Lockdown at Blair?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elrich stands behind the decision to remove SROs. He claims schools still had violence even when they had SROs:

Funny no mention of the other school stabbing.

So sick of that guy. Look at his smug face and were talking about children being stabbed.

Smug or not, he’s correct. I had a kid at Blair (Class of 11) with SROs and there was a stabbing. I believe in the SAC. I have a kid there now (Class of 24). Honestly, I feel my son is safer without the SROs. And I’m the sister of a LEO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elrich stands behind the decision to remove SROs. He claims schools still had violence even when they had SROs:

Funny no mention of the other school stabbing.

So sick of that guy. Look at his smug face and were talking about children being stabbed.

He is completely disregarding the preventive effect. He only thinks police respond. Removal of the SROs took out all the good (positive non-enforcement engagement) and left the bad (arrests).

+1 that was a dumb comment. Just like how dumb it is for gun nutters to say that gun laws won't stop school shooters so why have more gun laws. See how stupid Elrich's comment is? "SROs won't stop violence so why have them in school." Dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Smug or not, he’s correct. I had a kid at Blair (Class of 11) with SROs and there was a stabbing. I believe in the SAC. I have a kid there now (Class of 24). Honestly, I feel my son is safer without the SROs. And I’m the sister of a LEO.

? you have two kids one, who was in class of '11 and another class of '24? That's a wide age span.

How is your son safer without an SRO?

I feel the opposite. I would feel safer with an SRO in my son's school, class of 2023. Also, I went to a really rough HS, and it would've been better to have an SRO than security guards. SROs are more of a deterrent than security guards. SROs also engage with students, and develope relationships with them, become role models.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Smug or not, he’s correct. I had a kid at Blair (Class of 11) with SROs and there was a stabbing. I believe in the SAC. I have a kid there now (Class of 24). Honestly, I feel my son is safer without the SROs. And I’m the sister of a LEO.

? you have two kids one, who was in class of '11 and another class of '24? That's a wide age span.

How is your son safer without an SRO?

I feel the opposite. I would feel safer with an SRO in my son's school, class of 2023. Also, I went to a really rough HS, and it would've been better to have an SRO than security guards. SROs are more of a deterrent than security guards. SROs also engage with students, and develope relationships with them, become role models.

Why do armed police officers need to be role models? Can teachers, para educators, counselors, administratirs and support staff not be role models and develop relationships with students??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you want a police officer patrolling your street and your street only every day? What exactly would be their role when no crimes are being committed? I am perfectly happy to be able to call the police when they are needed, I don't want them here proactively, that's a waste of taxpayer dollars and needless police surveillance of my life.

Yes, I would be perfectly happy to have the cops around. What's the saying.. "where's a cop when you need one". Here's the thing.. you don't know when you will need the cops. And as we've seen, kids are turning violent in our schools. You don't know when the next incident will happen.

I'm proactive. You'd rather be reactive and only act when someone's been stabbed. I sincerely hope that never happens to your child.

I see on nextdoor a lot of posts about car breakins in the middle of the night in certain areas. You know what would help, if the cops were patrolling that area every night. It's called a deterent. It works well. When there are cops on the roads, people tend to not break the law, speed. When there are no cops on the roads, people tend to do all kinds of illegal things, and there are more speeders.

You can't have cops everywhere, and having cops in schools "proactively" has known negative impacts on students. Even if you put the one cop back in the 3000-student high school the odds they can stop a stabbing is incredibly low.

A stabbing is way more of a negative consequence than "feeling bad". We can't have cops everywhere, but we did have SROs in the HS, which the Principals of the schools wanted to keep, the people who actually work in the schools and interact with kids. Even if the odds are low that the SRO stops a stabbing, I'd rather have the SRO in the school than night. One, because they can respond faster, and two, it is more of a deterent than not having an SRO.


Jawando, you and the progressives in the city council aren't in the schools everyday dealing with the kids.

I'll ask again, why did the Principal feel that cops needed to be there today, maybe tomorrow? Because it's a deterent, and maybe, it makes the kids and staff there feel safer.

This. Sadly, some people do think people’s feelings are more important than physical safety.

