids work it out. For you, if your kid bullies, it's just a part of growing up. SRO's are a huge problem as they know your child and you feel your child is targeted as a bully when you think their behavior is ok. Who cares if your kid beats up or teases/humiliates another child? As long as your child isn't beat up, humiliated or bullied its all good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you care about school safety, pls sign this petition.
https://www.change.org/p/montgomery-county-council-reinstate-school-resource-officers-at-mcps

Recently, there are a number of local and nation wide violence attacks against students. Here are two quick examples.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/blair-high-school-stabbing-student-charged/2021/11/09/7e87293a-4176-11ec-a88e-2aa4632af69b_story.html
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/video-teen-girls-attack-students-on-septa-train/3051706/

It sounds the time to put our student safety first.

Thanks,

Oh gawd! Please give it a rest,. Nobody wants this. It will accomplish nothing other than squandering more taxes.

Not only do I want SRO's back but I want more assigned to the schools.

[Anonymous]

Let's let principals bring back corporal punishment, too. That'll teach kids a lesson!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they probably need SROs. remember the locker room assault at Wooton by members of their varsity football team

https://wjla.com/news/local/thomas-wootton-high-school-rockville-montgomery-county-police-investigating-serious-incident-sexual-assault-varsity-football-team-locker-room

SRO’s don’t work after school or during games so no SRO’s would not have prevented this

Yep. So many clueless private schools parents trolling

You’re both incorrect. They are often asked by the schools to work OT or shift their shift time to cover things like games and dances because of the high risk of violence and drug dealing at those events. Otherwise the school has to hire security or a MCPD on a secondary employment shift—but then they get whoever is assigned rather than a SRO trained to deal with teens and who is familiar with and to the kids at their school. Getting rid of the program does not eliminate the need — it only eliminates the trained cadre of officers.

There have been several incidences at football games after school in the parking lot. I think having SROs work OT as "security guards" at school games is not a bad idea.

No. Cops work games and they should, SRO's are cops if they want to ask their boss to work OT they can.

Cops are not trolling the halls and locker rooms.

SROs should walk the halls (not locker rooms, though) and connect with kids.

RJ doesn't work.

Your answer is to do nothing. Shrug it off.. kids will be kids.. we can't stop the violence, so why bother having SROs that *may* make some kids feel uncomfortable even as other kids (and Principals) like having SROs.

Why don't you go walk the halls.

RJ is wonderful. SROs not so much.

Let me guess. Your child is a bully and gets in trouble a lot. So, RJ is nice as you don't believe in punishments and let kids work it out. For you, if your kid bullies, it's just a part of growing up. SRO's are a huge problem as they know your child and you feel your child is targeted as a bully when you think their behavior is ok. Who cares if your kid beats up or teases/humiliates another child? As long as your child isn't beat up, humiliated or bullied its all good.

I think that ^PP is just a troll, wanting to stir sh1t up. I confess, I've done that on the politics forum pretending to be a Trumpster. I would post the dumbest stuff. No one realized I was a troll because, sadly, Trumpsters are that dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they probably need SROs. remember the locker room assault at Wooton by members of their varsity football team

https://wjla.com/news/local/thomas-wootton-high-school-rockville-montgomery-county-police-investigating-serious-incident-sexual-assault-varsity-football-team-locker-room

SRO’s don’t work after school or during games so no SRO’s would not have prevented this

Yep. So many clueless private schools parents trolling

You’re both incorrect. They are often asked by the schools to work OT or shift their shift time to cover things like games and dances because of the high risk of violence and drug dealing at those events. Otherwise the school has to hire security or a MCPD on a secondary employment shift—but then they get whoever is assigned rather than a SRO trained to deal with teens and who is familiar with and to the kids at their school. Getting rid of the program does not eliminate the need — it only eliminates the trained cadre of officers.

There have been several incidences at football games after school in the parking lot. I think having SROs work OT as "security guards" at school games is not a bad idea.

No. Cops work games and they should, SRO's are cops if they want to ask their boss to work OT they can.

Cops are not trolling the halls and locker rooms.

SROs should walk the halls (not locker rooms, though) and connect with kids.

RJ doesn't work.

Your answer is to do nothing. Shrug it off.. kids will be kids.. we can't stop the violence, so why bother having SROs that *may* make some kids feel uncomfortable even as other kids (and Principals) like having SROs.

