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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Its a huge red flag. Kids don't just leave their caretakers. This kid didn't wander off. The child purposely left the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

We don't KNOW or can necessarily even deduce most of the things you are asserting. The bolded are significant leaps from the article or outright do not appear in it.

-The police obtaining his records suggests to me that they requested them. They were clearly-- assuming the quotes are accurate-- trying to demonize, threaten and "scare him straight." It's entirely possible he has discipline issues. It's also entirely possible he does not. The police sound very likely to have asked preemptively.

-"“Does your Mama spank you? … She’s going to spank you today,” according to court records." There's no indication that he agreed he was spanked. Is he? Probably? Maybe? Does that mean they should have said what I just quoted? Obviously not. But does that have anything to do with repeated threats of being beaten BY THEM? 20 threats? Ridiculous.

-You said "there were some more behavioral issues with the child." Do you mean where he hesitated to get in the car of people screaming at him? Or do you mean this-- "Officers grabbed the boy and forced him into the chair several times"-- you mean he got out of his chair? What rational mental state would you say you'd be in as a 5-year-old child under the circumstances? Not everyone responds to abuse by cowering in a corner. That doesn't make every reaction to abuse (such as trying to get away) "a behavioral issue."

Maybe the kid has "behavioral issues." If so, the conduct was at least as bad as if he didn't. But we don't really know that from this account-- the only account you have read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

We don't KNOW or can necessarily even deduce most of the things you are asserting. The bolded are significant leaps from the article or outright do not appear in it.

-The police obtaining his records suggests to me that they requested them. They were clearly-- assuming the quotes are accurate-- trying to demonize, threaten and "scare him straight." It's entirely possible he has discipline issues. It's also entirely possible he does not. The police sound very likely to have asked preemptively.

-"“Does your Mama spank you? … She’s going to spank you today,” according to court records." There's no indication that he agreed he was spanked. Is he? Probably? Maybe? Does that mean they should have said what I just quoted? Obviously not. But does that have anything to do with repeated threats of being beaten BY THEM? 20 threats? Ridiculous.

-You said "there were some more behavioral issues with the child." Do you mean where he hesitated to get in the car of people screaming at him? Or do you mean this-- "Officers grabbed the boy and forced him into the chair several times"-- you mean he got out of his chair? What rational mental state would you say you'd be in as a 5-year-old child under the circumstances? Not everyone responds to abuse by cowering in a corner. That doesn't make every reaction to abuse (such as trying to get away) "a behavioral issue."

Maybe the kid has "behavioral issues." If so, the conduct was at least as bad as if he didn't. But we don't really know that from this account-- the only account you have read.

You think a kid without behavioral issues elopes from a school? The article is very one sided and doesn't give all the facts so if you want to assume things, you can assume this kid and family has some issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Its a huge red flag. Kids don't just leave their caretakers. This kid didn't wander off. The child purposely left the school.

How do you differentiate between wondering off and purposely leaving school? I'm not saying he might have accidentally left the school, but that also doesn't mean that it was part of a grand calculated plan. If, for example, a kid saw a dog that caught his attention he might "purposely" leave the school to chase the dog, but I'd still call that wondering off.

[Anonymous]

Someone is going through a lot of effort to try and convince people that this is a bad kid with bad parents. Pretty sad really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone is going through a lot of effort to try and convince people that this is a bad kid with bad parents. Pretty sad really.

Honestly, none of the commenters here have any freakin' idea of what is the truth. The speculation is abhorrent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Its a huge red flag. Kids don't just leave their caretakers. This kid didn't wander off. The child purposely left the school.

How do you differentiate between wondering off and purposely leaving school? I'm not saying he might have accidentally left the school, but that also doesn't mean that it was part of a grand calculated plan. If, for example, a kid saw a dog that caught his attention he might "purposely" leave the school to chase the dog, but I'd still call that wondering off.

Wandering off would be a mistake - a child got separated from a group on a field trip. Kid was looking at something else, turned for a second and group was gone. This child purposely left school. Even if a dog caught his attention, he still left school on purpose. This was a deliberate act as a 5 year old with no special needs should know not to leave the area he was told to stay in. Supervision was clearly lacking at the school but this kid eloped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Its a huge red flag. Kids don't just leave their caretakers. This kid didn't wander off. The child purposely left the school.

This kid absolutely left school on purpose. I'd want to know if staff knew and followed him or they were neglectful in his care if they didn't notice he slipped out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This kid absolutely left school on purpose. I'd want to know if staff knew and followed him or they were neglectful in his care if they didn't notice he slipped out.

Schools aren't built like prisons. Staff can do their best and kids can still slip away.

Kids with a history of eloping are watched much more closely, but even then, it takes full time 1:1 para support to do it, following the kid everywhere - including to (but not necessarily in) the bathroom. I've had that job with several kids over the years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Its a huge red flag. Kids don't just leave their caretakers. This kid didn't wander off. The child purposely left the school.

How do you differentiate between wondering off and purposely leaving school? I'm not saying he might have accidentally left the school, but that also doesn't mean that it was part of a grand calculated plan. If, for example, a kid saw a dog that caught his attention he might "purposely" leave the school to chase the dog, but I'd still call that wondering off.

Wandering off would be a mistake - a child got separated from a group on a field trip. Kid was looking at something else, turned for a second and group was gone. This child purposely left school. Even if a dog caught his attention, he still left school on purpose. This was a deliberate act as a 5 year old with no special needs should know not to leave the area he was told to stay in. Supervision was clearly lacking at the school but this kid eloped.

