Lockdown at Blair?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They won't answer that question. It's just easier to complain about some few bad apples. I really think these people should volunteer in the HS and be the ones responsible for badly behaving students.

What do a few bad apples do? They spoil the whole barrel.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/one-bad-apple-spoil-the-barrel-metaphor-phrase

This is why I think the incident last year played such a vital role in swinging public opinion. As someone who is very involved in local politics, I can tell you that abolishing SROs was a fringe position before that time. Yes, some elected officials were supportive, but they were largely not willing to take a public stand.

Then you get a video of police abusing a kid barely out of preK, and public opinion moved quickly once it became clear that MPD was disinclined to punish the officers at all. There were zero professional consequences. So, you had people who would have been in the mushy middle move into the abolish camp because it laid bare how unwilling the police (even in Montgomery County) are to hold their own accountable for their actions.

Abolishing SROs in a blanket sweep is clearly worse overall than actually dealing with the problem, which is to have consequences for the bad SROs/cops who do abuse their power. We know that accountability has to be in place. Simply removing all SROs, the majority who are good and provide a public service, is just stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And to add to this, it doesn't matter who exhibits this type of behavior, people of color (as the above poster put it), or the skinny white girl in the back of the classroom. They should be quickly escorted out and the same consequence applied. And in my view that should be a talking to by staff followed by an automatic suspension... at least this is how things were handled in schools in the past during saner times.

I mean, sure, and we can give them all unicorns to ride to school.

If we didn't have decades of experience and reams of actual data to show that SROs are particularly vicious to kids of color, then we would be having a different conversation. If abusive cops were subject to accountability, oversight, or consequences, we'd be having a different conversation right now.

But that's not the world we live in, and that's not the reality of policing in 2021.

Are any of those reems of data from MoCo? And does it show a lower conviction rate suggesting that there are unfair number of arrests of black and brown kids? In other words, are black and brown kids committing more crimes or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They won't answer that question. It's just easier to complain about some few bad apples. I really think these people should volunteer in the HS and be the ones responsible for badly behaving students.

What do a few bad apples do? They spoil the whole barrel.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/one-bad-apple-spoil-the-barrel-metaphor-phrase

This is why I think the incident last year played such a vital role in swinging public opinion. As someone who is very involved in local politics, I can tell you that abolishing SROs was a fringe position before that time. Yes, some elected officials were supportive, but they were largely not willing to take a public stand.

Then you get a video of police abusing a kid barely out of preK, and public opinion moved quickly once it became clear that MPD was disinclined to punish the officers at all. There were zero professional consequences. So, you had people who would have been in the mushy middle move into the abolish camp because it laid bare how unwilling the police (even in Montgomery County) are to hold their own accountable for their actions.

Abolishing SROs in a blanket sweep is clearly worse overall than actually dealing with the problem, which is to have consequences for the bad SROs/cops who do abuse their power. We know that accountability has to be in place. Simply removing all SROs, the majority who are good and provide a public service, is just stupid.

OK, so, how's it going with accountability for bad cops?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They won't answer that question. It's just easier to complain about some few bad apples. I really think these people should volunteer in the HS and be the ones responsible for badly behaving students.

What do a few bad apples do? They spoil the whole barrel.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/one-bad-apple-spoil-the-barrel-metaphor-phrase

This is why I think the incident last year played such a vital role in swinging public opinion. As someone who is very involved in local politics, I can tell you that abolishing SROs was a fringe position before that time. Yes, some elected officials were supportive, but they were largely not willing to take a public stand.

Then you get a video of police abusing a kid barely out of preK, and public opinion moved quickly once it became clear that MPD was disinclined to punish the officers at all. There were zero professional consequences. So, you had people who would have been in the mushy middle move into the abolish camp because it laid bare how unwilling the police (even in Montgomery County) are to hold their own accountable for their actions.

Who is held accountable when a student is threatening and belligerent at school?

You're comparing the actions of children to the actions of adults who are sworn to protect and serve? Don't do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They won't answer that question. It's just easier to complain about some few bad apples. I really think these people should volunteer in the HS and be the ones responsible for badly behaving students.

What do a few bad apples do? They spoil the whole barrel.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/one-bad-apple-spoil-the-barrel-metaphor-phrase

This is why I think the incident last year played such a vital role in swinging public opinion. As someone who is very involved in local politics, I can tell you that abolishing SROs was a fringe position before that time. Yes, some elected officials were supportive, but they were largely not willing to take a public stand.