Why don't you go walk the halls.

RJ is wonderful. SROs not so much.

Let me guess. Your child is a bully and gets in trouble a lot.

So, RJ is nice as you don't believe in punishments and let kids work it out. For you, if your kid bullies, it's just a part of growing up. SRO's are a huge problem as they know your child and you feel your child is targeted as a bully when you think their behavior is ok. Who cares if your kid beats up or teases/humiliates another child? As long as your child isn't beat up, humiliated or bullied its all good.

I think that ^PP is just a troll, wanting to stir sh1t up. I confess, I've done that on the politics forum pretending to be a Trumpster. I would post the dumbest stuff. No one realized I was a troll because, sadly, Trumpsters are that dumb.

So people who want SROs reinstated are now Trumpsters? Wow what a typical response.

[Anonymous]

Yeah I hate trump but I also want SROs and metal detectors. What’s happening now is BS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I hate trump but I also want SROs and metal detectors. What’s happening now is BS

If schools use wand-type metal detectors, metal detectors won't detect non-metal weapons. The gang members will just switch to non-metallic weapon. Only X-ray machines will work if they have well-trained guards, and they're really expensive, require a lot of maintenance, and will be removed anyway due to long lines and delays at the entrance once one goes down (think of BWI or IAD and having to stand in line..). You could put them at the Title I's (formerly Red Zone schools), but that will just demonstrate that MCPS is racially biased.

SRO's can help target violent students, enter information into a database to help target them with the police, and ensure that they eventually are arrested or jailed. If you're looking for SRO's to shoot it out in a HS with an Active Shooter, I don't think that will happen. SRO's first priority would be to safely evacuate the children, versus opening up fire within the HS where a ricochet can take down little junior. If that's your societal goal (establish a school-to-jail pipeline), just hope your kid isn't experimenting with drugs in HS - it'll ruin their life, but hey, that's how the cards fall? That assumes there isn't an uproar (you know, all the drug using kids and parents at Churchill..).

The only recourse a police officer has is to arrest. A police officer will never solve an issue between parents and their children.

A better method might be parent engagement. In the majority cases, there are incidents leading up to significant events. There is almost never an out-of-the-blue shooting. Instead of SRO's, the schools should be working with case workers and social services. I would rather see money spent to increasing the number of caseworkers to actively engage with parents at home. If a parent isn't listening, or working with the school, then suspensions could be used to get their attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I hate trump but I also want SROs and metal detectors. What’s happening now is BS

If schools use wand-type metal detectors, metal detectors won't detect non-metal weapons. The gang members will just switch to non-metallic weapon. Only X-ray machines will work if they have well-trained guards, and they're really expensive, require a lot of maintenance, and will be removed anyway due to long lines and delays at the entrance once one goes down (think of BWI or IAD and having to stand in line..). You could put them at the Title I's (formerly Red Zone schools), but that will just demonstrate that MCPS is racially biased.

SRO's can help target violent students, enter information into a database to help target them with the police, and ensure that they eventually are arrested or jailed. If you're looking for SRO's to shoot it out in a HS with an Active Shooter, I don't think that will happen. SRO's first priority would be to safely evacuate the children, versus opening up fire within the HS where a ricochet can take down little junior. If that's your societal goal (establish a school-to-jail pipeline), just hope your kid isn't experimenting with drugs in HS - it'll ruin their life, but hey, that's how the cards fall? That assumes there isn't an uproar (you know, all the drug using kids and parents at Churchill..).

The only recourse a police officer has is to arrest. A police officer will never solve an issue between parents and their children.

A better method might be parent engagement. In the majority cases, there are incidents leading up to significant events. There is almost never an out-of-the-blue shooting. Instead of SRO's, the schools should be working with case workers and social services. I would rather see money spent to increasing the number of caseworkers to actively engage with parents at home. If a parent isn't listening, or working with the school, then suspensions could be used to get their attention.

