Media is snooping: Wootton officer was not at Lakewood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is so weird.

Honestly, I don't think the CEO could have done anything about the shooting, so I'm not bothered that he wasn't on site. They're not supposed to be full-time at any one location anyway. Whether he was at another school or at Starbucks doesn't matter to me.

But I find the cross-stories really weird, and the failure to acknowledge them by MCPS even weirder. If the Lakewood principal has affirmatively stated the CEO wasn't there, then MCPS needs to acknowledge that statement is out there and address it - maybe principal is crazy, maybe there's some innocuous explanation, maybe (probably not) there's a sinister explanation, but for MCPS to just ignore it and pretend the principal never said it is really, really weird. It definitely makes what was probably a non-story look suspicious.

If he told MCPS he was at Lakewood when he was actually at Starbucks that does matter though.

I mean it was 2 o’clock that’s about the time people get a snack or coffee. So he could be at Lakewood and had gone out for coffee.

Maybe. My concern is whether the public is being provided with accurate information. That's an issue, even if his absence isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is so weird.

Honestly, I don't think the CEO could have done anything about the shooting, so I'm not bothered that he wasn't on site. They're not supposed to be full-time at any one location anyway. Whether he was at another school or at Starbucks doesn't matter to me.

But I find the cross-stories really weird, and the failure to acknowledge them by MCPS even weirder. If the Lakewood principal has affirmatively stated the CEO wasn't there, then MCPS needs to acknowledge that statement is out there and address it - maybe principal is crazy, maybe there's some innocuous explanation, maybe (probably not) there's a sinister explanation, but for MCPS to just ignore it and pretend the principal never said it is really, really weird. It definitely makes what was probably a non-story look suspicious.

Which is why we need SROs, who are designated to a specific school and walk the halls. A criminal is less likely to commit a crime when the police are around. Could this shooting have been prevent if an SRO was there? We will never know.

And never go to the bathroom, and never get sick, and never go to lunch, and never write a report in their car, and are in every single hallway, every single moment of the whole day.

You’re a loon.

The actual study is that when somebody wants to show up a school, they bring more guns when they know a police officer is there, not that they don’t bring a gun.

No one said don’t go to the bathroom or don’t get food. But don’t say the officer was at Lakewood when he wasn’t.

This isn’t that hard of a concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is so weird.

Honestly, I don't think the CEO could have done anything about the shooting, so I'm not bothered that he wasn't on site. They're not supposed to be full-time at any one location anyway. Whether he was at another school or at Starbucks doesn't matter to me.

But I find the cross-stories really weird, and the failure to acknowledge them by MCPS even weirder. If the Lakewood principal has affirmatively stated the CEO wasn't there, then MCPS needs to acknowledge that statement is out there and address it - maybe principal is crazy, maybe there's some innocuous explanation, maybe (probably not) there's a sinister explanation, but for MCPS to just ignore it and pretend the principal never said it is really, really weird. It definitely makes what was probably a non-story look suspicious.

Which is why we need SROs, who are designated to a specific school and walk the halls. A criminal is less likely to commit a crime when the police are around. Could this shooting have been prevent if an SRO was there? We will never know.

I'm old enough to remember when we had SROs, and they were ALSO assigned to clusters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A cover up of this magnitude would be crazy. MCPS would lose all credibility…

I’m old enough to remember when MCPS covered up the fentanyl epidemic before this cover up. Their plan is to roll right through this cover up as well, waiting for the next crisis to divert attention.

[Anonymous]

I’m not sure it’s a cover up. It’s possible he checks the bus loops for the three schools he’s assigned to in order to make sure there is no illegal parking that would hinder the buses for dismissal.

But what an inefficient use of time and resources to have an officer travelling between schools for any part of the day. Not to mention impossible to track in case there is fraud. It’s just more evidence that you are better off with a dedicated officer for each school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure it’s a cover up. It’s possible he checks the bus loops for the three schools he’s assigned to in order to make sure there is no illegal parking that would hinder the buses for dismissal.

But what an inefficient use of time and resources to have an officer travelling between schools for any part of the day. Not to mention impossible to track in case there is fraud. It’s just more evidence that you are better off with a dedicated officer for each school.