More fights end with a hug than with a knife or a gun. It's true..... Look it up.

[Anonymous]

If politicians have to ask you not to conflate it, you know they’re lying to you. The schools will continue to implode. They have to double down to save face at the expense of the safety of your children. Once it become Seattlesque, they will be forced to come off these dangerous policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If politicians have to ask you not to conflate it, you know they’re lying to you. The schools will continue to implode. They have to double down to save face at the expense of the safety of your children. Once it become Seattlesque, they will be forced to come off these dangerous policies.

Somebody (who likely doesn't even live in Montgomery County) is watching a lot of Fox News and/or OAN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Smug or not, he’s correct. I had a kid at Blair (Class of 11) with SROs and there was a stabbing. I believe in the SAC. I have a kid there now (Class of 24). Honestly, I feel my son is safer without the SROs. And I’m the sister of a LEO.

? you have two kids one, who was in class of '11 and another class of '24? That's a wide age span.

How is your son safer without an SRO?

I feel the opposite. I would feel safer with an SRO in my son's school, class of 2023. Also, I went to a really rough HS, and it would've been better to have an SRO than security guards. SROs are more of a deterrent than security guards. SROs also engage with students, and develope relationships with them, become role models.

Why do armed police officers need to be role models? Can teachers, para educators, counselors, administratirs and support staff not be role models and develop relationships with students??

? They do. That doesn't mean SROs can't do that, too. And they have.

Also, not sure you read the other thread about how teachers are burnt out, and there may be mass resignations coming. They already have to play the therapist role in addition to teaching. Why should they also provide security and breakup fights? Teachers and security guards don't have the same deterent factors that cops do. That's why the Principals want SROs; that's why the Blair Principal asked the cops to stay at Blair.

A lot of the teachers are females, and some are quite petite. I'm a petite female. No way in hell am I gonna get in the middle of two large HS kids in a fight or provide any kind of security.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Smug or not, he’s correct. I had a kid at Blair (Class of 11) with SROs and there was a stabbing. I believe in the SAC. I have a kid there now (Class of 24). Honestly, I feel my son is safer without the SROs. And I’m the sister of a LEO.

? you have two kids one, who was in class of '11 and another class of '24? That's a wide age span.

How is your son safer without an SRO?

I feel the opposite. I would feel safer with an SRO in my son's school, class of 2023. Also, I went to a really rough HS, and it would've been better to have an SRO than security guards. SROs are more of a deterrent than security guards. SROs also engage with students, and develope relationships with them, become role models.

Why do armed police officers need to be role models? Can teachers, para educators, counselors, administratirs and support staff not be role models and develop relationships with students??

Why is it either/or?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you want a police officer patrolling your street and your street only every day? What exactly would be their role when no crimes are being committed? I am perfectly happy to be able to call the police when they are needed, I don't want them here proactively, that's a waste of taxpayer dollars and needless police surveillance of my life.

Yes, I would be perfectly happy to have the cops around. What's the saying.. "where's a cop when you need one". Here's the thing.. you don't know when you will need the cops. And as we've seen, kids are turning violent in our schools. You don't know when the next incident will happen.

I'm proactive. You'd rather be reactive and only act when someone's been stabbed. I sincerely hope that never happens to your child.

I see on nextdoor a lot of posts about car breakins in the middle of the night in certain areas. You know what would help, if the cops were patrolling that area every night. It's called a deterent. It works well. When there are cops on the roads, people tend to not break the law, speed. When there are no cops on the roads, people tend to do all kinds of illegal things, and there are more speeders.

You can't have cops everywhere, and having cops in schools "proactively" has known negative impacts on students. Even if you put the one cop back in the 3000-student high school the odds they can stop a stabbing is incredibly low.

A stabbing is way more of a negative consequence than "feeling bad". We can't have cops everywhere, but we did have SROs in the HS, which the Principals of the schools wanted to keep, the people who actually work in the schools and interact with kids. Even if the odds are low that the SRO stops a stabbing, I'd rather have the SRO in the school than night. One, because they can respond faster, and two, it is more of a deterent than not having an SRO.


Jawando, you and the progressives in the city council aren't in the schools everyday dealing with the kids.