Unfortunately you can't change parenting and parent engagement. I would love to see SROs as an added layer of safety measure working with mental health workers in the schools. I see them working hand in hand doing different but valuable roles. I also like the idea that when kids are suspended or expelled, they aren't allowed back in the school but are given access to online school. You commit a crime or you engage in fights or bullying behavior, you lose the privelage of attending school in person. And if that makes it inconvenient for parents, then I guess they better make sure they talk to their kids about the behaviors that led them to that point and to make sure not to do them again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I hate trump but I also want SROs and metal detectors. What’s happening now is BS

If schools use wand-type metal detectors, metal detectors won't detect non-metal weapons. The gang members will just switch to non-metallic weapon. Only X-ray machines will work if they have well-trained guards, and they're really expensive, require a lot of maintenance, and will be removed anyway due to long lines and delays at the entrance once one goes down (think of BWI or IAD and having to stand in line..). You could put them at the Title I's (formerly Red Zone schools), but that will just demonstrate that MCPS is racially biased.

SRO's can help target violent students, enter information into a database to help target them with the police, and ensure that they eventually are arrested or jailed. If you're looking for SRO's to shoot it out in a HS with an Active Shooter, I don't think that will happen. SRO's first priority would be to safely evacuate the children, versus opening up fire within the HS where a ricochet can take down little junior. If that's your societal goal (establish a school-to-jail pipeline), just hope your kid isn't experimenting with drugs in HS - it'll ruin their life, but hey, that's how the cards fall? That assumes there isn't an uproar (you know, all the drug using kids and parents at Churchill..).

The only recourse a police officer has is to arrest. A police officer will never solve an issue between parents and their children.

A better method might be parent engagement. In the majority cases, there are incidents leading up to significant events. There is almost never an out-of-the-blue shooting. Instead of SRO's, the schools should be working with case workers and social services. I would rather see money spent to increasing the number of caseworkers to actively engage with parents at home. If a parent isn't listening, or working with the school, then suspensions could be used to get their attention.

SROs do not only arrest, as your post suggests. In fact, they rarely initiate arrests. That has already been established upthread. They absolutely do help prevent violence among students by identifying it early. I’ve sat in meetings with fellow teachers and SROs as we worked together to determine positive school-based interventions for our students with frequent behavioral infractions. It is absolutely a falsehood that their purpose is to enter students into some database to foster a school-to-prison pipeline. It’s misinformation like this that perpetuates the idea that police are bad.

As for parent engagement, that should happen as well. Why do our options have to be one or the other? SROs are a resource. Social workers are a resource. I want it all in schools, and I say that as a parent and a teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they probably need SROs. remember the locker room assault at Wooton by members of their varsity football team

https://wjla.com/news/local/thomas-wootton-high-school-rockville-montgomery-county-police-investigating-serious-incident-sexual-assault-varsity-football-team-locker-room

SRO’s don’t work after school or during games so no SRO’s would not have prevented this

Yep. So many clueless private schools parents trolling

You’re both incorrect. They are often asked by the schools to work OT or shift their shift time to cover things like games and dances because of the high risk of violence and drug dealing at those events. Otherwise the school has to hire security or a MCPD on a secondary employment shift—but then they get whoever is assigned rather than a SRO trained to deal with teens and who is familiar with and to the kids at their school. Getting rid of the program does not eliminate the need — it only eliminates the trained cadre of officers.

There have been several incidences at football games after school in the parking lot. I think having SROs work OT as "security guards" at school games is not a bad idea.

No. Cops work games and they should, SRO's are cops if they want to ask their boss to work OT they can.

Cops are not trolling the halls and locker rooms.

SROs should walk the halls (not locker rooms, though) and connect with kids.

RJ doesn't work.

Your answer is to do nothing. Shrug it off.. kids will be kids.. we can't stop the violence, so why bother having SROs that *may* make some kids feel uncomfortable even as other kids (and Principals) like having SROs.

Why don't you go walk the halls.

RJ is wonderful. SROs not so much.

Let me guess. Your child is a bully and gets in trouble a lot.

So, RJ is nice as you don't believe in punishments and let kids work it out. For you, if your kid bullies, it's just a part of growing up. SRO's are a huge problem as they know your child and you feel your child is targeted as a bully when you think their behavior is ok. Who cares if your kid beats up or teases/humiliates another child? As long as your child isn't beat up, humiliated or bullied its all good.

I think that ^PP is just a troll, wanting to stir sh1t up. I confess, I've done that on the politics forum pretending to be a Trumpster. I would post the dumbest stuff. No one realized I was a troll because, sadly, Trumpsters are that dumb.

