Bye bye SROs.

Easy answer.., no police SROs in school... replace them with trained psychologists!

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to see the body cam as you are just getting the parents side who was not there. That kid needs a SN child care setting if they are eloping. There is far more to this story.

A 5 year old taking off—especially if his house is near school—is not so far outside the norm that it suggests “special
needs.” This does raise the question of how he was supervised when he took off, though.

At any rate, needing a special needs child care setting does not mean the cops get to talk about beating you incessantly.

I'd like to see the body cam as you are just getting the parents side who was not there. That kid needs a SN child care setting if they are eloping. There is far more to this story.

inexcusable

I’m an ESS parent and I’m horrified on so many levels.

This kid is FIVE and according to the attorney, the officers mention beating the kid 20 times in a 50 minute encounter. That’s crazy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find this really confusing. It's hard to know what happened. I am always suspicious when there is just one side, especially when that side is the lawyers representing one person.

One one hand, the kid ran away from school. One of the things that the article objects to seems to be that the police picked up the kid, put him in the car and drove him back to school. To me, that's what I'd expect. The police's first job in that circumstance is definitely to get the kid back to the adults who are caring for him. Yes, being "placed in a squad car" (one of the things they object to) is scary, but I'm not sure how else they should get the child back to school

It sounds like some of the things they said while they were doing it were out of line, but honestly without the other side it's just hard to say.

I don’t understand why they are objecting to this part. The yelling and kid handcuffs are way out of line, but I take it with a grain of salt since they’re making a big deal about being “placed in a squad car”.

At one point they also object to the fact that they used the word "now" when talking to the kid, and that they asked him to sit down in the office.

Our police need way more training in dealing with people who are mentally ill, which almost certainly includes this child. What they're describing isn't OK. The words the officer used aren't OK. But this isn't a million dollar police brutality case. This is an officer with a very out of control child, who said some stupid things, while basically doing his job which was to return the kid to school.

I know there is a lot of resistance to the school resource officer program, but this is the exact type of situation in which you need officers who are specially trained to deal with particular situations. Were these just officers who were on patrol in the area and had to go pick up this kid? I work with law enforcement (not MoCo though) and this is why properly trained school resource officers and truancy officers are essential. Common sense should have dictated that those officers not act like that to a 5 year old, but there needs to be officers specially trained to deal with behavioral issues with kids that can be used in this situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find this really confusing. It's hard to know what happened. I am always suspicious when there is just one side, especially when that side is the lawyers representing one person.

One one hand, the kid ran away from school. One of the things that the article objects to seems to be that the police picked up the kid, put him in the car and drove him back to school. To me, that's what I'd expect. The police's first job in that circumstance is definitely to get the kid back to the adults who are caring for him. Yes, being "placed in a squad car" (one of the things they object to) is scary, but I'm not sure how else they should get the child back to school

It sounds like some of the things they said while they were doing it were out of line, but honestly without the other side it's just hard to say.

I don’t understand why they are objecting to this part. The yelling and kid handcuffs are way out of line, but I take it with a grain of salt since they’re making a big deal about being “placed in a squad car”.

At one point they also object to the fact that they used the word "now" when talking to the kid, and that they asked him to sit down in the office.

Our police need way more training in dealing with people who are mentally ill, which almost certainly includes this child. What they're describing isn't OK. The words the officer used aren't OK. But this isn't a million dollar police brutality case. This is an officer with a very out of control child, who said some stupid things, while basically doing his job which was to return the kid to school.

Anonymous wrote:I find this really confusing. It's hard to know what happened. I am always suspicious when there is just one side, especially when that side is the lawyers representing one person.

One one hand, the kid ran away from school. One of the things that the article objects to seems to be that the police picked up the kid, put him in the car and drove him back to school. To me, that's what I'd expect. The police's first job in that circumstance is definitely to get the kid back to the adults who are caring for him. Yes, being "placed in a squad car" (one of the things they object to) is scary, but I'm not sure how else they should get the child back to school

It sounds like some of the things they said while they were doing it were out of line, but honestly without the other side it's just hard to say.

I don’t understand why they are objecting to this part. The yelling and kid handcuffs are way out of line, but I take it with a grain of salt since they’re making a big deal about being “placed in a squad car”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find this really confusing. It's hard to know what happened. I am always suspicious when there is just one side, especially when that side is the lawyers representing one person.

One one hand, the kid ran away from school. One of the things that the article objects to seems to be that the police picked up the kid, put him in the car and drove him back to school. To me, that's what I'd expect. The police's first job in that circumstance is definitely to get the kid back to the adults who are caring for him. Yes, being "placed in a squad car" (one of the things they object to) is scary, but I'm not sure how else they should get the child back to school

It sounds like some of the things they said while they were doing it were out of line, but honestly without the other side it's just hard to say.

Quoting here “ the complaint was written based on body camera footage of the incident from one officer. The other officer’s camera was not on, they said.”

That’s a wrap!

The quote was written by the attorney, who claims to have seen the body camera footage. The journalist did not see the body camera footage. Big difference.

Until footage is presented in court you mean.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find this really confusing. It's hard to know what happened. I am always suspicious when there is just one side, especially when that side is the lawyers representing one person.

One one hand, the kid ran away from school. One of the things that the article objects to seems to be that the police picked up the kid, put him in the car and drove him back to school. To me, that's what I'd expect. The police's first job in that circumstance is definitely to get the kid back to the adults who are caring for him. Yes, being "placed in a squad car" (one of the things they object to) is scary, but I'm not sure how else they should get the child back to school

It sounds like some of the things they said while they were doing it were out of line, but honestly without the other side it's just hard to say.

Quoting here “ the complaint was written based on body camera footage of the incident from one officer. The other officer’s camera was not on, they said.”

That’s a wrap!

The quote was written by the attorney, who claims to have seen the body camera footage. The journalist did not see the body camera footage. Big difference.

I don’t think PP read the article. Evidence of the abuse was recorded on body camera footage!

Anonymous wrote:I find this really confusing. It's hard to know what happened. I am always suspicious when there is just one side, especially when that side is the lawyers representing one person.

One one hand, the kid ran away from school. One of the things that the article objects to seems to be that the police picked up the kid, put him in the car and drove him back to school. To me, that's what I'd expect. The police's first job in that circumstance is definitely to get the kid back to the adults who are caring for him. Yes, being "placed in a squad car" (one of the things they object to) is scary, but I'm not sure how else they should get the child back to school

It sounds like some of the things they said while they were doing it were out of line, but honestly without the other side it's just hard to say.

Quoting here “ the complaint was written based on body camera footage of the incident from one officer. The other officer’s camera was not on, they said.”

That’s a wrap!

I find this really confusing. It's hard to know what happened. I am always suspicious when there is just one side, especially when that side is the lawyers representing one person.

One one hand, the kid ran away from school. One of the things that the article objects to seems to be that the police picked up the kid, put him in the car and drove him back to school. To me, that's what I'd expect. The police's first job in that circumstance is definitely to get the kid back to the adults who are caring for him. Yes, being "placed in a squad car" (one of the things they object to) is scary, but I'm not sure how else they should get the child back to school

It sounds like some of the things they said while they were doing it were out of line, but honestly without the other side it's just hard to say.

This is awful. What in the world were these cops thinking? How is the county council only finding about this because of this lawsuit?

https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/courts/lawsuit-alleges-police-harassed-assaulted-5-year-old-boy/