I'll ask again, why did the Principal feel that cops needed to be there today, maybe tomorrow? Because it's a deterent, and maybe, it makes the kids and staff there feel safer.

This. Sadly, some people do think people’s feelings are more important than physical safety.

More fights end with a hug than with a knife or a gun. It's true..... Look it up.

No one wants a cop around until they do. Did these kids end up hugging it out? Doesn't seem like it. If an SRO is there and can make them hug it out in all instances, I'm all for it.

Also, I went to a really tough HS. We had fights everyday at school, sometimes multiple. I wish we had SROs in my HS back then. We had security guards who were jumped and ended up in the hospital.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If politicians have to ask you not to conflate it, you know they’re lying to you. The schools will continue to implode. They have to double down to save face at the expense of the safety of your children. Once it become Seattlesque, they will be forced to come off these dangerous policies.

Somebody (who likely doesn't even live in Montgomery County) is watching a lot of Fox News and/or OAN.

I do and I read the Wall Street Journal. I am a free thinker. Not one tethered to political talking points, unlike yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Smug or not, he’s correct. I had a kid at Blair (Class of 11) with SROs and there was a stabbing. I believe in the SAC. I have a kid there now (Class of 24). Honestly, I feel my son is safer without the SROs. And I’m the sister of a LEO.

? you have two kids one, who was in class of '11 and another class of '24? That's a wide age span.

How is your son safer without an SRO?

I feel the opposite. I would feel safer with an SRO in my son's school, class of 2023. Also, I went to a really rough HS, and it would've been better to have an SRO than security guards. SROs are more of a deterrent than security guards. SROs also engage with students, and develope relationships with them, become role models.

Why do armed police officers need to be role models? Can teachers, para educators, counselors, administratirs and support staff not be role models and develop relationships with students??

? They do. That doesn't mean SROs can't do that, too. And they have.

Also, not sure you read the other thread about how teachers are burnt out, and there may be mass resignations coming. They already have to play the therapist role in addition to teaching. Why should they also provide security and breakup fights? Teachers and security guards don't have the same deterent factors that cops do. That's why the Principals want SROs; that's why the Blair Principal asked the cops to stay at Blair.

A lot of the teachers are females, and some are quite petite. I'm a petite female. No way in hell am I gonna get in the middle of two large HS kids in a fight or provide any kind of security.

So you don’t think petite women should become cops. Have you met an SRO, many are small women and many are just fat asses. Also psychologist work and psych wards and they know how to handle a fight. Hire trained psychologists not burnt out cops.

Teachers of burned out because they are required to work too many hours, cover staff shortages without extra pay, and take work home. They are not burnt out because of a few fights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If politicians have to ask you not to conflate it, you know they’re lying to you. The schools will continue to implode. They have to double down to save face at the expense of the safety of your children. Once it become Seattlesque, they will be forced to come off these dangerous policies.

Somebody (who likely doesn't even live in Montgomery County) is watching a lot of Fox News and/or OAN.

I do and I read the Wall Street Journal. I am a free thinker. Not one tethered to political talking points, unlike yourself.

Just like Aaron Rodgers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If politicians have to ask you not to conflate it, you know they’re lying to you. The schools will continue to implode. They have to double down to save face at the expense of the safety of your children. Once it become Seattlesque, they will be forced to come off these dangerous policies.

Somebody (who likely doesn't even live in Montgomery County) is watching a lot of Fox News and/or OAN.

I do and I read the Wall Street Journal. I am a free thinker. Not one tethered to political talking points, unlike yourself.

OMG! Yes I’m loony and I read the Wall Street Journal. Okay Otto.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If politicians have to ask you not to conflate it, you know they’re lying to you. The schools will continue to implode. They have to double down to save face at the expense of the safety of your children. Once it become Seattlesque, they will be forced to come off these dangerous policies.

Somebody (who likely doesn't even live in Montgomery County) is watching a lot of Fox News and/or OAN.

I do and I read the Wall Street Journal. I am a free thinker. Not one tethered to political talking points, unlike yourself.

Just like Aaron Rodgers!

Reminds of this clip… I read Philosophy.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2j3adcbEwSM