So people who want SROs reinstated are now Trumpsters? Wow what a typical response.

no dear... I was responding to "RJ is wonderful. SROs not so much.".

I'm pro SROs.

My point was that some people troll on here, pretending to be for/against something but posting some ridiculous logic, like -- "RJ is wonderful. SROs not so much."

RJ in Mcps is terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I hate trump but I also want SROs and metal detectors. What’s happening now is BS

If schools use wand-type metal detectors, metal detectors won't detect non-metal weapons. The gang members will just switch to non-metallic weapon. Only X-ray machines will work if they have well-trained guards, and they're really expensive, require a lot of maintenance, and will be removed anyway due to long lines and delays at the entrance once one goes down (think of BWI or IAD and having to stand in line..). You could put them at the Title I's (formerly Red Zone schools), but that will just demonstrate that MCPS is racially biased.

SRO's can help target violent students, enter information into a database to help target them with the police, and ensure that they eventually are arrested or jailed. If you're looking for SRO's to shoot it out in a HS with an Active Shooter, I don't think that will happen. SRO's first priority would be to safely evacuate the children, versus opening up fire within the HS where a ricochet can take down little junior. If that's your societal goal (establish a school-to-jail pipeline), just hope your kid isn't experimenting with drugs in HS - it'll ruin their life, but hey, that's how the cards fall? That assumes there isn't an uproar (you know, all the drug using kids and parents at Churchill..).

The only recourse a police officer has is to arrest. A police officer will never solve an issue between parents and their children.

A better method might be parent engagement. In the majority cases, there are incidents leading up to significant events. There is almost never an out-of-the-blue shooting. Instead of SRO's, the schools should be working with case workers and social services. I would rather see money spent to increasing the number of caseworkers to actively engage with parents at home. If a parent isn't listening, or working with the school, then suspensions could be used to get their attention.

SROs do not only arrest, as your post suggests. In fact, they rarely initiate arrests. That has already been established upthread. They absolutely do help prevent violence among students by identifying it early. I’ve sat in meetings with fellow teachers and SROs as we worked together to determine positive school-based interventions for our students with frequent behavioral infractions. It is absolutely a falsehood that their purpose is to enter students into some database to foster a school-to-prison pipeline. It’s misinformation like this that perpetuates the idea that police are bad.

As for parent engagement, that should happen as well. Why do our options have to be one or the other? SROs are a resource. Social workers are a resource. I want it all in schools, and I say that as a parent and a teacher.

Just want to say thank you — there are rational, caring people among us. They are one of several resources and shouldn’t be excluded from the toolkit we have to help our kids stay safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you care about school safety, pls sign this petition.
https://www.change.org/p/montgomery-county-council-reinstate-school-resource-officers-at-mcps

Recently, there are a number of local and nation wide violence attacks against students. Here are two quick examples.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/blair-high-school-stabbing-student-charged/2021/11/09/7e87293a-4176-11ec-a88e-2aa4632af69b_story.html
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/video-teen-girls-attack-students-on-septa-train/3051706/

It sounds the time to put our student safety first.

Thanks,

Oh gawd! Please give it a rest,. Nobody wants this. It will accomplish nothing other than squandering more taxes.

$0 to move officers from outside back in school.

Might save money in lawsuits too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I hate trump but I also want SROs and metal detectors. What’s happening now is BS

If schools use wand-type metal detectors, metal detectors won't detect non-metal weapons. The gang members will just switch to non-metallic weapon. Only X-ray machines will work if they have well-trained guards, and they're really expensive, require a lot of maintenance, and will be removed anyway due to long lines and delays at the entrance once one goes down (think of BWI or IAD and having to stand in line..). You could put them at the Title I's (formerly Red Zone schools), but that will just demonstrate that MCPS is racially biased.

SRO's can help target violent students, enter information into a database to help target them with the police, and ensure that they eventually are arrested or jailed. If you're looking for SRO's to shoot it out in a HS with an Active Shooter, I don't think that will happen. SRO's first priority would be to safely evacuate the children, versus opening up fire within the HS where a ricochet can take down little junior. If that's your societal goal (establish a school-to-jail pipeline), just hope your kid isn't experimenting with drugs in HS - it'll ruin their life, but hey, that's how the cards fall? That assumes there isn't an uproar (you know, all the drug using kids and parents at Churchill..).