Then you get a video of police abusing a kid barely out of preK, and public opinion moved quickly once it became clear that MPD was disinclined to punish the officers at all. There were zero professional consequences. So, you had people who would have been in the mushy middle move into the abolish camp because it laid bare how unwilling the police (even in Montgomery County) are to hold their own accountable for their actions.

Abolishing SROs in a blanket sweep is clearly worse overall than actually dealing with the problem, which is to have consequences for the bad SROs/cops who do abuse their power. We know that accountability has to be in place. Simply removing all SROs, the majority who are good and provide a public service, is just stupid.

It seems that MCPS is doing a great job handling all this violence that has happened at Churchill, Whitman, RM, Clarksburg and now Blair. SROs wouldn't not have made any difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They won't answer that question. It's just easier to complain about some few bad apples. I really think these people should volunteer in the HS and be the ones responsible for badly behaving students.

What do a few bad apples do? They spoil the whole barrel.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/one-bad-apple-spoil-the-barrel-metaphor-phrase

This is why I think the incident last year played such a vital role in swinging public opinion. As someone who is very involved in local politics, I can tell you that abolishing SROs was a fringe position before that time. Yes, some elected officials were supportive, but they were largely not willing to take a public stand.

Then you get a video of police abusing a kid barely out of preK, and public opinion moved quickly once it became clear that MPD was disinclined to punish the officers at all. There were zero professional consequences. So, you had people who would have been in the mushy middle move into the abolish camp because it laid bare how unwilling the police (even in Montgomery County) are to hold their own accountable for their actions.

Abolishing SROs in a blanket sweep is clearly worse overall than actually dealing with the problem, which is to have consequences for the bad SROs/cops who do abuse their power. We know that accountability has to be in place. Simply removing all SROs, the majority who are good and provide a public service, is just stupid.

OK, so, how's it going with accountability for bad cops?

I'm not seeing your argument. Everyone agrees that policies need to change to make them accountable. Does this mean we remove all SROs from schools? Your argument would then also imply we blanket remove our police system just because we know bad cops exist. Clearly, it doesn't make sense. What makes sense is to continue to push hard for accountability, for those who serve AND for schools to do their job and educate our children.

[Anonymous]

I'm not seeing your argument. Everyone agrees that policies need to change to make them accountable. Does this mean we remove all SROs from schools? Your argument would then also imply we blanket remove our police system just because we know bad cops exist. Clearly, it doesn't make sense. What makes sense is to continue to push hard for accountability, for those who serve AND for schools to do their job and educate our children.

That's the thing, though. The police have not initiated any changes, nor have they held bad cops accountable. They only choice left was to remove them from schools.

If MCPD had made a good faith effort to root out corruption, get bad cops off the streets, and discipline those who slip through, we would have better policy choices. But this is the policy choice left standing because the police will not govern themselves appropriately.

If they take steps to demonstrate that they can be trusted with our children, we can re-evaluate at that time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not seeing your argument. Everyone agrees that policies need to change to make them accountable. Does this mean we remove all SROs from schools? Your argument would then also imply we blanket remove our police system just because we know bad cops exist. Clearly, it doesn't make sense. What makes sense is to continue to push hard for accountability, for those who serve AND for schools to do their job and educate our children.

That's the thing, though. The police have not initiated any changes, nor have they held bad cops accountable. They only choice left was to remove them from schools.

If MCPD had made a good faith effort to root out corruption, get bad cops off the streets, and discipline those who slip through, we would have better policy choices. But this is the policy choice left standing because the police will not govern themselves appropriately.

If they take steps to demonstrate that they can be trusted with our children, we can re-evaluate at that time.

Fine, so take SRO out, but who steps in to control the situation when someone is completely disrupting class? Many have been asking this on the thread, but I'm not seeing an answer. Where is the accountability here? Schools have to be empowered to hold themselves accountable, so that teachers can actually teach. Otherwise we will continue seeing an exodus and more will leave, and true learning in school will be an empty shell, almost fully reduced to babysitting services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They won't answer that question. It's just easier to complain about some few bad apples. I really think these people should volunteer in the HS and be the ones responsible for badly behaving students.

What do a few bad apples do? They spoil the whole barrel.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/one-bad-apple-spoil-the-barrel-metaphor-phrase

This is why I think the incident last year played such a vital role in swinging public opinion. As someone who is very involved in local politics, I can tell you that abolishing SROs was a fringe position before that time. Yes, some elected officials were supportive, but they were largely not willing to take a public stand.

