Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This does not make any sense. If I went shopping at Target and someone came in to shoot me, I am not suing Target…

Marc Elrich unilaterally removed SROs. There was no reason to do this, other than he just doesn't like them. The political winds of the time support him.

The school system decided it wants to move to restorative justice as a disciplinary framework. They restructure the old SRO MOU to make it so police rarely can set foot on a campus and even then it has to be in response to something horrible. They've all voluntarily removed any violence prevention practices. So now MCPS is completely and solely responsible for student safety.

They promote the concept that failing mental health is the reason for violence. It's not. They pledge to increase mental health support to schools. That goal is delayed. Not that it would help anyway. (It is helpful to kids, particularly those who want to harm themselves, but much less so for typical violence).

I have heard they got rid of police presence on the behavioral threat assessment teams that would see if threats of violence had any credibility. Not sure if that's true, but if it is, IMO, it's utter negligence.

The restorative justice focus is on the perpetrator and helping to support/reform him/her. Which is great. But they have zero focus on victims or future victims. That's a big gap in trying to provide a safe school climate.

They aren't transparent on data and outcomes, other than tracking how many students are arrested or suspended. There is no data on whether specific kids reoffend, or whether specific students are repeatedly victimized. We don't know if victimization has increased or decreased. We don't know how or if schools keep other students safe from violent re-offenders.

For kids ages 12-18, school is statistically a more dangerous place to be than away from school. MCPS knows this.

Maryland state law just changed so police can't question kids under 18 without letting them consult with an attorney. If there is an emergent dangerous situation, like another school shooting or some other type of significant violent act where more than one kid is involved, the police can't question one to figure out how to stop the other(s) from harming other kids.

Maryland state law also changed so that kids under 13 can't be subjected to the juvenile justice system at all. There is no gateway into diversion, mental health assistance, substance abuse treatment, etc. for the very youngest offenders.

The entire violence prevention framework we've had in place for years has been derailed, and kids are living through an experiment. It's not working. But again, nobody really knows that because MCPS isn't held accountable by anyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This does not make any sense. If I went shopping at Target and someone came in to shoot me, I am not suing Target…

Marc Elrich unilaterally removed SROs. There was no reason to do this, other than he just doesn't like them. The political winds of the time support him.

The school system decided it wants to move to restorative justice as a disciplinary framework. They restructure the old SRO MOU to make it so police rarely can set foot on a campus and even then it has to be in response to something horrible. They've all voluntarily removed any violence prevention practices. So now MCPS is completely and solely responsible for student safety.

They promote the concept that failing mental health is the reason for violence. It's not. They pledge to increase mental health support to schools. That goal is delayed. Not that it would help anyway. (It is helpful to kids, particularly those who want to harm themselves, but much less so for typical violence).

I have heard they got rid of police presence on the behavioral threat assessment teams that would see if threats of violence had any credibility. Not sure if that's true, but if it is, IMO, it's utter negligence.

The restorative justice focus is on the perpetrator and helping to support/reform him/her. Which is great. But they have zero focus on victims or future victims. That's a big gap in trying to provide a safe school climate.

They aren't transparent on data and outcomes, other than tracking how many students are arrested or suspended. There is no data on whether specific kids reoffend, or whether specific students are repeatedly victimized. We don't know if victimization has increased or decreased. We don't know how or if schools keep other students safe from violent re-offenders.

For kids ages 12-18, school is statistically a more dangerous place to be than away from school. MCPS knows this.

Maryland state law just changed so police can't question kids under 18 without letting them consult with an attorney. If there is an emergent dangerous situation, like another school shooting or some other type of significant violent act where more than one kid is involved, the police can't question one to figure out how to stop the other(s) from harming other kids.

Maryland state law also changed so that kids under 13 can't be subjected to the juvenile justice system at all. There is no gateway into diversion, mental health assistance, substance abuse treatment, etc. for the very youngest offenders.

The entire violence prevention framework we've had in place for years has been derailed, and kids are living through an experiment. It's not working. But again, nobody really knows that because MCPS isn't held accountable by anyone.

Anonymous wrote:This does not make any sense. If I went shopping at Target and someone came in to shoot me, I am not suing Target…

Anonymous wrote:He was shot by a minor. He should be suing the parents of the kid who shot him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sued for what?

This will be interesting, as I recall he wouldn't tell first responders what had happened. Curious how that will be handled.

The child was shot at school. He endured at least 8 surgeries and will likely suffer for the rest of his life. MCPS can effing pay.

Just because he was shot at school doesn’t make MCPS liable. I don’t know if there was negligence but there is no guarantee of safety.

Anonymous wrote:Sued for what?

This will be interesting, as I recall he wouldn't tell first responders what had happened. Curious how that will be handled.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sued for what?

This will be interesting, as I recall he wouldn't tell first responders what had happened. Curious how that will be handled.

The child was shot at school. He endured at least 8 surgeries and will likely suffer for the rest of his life. MCPS can effing pay.

Anonymous wrote:Sued for what?

This will be interesting, as I recall he wouldn't tell first responders what had happened. Curious how that will be handled.