What does this even mean? Police officers should not be out patroling or on a beat of any kind because you couldn't "track fraud"? That is absurd.

Also absurd is to assert that it is more efficient to have MORE total officers, rather than fewer that rotate.

You may want to say it is less effective, but it certainly isn't less efficient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is so weird.

Honestly, I don't think the CEO could have done anything about the shooting, so I'm not bothered that he wasn't on site. They're not supposed to be full-time at any one location anyway. Whether he was at another school or at Starbucks doesn't matter to me.

But I find the cross-stories really weird, and the failure to acknowledge them by MCPS even weirder. If the Lakewood principal has affirmatively stated the CEO wasn't there, then MCPS needs to acknowledge that statement is out there and address it - maybe principal is crazy, maybe there's some innocuous explanation, maybe (probably not) there's a sinister explanation, but for MCPS to just ignore it and pretend the principal never said it is really, really weird. It definitely makes what was probably a non-story look suspicious.

If he told MCPS he was at Lakewood when he was actually at Starbucks that does matter though.

I mean it was 2 o’clock that’s about the time people get a snack or coffee. So he could be at Lakewood and had gone out for coffee.

Schrodinger's coffee. He was "at Lakewood" AND "had gone out for coffee".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A cover up of this magnitude would be crazy. MCPS would lose all credibility…

I’m old enough to remember when MCPS covered up the fentanyl epidemic before this cover up. Their plan is to roll right through this cover up as well, waiting for the next crisis to divert attention.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure it’s a cover up. It’s possible he checks the bus loops for the three schools he’s assigned to in order to make sure there is no illegal parking that would hinder the buses for dismissal.

But what an inefficient use of time and resources to have an officer travelling between schools for any part of the day. Not to mention impossible to track in case there is fraud. It’s just more evidence that you are better off with a dedicated officer for each school.

You do realize that the police department is struggling with staffing and can’t recruit enough officers as it is, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure it’s a cover up. It’s possible he checks the bus loops for the three schools he’s assigned to in order to make sure there is no illegal parking that would hinder the buses for dismissal.

But what an inefficient use of time and resources to have an officer travelling between schools for any part of the day. Not to mention impossible to track in case there is fraud. It’s just more evidence that you are better off with a dedicated officer for each school.

You do realize that the police department is struggling with staffing and can’t recruit enough officers as it is, right?

+1. And SROs were only assigned to high schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure it’s a cover up. It’s possible he checks the bus loops for the three schools he’s assigned to in order to make sure there is no illegal parking that would hinder the buses for dismissal.

But what an inefficient use of time and resources to have an officer travelling between schools for any part of the day. Not to mention impossible to track in case there is fraud. It’s just more evidence that you are better off with a dedicated officer for each school.

You do realize that the police department is struggling with staffing and can’t recruit enough officers as it is, right?

ROckville too?

[Anonymous]

My brother is a LEO in another area. A few years ago, there was a barricade situation near a daycare center and all LEOs in the immediate vicinity were called in to respond.

One guy never showed up.

He claimed he was chasing a suspect in a mugging. However, no victim ever came forward.

It turned out that he was working a second job while on the clock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A cover up of this magnitude would be crazy. MCPS would lose all credibility…

I’m old enough to remember when MCPS covered up the fentanyl epidemic before this cover up. Their plan is to roll right through this cover up as well, waiting for the next crisis to divert attention.

How would this be on MCPS rather than the police department?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure it’s a cover up. It’s possible he checks the bus loops for the three schools he’s assigned to in order to make sure there is no illegal parking that would hinder the buses for dismissal.

But what an inefficient use of time and resources to have an officer travelling between schools for any part of the day. Not to mention impossible to track in case there is fraud. It’s just more evidence that you are better off with a dedicated officer for each school.

You do realize that the police department is struggling with staffing and can’t recruit enough officers as it is, right?

Can't even recruit employees to stay for their paid shifts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A cover up of this magnitude would be crazy. MCPS would lose all credibility…

There is no cover up you twats

As usual these SROs or community officers are worthless