Then you get a video of police abusing a kid barely out of preK, and public opinion moved quickly once it became clear that MPD was disinclined to punish the officers at all. There were zero professional consequences. So, you had people who would have been in the mushy middle move into the abolish camp because it laid bare how unwilling the police (even in Montgomery County) are to hold their own accountable for their actions.

Who is held accountable when a student is threatening and belligerent at school?

You're comparing the actions of children to the actions of adults who are sworn to protect and serve? Don't do that.

Answer the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They won't answer that question. It's just easier to complain about some few bad apples. I really think these people should volunteer in the HS and be the ones responsible for badly behaving students.

What do a few bad apples do? They spoil the whole barrel.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/one-bad-apple-spoil-the-barrel-metaphor-phrase

This is why I think the incident last year played such a vital role in swinging public opinion. As someone who is very involved in local politics, I can tell you that abolishing SROs was a fringe position before that time. Yes, some elected officials were supportive, but they were largely not willing to take a public stand.

Then you get a video of police abusing a kid barely out of preK, and public opinion moved quickly once it became clear that MPD was disinclined to punish the officers at all. There were zero professional consequences. So, you had people who would have been in the mushy middle move into the abolish camp because it laid bare how unwilling the police (even in Montgomery County) are to hold their own accountable for their actions.

Abolishing SROs in a blanket sweep is clearly worse overall than actually dealing with the problem, which is to have consequences for the bad SROs/cops who do abuse their power. We know that accountability has to be in place. Simply removing all SROs, the majority who are good and provide a public service, is just stupid.

It seems that MCPS is doing a great job handling all this violence that has happened at Churchill, Whitman, RM, Clarksburg and now Blair. SROs wouldn't not have made any difference.

1. the cops were called in all instances
2. You don't know if SROs being there would have made a difference
3. The Principals want the SROs
4. Blair Principal asked the cops to stay

I'm not seeing an argument here that SROs would NOT have made a difference.

There are bad cops, and yes, they should be dealt with. But, you are judging all of the cops for the behavior of a few. If I had a few bad interactions with some black people, would it be right for me to judge all of them as bad people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not seeing your argument. Everyone agrees that policies need to change to make them accountable. Does this mean we remove all SROs from schools? Your argument would then also imply we blanket remove our police system just because we know bad cops exist. Clearly, it doesn't make sense. What makes sense is to continue to push hard for accountability, for those who serve AND for schools to do their job and educate our children.

That's the thing, though. The police have not initiated any changes, nor have they held bad cops accountable. They only choice left was to remove them from schools.

If MCPD had made a good faith effort to root out corruption, get bad cops off the streets, and discipline those who slip through, we would have better policy choices. But this is the policy choice left standing because the police will not govern themselves appropriately.

If they take steps to demonstrate that they can be trusted with our children, we can re-evaluate at that time.

Fine, so take SRO out, but who steps in to control the situation when someone is completely disrupting class? Many have been asking this on the thread, but I'm not seeing an answer. Where is the accountability here? Schools have to be empowered to hold themselves accountable, so that teachers can actually teach. Otherwise we will continue seeing an exodus and more will leave, and true learning in school will be an empty shell, almost fully reduced to babysitting services.

So, now we are speaking the language of abolition. If we can agree that the police have shown themselves unwilling or incapable of self-governance, and have lost the trust of the communities they claim to serve, then we can discuss what comes next. The conversation moves away from how to get cops back in schools and toward holding the County Council accountable for the commitments they made around non police intervention. I'm ready to have that conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They won't answer that question. It's just easier to complain about some few bad apples. I really think these people should volunteer in the HS and be the ones responsible for badly behaving students.

What do a few bad apples do? They spoil the whole barrel.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/one-bad-apple-spoil-the-barrel-metaphor-phrase

This is why I think the incident last year played such a vital role in swinging public opinion. As someone who is very involved in local politics, I can tell you that abolishing SROs was a fringe position before that time. Yes, some elected officials were supportive, but they were largely not willing to take a public stand.

Then you get a video of police abusing a kid barely out of preK, and public opinion moved quickly once it became clear that MPD was disinclined to punish the officers at all. There were zero professional consequences. So, you had people who would have been in the mushy middle move into the abolish camp because it laid bare how unwilling the police (even in Montgomery County) are to hold their own accountable for their actions.