Yes, a five year old should know not to do that and should know to stay where he was told. And the kid might even know that and might be pretty darn good -- but not 100% at doing what he should/what he was told.

Would you like to hear the list of things that my five year old knows he should not do, but at least on occasion does nonetheless? We'd be here for quite some time. And, every other five year old I know (including others I have birthed) have had similar lapses in doing exactly what they should or have been told to do.

I'd really like to know the five year olds you hang out with who obey the rules consistently with military precision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Its a huge red flag. Kids don't just leave their caretakers. This kid didn't wander off. The child purposely left the school.

How do you differentiate between wondering off and purposely leaving school? I'm not saying he might have accidentally left the school, but that also doesn't mean that it was part of a grand calculated plan. If, for example, a kid saw a dog that caught his attention he might "purposely" leave the school to chase the dog, but I'd still call that wondering off.

Wandering off would be a mistake - a child got separated from a group on a field trip. Kid was looking at something else, turned for a second and group was gone. This child purposely left school. Even if a dog caught his attention, he still left school on purpose. This was a deliberate act as a 5 year old with no special needs should know not to leave the area he was told to stay in. Supervision was clearly lacking at the school but this kid eloped.

Yes, a five year old should know not to do that and should know to stay where he was told. And the kid might even know that and might be pretty darn good -- but not 100% at doing what he should/what he was told.

Would you like to hear the list of things that my five year old knows he should not do, but at least on occasion does nonetheless? We'd be here for quite some time. And, every other five year old I know (including others I have birthed) have had similar lapses in doing exactly what they should or have been told to do.

I'd really like to know the five year olds you hang out with who obey the rules consistently with military precision.

I 100% supervise and keep a house appropiate for the ave so we have few issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This kid absolutely left school on purpose. I'd want to know if staff knew and followed him or they were neglectful in his care if they didn't notice he slipped out.

Schools aren't built like prisons. Staff can do their best and kids can still slip away.

Kids with a history of eloping are watched much more closely, but even then, it takes full time 1:1 para support to do it, following the kid everywhere - including to (but not necessarily in) the bathroom. I've had that job with several kids over the years.

And, how many kids without sn do you know who have eloped?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This kid absolutely left school on purpose. I'd want to know if staff knew and followed him or they were neglectful in his care if they didn't notice he slipped out.

Schools aren't built like prisons. Staff can do their best and kids can still slip away.

Kids with a history of eloping are watched much more closely, but even then, it takes full time 1:1 para support to do it, following the kid everywhere - including to (but not necessarily in) the bathroom. I've had that job with several kids over the years.

And, how many kids without sn do you know who have eloped?

PPs aren’t suggesting that all SN kids elope rather most children that elope have SN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This kid absolutely left school on purpose. I'd want to know if staff knew and followed him or they were neglectful in his care if they didn't notice he slipped out.

Schools aren't built like prisons. Staff can do their best and kids can still slip away.

Kids with a history of eloping are watched much more closely, but even then, it takes full time 1:1 para support to do it, following the kid everywhere - including to (but not necessarily in) the bathroom. I've had that job with several kids over the years.

And, how many kids without sn do you know who have eloped?

PPs aren’t suggesting that all SN kids elope rather most children that elope have SN.

I'm a PP from much earlier in this discussion, and I noted that I have a SN child who does not elope, but that some of his classmates have done. This was particularly true in the early grades. If a child like mine comes into a mainstream elementary school, and hasn't received support through PEP, Infants and Toddlers, or other Early Intervention services, the school is literally starting from scratch in terms of creating an IEP and getting appropriate staffing.

I'm not commenting on this particular case, as I don't even know whether the child in this story has SN, but just about the overall situation that schools find themselves in when it comes to kindergarten. It's really hard to get an extra aide mid-year, or to reconfigure classes or staffing so that kids can get the supervision they need. There are things MCPS could do about this, including making it easier to get more staff mid-year, as well as intensive outreach to preK families to begin identifying kids who should be getting EI services and who should probably enter Kindergarten with an IEP rather than waiting most of the school year to have one drawn up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Its a huge red flag. Kids don't just leave their caretakers. This kid didn't wander off. The child purposely left the school.

How do you differentiate between wondering off and purposely leaving school? I'm not saying he might have accidentally left the school, but that also doesn't mean that it was part of a grand calculated plan. If, for example, a kid saw a dog that caught his attention he might "purposely" leave the school to chase the dog, but I'd still call that wondering off.

Wandering off would be a mistake - a child got separated from a group on a field trip. Kid was looking at something else, turned for a second and group was gone. This child purposely left school. Even if a dog caught his attention, he still left school on purpose. This was a deliberate act as a 5 year old with no special needs should know not to leave the area he was told to stay in. Supervision was clearly lacking at the school but this kid eloped.

Yes, a five year old should know not to do that and should know to stay where he was told. And the kid might even know that and might be pretty darn good -- but not 100% at doing what he should/what he was told.

Would you like to hear the list of things that my five year old knows he should not do, but at least on occasion does nonetheless? We'd be here for quite some time. And, every other five year old I know (including others I have birthed) have had similar lapses in doing exactly what they should or have been told to do.

I'd really like to know the five year olds you hang out with who obey the rules consistently with military precision.

I 100% supervise and keep a house appropiate for the ave so we have few issues.

What does keeping your house appropriate for the ave mean? Avenue? But I still don't understand.