The only recourse a police officer has is to arrest. A police officer will never solve an issue between parents and their children.

A better method might be parent engagement. In the majority cases, there are incidents leading up to significant events. There is almost never an out-of-the-blue shooting. Instead of SRO's, the schools should be working with case workers and social services. I would rather see money spent to increasing the number of caseworkers to actively engage with parents at home. If a parent isn't listening, or working with the school, then suspensions could be used to get their attention.

SROs do not only arrest, as your post suggests. In fact, they rarely initiate arrests. That has already been established upthread. They absolutely do help prevent violence among students by identifying it early. I’ve sat in meetings with fellow teachers and SROs as we worked together to determine positive school-based interventions for our students with frequent behavioral infractions. It is absolutely a falsehood that their purpose is to enter students into some database to foster a school-to-prison pipeline. It’s misinformation like this that perpetuates the idea that police are bad.

As for parent engagement, that should happen as well. Why do our options have to be one or the other? SROs are a resource. Social workers are a resource. I want it all in schools, and I say that as a parent and a teacher.

Just want to say thank you — there are rational, caring people among us. They are one of several resources and shouldn’t be excluded from the toolkit we have to help our kids stay safe.

But it’s a lie.

I’ve sat in meeting with SRO’s and cops. They are there to target certain kids. Sure they don’t tell you that in meeting with teachers. It’s nice kids too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I hate trump but I also want SROs and metal detectors. What’s happening now is BS

If schools use wand-type metal detectors, metal detectors won't detect non-metal weapons. The gang members will just switch to non-metallic weapon. Only X-ray machines will work if they have well-trained guards, and they're really expensive, require a lot of maintenance, and will be removed anyway due to long lines and delays at the entrance once one goes down (think of BWI or IAD and having to stand in line..). You could put them at the Title I's (formerly Red Zone schools), but that will just demonstrate that MCPS is racially biased.

SRO's can help target violent students, enter information into a database to help target them with the police, and ensure that they eventually are arrested or jailed. If you're looking for SRO's to shoot it out in a HS with an Active Shooter, I don't think that will happen. SRO's first priority would be to safely evacuate the children, versus opening up fire within the HS where a ricochet can take down little junior. If that's your societal goal (establish a school-to-jail pipeline), just hope your kid isn't experimenting with drugs in HS - it'll ruin their life, but hey, that's how the cards fall? That assumes there isn't an uproar (you know, all the drug using kids and parents at Churchill..).

The only recourse a police officer has is to arrest. A police officer will never solve an issue between parents and their children.

A better method might be parent engagement. In the majority cases, there are incidents leading up to significant events. There is almost never an out-of-the-blue shooting. Instead of SRO's, the schools should be working with case workers and social services. I would rather see money spent to increasing the number of caseworkers to actively engage with parents at home. If a parent isn't listening, or working with the school, then suspensions could be used to get their attention.

SROs do not only arrest, as your post suggests. In fact, they rarely initiate arrests. That has already been established upthread. They absolutely do help prevent violence among students by identifying it early. I’ve sat in meetings with fellow teachers and SROs as we worked together to determine positive school-based interventions for our students with frequent behavioral infractions. It is absolutely a falsehood that their purpose is to enter students into some database to foster a school-to-prison pipeline. It’s misinformation like this that perpetuates the idea that police are bad.

As for parent engagement, that should happen as well. Why do our options have to be one or the other? SROs are a resource. Social workers are a resource. I want it all in schools, and I say that as a parent and a teacher.

Just want to say thank you — there are rational, caring people among us. They are one of several resources and shouldn’t be excluded from the toolkit we have to help our kids stay safe.

But it’s a lie.

I’ve sat in meeting with SRO’s and cops. They are there to target certain kids. Sure they don’t tell you that in meeting with teachers. It’s nice kids too.

I don’t believe you. I had direct, personal, and consistent contact with SROs. My opinions are based on these observations and the clear, statistical data that has been presented earlier on this thread. You clearly have an agenda: perpetuate the lie that police are bad. I’m not going to buy it and I suspect most others aren’t, either.

You claim to have sat in these meetings. In what context? As a teacher? A student?