Abolishing SROs in a blanket sweep is clearly worse overall than actually dealing with the problem, which is to have consequences for the bad SROs/cops who do abuse their power. We know that accountability has to be in place. Simply removing all SROs, the majority who are good and provide a public service, is just stupid.

It seems that MCPS is doing a great job handling all this violence that has happened at Churchill, Whitman, RM, Clarksburg and now Blair. SROs wouldn't not have made any difference.

The 17 year old who assaulted a female, brandished a weapon at a dad showed up and got onto the field of a football game where he threw equipment and physically intimidated a coach for 15 minutes before anyone showed up to stop him.
You have a weird definition of "handling all this violence."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not seeing your argument. Everyone agrees that policies need to change to make them accountable. Does this mean we remove all SROs from schools? Your argument would then also imply we blanket remove our police system just because we know bad cops exist. Clearly, it doesn't make sense. What makes sense is to continue to push hard for accountability, for those who serve AND for schools to do their job and educate our children.

That's the thing, though. The police have not initiated any changes, nor have they held bad cops accountable. They only choice left was to remove them from schools.

If MCPD had made a good faith effort to root out corruption, get bad cops off the streets, and discipline those who slip through, we would have better policy choices. But this is the policy choice left standing because the police will not govern themselves appropriately.

If they take steps to demonstrate that they can be trusted with our children, we can re-evaluate at that time.

Fine, so take SRO out, but who steps in to control the situation when someone is completely disrupting class? Many have been asking this on the thread, but I'm not seeing an answer. Where is the accountability here? Schools have to be empowered to hold themselves accountable, so that teachers can actually teach. Otherwise we will continue seeing an exodus and more will leave, and true learning in school will be an empty shell, almost fully reduced to babysitting services.

So, now we are speaking the language of abolition. If we can agree that the police have shown themselves unwilling or incapable of self-governance, and have lost the trust of the communities they claim to serve, then we can discuss what comes next. The conversation moves away from how to get cops back in schools and toward holding the County Council accountable for the commitments they made around non police intervention. I'm ready to have that conversation.

No buddy. We aren't speaking the language of abolishing the police but it's good to hear you admit that that is the end game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not seeing your argument. Everyone agrees that policies need to change to make them accountable. Does this mean we remove all SROs from schools? Your argument would then also imply we blanket remove our police system just because we know bad cops exist. Clearly, it doesn't make sense. What makes sense is to continue to push hard for accountability, for those who serve AND for schools to do their job and educate our children.

That's the thing, though. The police have not initiated any changes, nor have they held bad cops accountable. They only choice left was to remove them from schools.

If MCPD had made a good faith effort to root out corruption, get bad cops off the streets, and discipline those who slip through, we would have better policy choices. But this is the policy choice left standing because the police will not govern themselves appropriately.

If they take steps to demonstrate that they can be trusted with our children, we can re-evaluate at that time.

Fine, so take SRO out, but who steps in to control the situation when someone is completely disrupting class? Many have been asking this on the thread, but I'm not seeing an answer. Where is the accountability here? Schools have to be empowered to hold themselves accountable, so that teachers can actually teach. Otherwise we will continue seeing an exodus and more will leave, and true learning in school will be an empty shell, almost fully reduced to babysitting services.

So, now we are speaking the language of abolition. If we can agree that the police have shown themselves unwilling or incapable of self-governance, and have lost the trust of the communities they claim to serve, then we can discuss what comes next. The conversation moves away from how to get cops back in schools and toward holding the County Council accountable for the commitments they made around non police intervention. I'm ready to have that conversation.

What County Council commitments are you referring to? Is this related specifically to schools or to the general community? I'm not sure why you are steering the discussion away from the issue at hand with schools and into a different issue of policing/reforming the police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Abolishing SROs in a blanket sweep is clearly worse overall than actually dealing with the problem, which is to have consequences for the bad SROs/cops who do abuse their power. We know that accountability has to be in place. Simply removing all SROs, the majority who are good and provide a public service, is just stupid.

OK, so, how's it going with accountability for bad cops?

I'm not seeing your argument. Everyone agrees that policies need to change to make them accountable. Does this mean we remove all SROs from schools? Your argument would then also imply we blanket remove our police system just because we know bad cops exist. Clearly, it doesn't make sense. What makes sense is to continue to push hard for accountability, for those who serve AND for schools to do their job and educate our children.

If everyone agrees, why isn't it happening?