Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”
So in MoCo their attorneys aren’t savvy enough to settle cases that are cut and dried and will certainly bring a storm of negative publicity if they play out publicly in court?
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.

Sure, but that footage could support either side, or be open to differing interpretations. I'm certainly not going to take an attorney's description of what the body camera footage shows as gospel given his obvious self-interest in the matter.

At any time in the last year the police and MCPS could have come forward and presented "their side". They chose not to and there is a strong chance you will never hear "their side" because what happens next is that in the county will negotiate a settlement before this case goes to depositions.

I admittedly have not seen the BWC footage in this case, but if this was as cut and dried as police threatening and screaming at a terrified 5 year old, this would have been settled before the suit was filed. I am not saying there is any justification to threaten a 5 year old, but there is more to this story if it hasn’t already settled out of public view.

-a civil defense attorney

You must not work in moco

Are you saying the MoCo attorneys aren’t savvy enough to try and negotiate an early settlement of a cut and dried case of police baselessly yelling at and threatening a 5 year old that will certainly lead to negative publicity if allowed to proceed through the court system?

No I’m saying they are smarter and know how to get top $$ out of the county.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, but that footage could support either side, or be open to differing interpretations. I'm certainly not going to take an attorney's description of what the body camera footage shows as gospel given his obvious self-interest in the matter.

Why would the attorney lie about something that can be verified? I'm no experts but I think there are consequences for attorneys that lie in court documents.

I am an attorney and "lie" is quite strong. Yes, you cannot knowingly make a false statement in a pleading. You absolutely can and many do shade the facts in the absolute most favorable light to your client.

Playing fast and loose with facts can be a strategic mistake, but most plaintiff's side lawyers aren't known for their discretion and tend to like a flair for the dramatic, particularly when there is an ability to get favorable press. But it is going to take quite a lot for an attorney to actual face an ethical issue if there is even a chance the video could be interpreted as he described.

So in other words yes the police did place handcuffs on a 5 year old's wrist.

Maybe. I haven't seen the footage. But, even if that part is true, that is hardly the most salacious part of the complaint. It is conceivable there could be a rationale basis for handcuffing a kid and, even if that action itself was improper, that is a far cry from assaulting him.

Anonymous wrote:Sounds to me like the plaintiffs want folks to know about this. In their shoes I would not take money to keep quiet. You do that to my kid and I am out for blood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, but that footage could support either side, or be open to differing interpretations. I'm certainly not going to take an attorney's description of what the body camera footage shows as gospel given his obvious self-interest in the matter.

Why would the attorney lie about something that can be verified? I'm no experts but I think there are consequences for attorneys that lie in court documents.

I am an attorney and "lie" is quite strong. Yes, you cannot knowingly make a false statement in a pleading. You absolutely can and many do shade the facts in the absolute most favorable light to your client.

Playing fast and loose with facts can be a strategic mistake, but most plaintiff's side lawyers aren't known for their discretion and tend to like a flair for the dramatic, particularly when there is an ability to get favorable press. But it is going to take quite a lot for an attorney to actual face an ethical issue if there is even a chance the video could be interpreted as he described.

So in other words yes the police did place handcuffs on a 5 year old's wrist.

Anonymous wrote:Sounds to me like the plaintiffs want folks to know about this. In their shoes I would not take money to keep quiet. You do that to my kid and I am out for blood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”
So in MoCo their attorneys aren’t savvy enough to settle cases that are cut and dried and will certainly bring a storm of negative publicity if they play out publicly in court?
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.

Sure, but that footage could support either side, or be open to differing interpretations. I'm certainly not going to take an attorney's description of what the body camera footage shows as gospel given his obvious self-interest in the matter.

At any time in the last year the police and MCPS could have come forward and presented "their side". They chose not to and there is a strong chance you will never hear "their side" because what happens next is that in the county will negotiate a settlement before this case goes to depositions.

I admittedly have not seen the BWC footage in this case, but if this was as cut and dried as police threatening and screaming at a terrified 5 year old, this would have been settled before the suit was filed. I am not saying there is any justification to threaten a 5 year old, but there is more to this story if it hasn’t already settled out of public view.

-a civil defense attorney

You must not work in moco

Are you saying the MoCo attorneys aren’t savvy enough to try and negotiate an early settlement of a cut and dried case of police baselessly yelling at and threatening a 5 year old that will certainly lead to negative publicity if allowed to proceed through the court system?

No I’m saying they are smarter and know how to get top $$ out of the county.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”
So in MoCo their attorneys aren’t savvy enough to settle cases that are cut and dried and will certainly bring a storm of negative publicity if they play out publicly in court?
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.

Sure, but that footage could support either side, or be open to differing interpretations. I'm certainly not going to take an attorney's description of what the body camera footage shows as gospel given his obvious self-interest in the matter.

At any time in the last year the police and MCPS could have come forward and presented "their side". They chose not to and there is a strong chance you will never hear "their side" because what happens next is that in the county will negotiate a settlement before this case goes to depositions.

I admittedly have not seen the BWC footage in this case, but if this was as cut and dried as police threatening and screaming at a terrified 5 year old, this would have been settled before the suit was filed. I am not saying there is any justification to threaten a 5 year old, but there is more to this story if it hasn’t already settled out of public view.

-a civil defense attorney

You must not work in moco

Are you saying the MoCo attorneys aren’t savvy enough to try and negotiate an early settlement of a cut and dried case of police baselessly yelling at and threatening a 5 year old that will certainly lead to negative publicity if allowed to proceed through the court system?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”
So in MoCo their attorneys aren’t savvy enough to settle cases that are cut and dried and will certainly bring a storm of negative publicity if they play out publicly in court?
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.

Sure, but that footage could support either side, or be open to differing interpretations. I'm certainly not going to take an attorney's description of what the body camera footage shows as gospel given his obvious self-interest in the matter.

At any time in the last year the police and MCPS could have come forward and presented "their side". They chose not to and there is a strong chance you will never hear "their side" because what happens next is that in the county will negotiate a settlement before this case goes to depositions.

I admittedly have not seen the BWC footage in this case, but if this was as cut and dried as police threatening and screaming at a terrified 5 year old, this would have been settled before the suit was filed. I am not saying there is any justification to threaten a 5 year old, but there is more to this story if it hasn’t already settled out of public view.

-a civil defense attorney

You must not work in moco

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”
So in MoCo their attorneys aren’t savvy enough to settle cases that are cut and dried and will certainly bring a storm of negative publicity if they play out publicly in court?
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.

Sure, but that footage could support either side, or be open to differing interpretations. I'm certainly not going to take an attorney's description of what the body camera footage shows as gospel given his obvious self-interest in the matter.

At any time in the last year the police and MCPS could have come forward and presented "their side". They chose not to and there is a strong chance you will never hear "their side" because what happens next is that in the county will negotiate a settlement before this case goes to depositions.

I admittedly have not seen the BWC footage in this case, but if this was as cut and dried as police threatening and screaming at a terrified 5 year old, this would have been settled before the suit was filed. I am not saying there is any justification to threaten a 5 year old, but there is more to this story if it hasn’t already settled out of public view.

-a civil defense attorney

You must not work in moco

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, but that footage could support either side, or be open to differing interpretations. I'm certainly not going to take an attorney's description of what the body camera footage shows as gospel given his obvious self-interest in the matter.

At any time in the last year the police and MCPS could have come forward and presented "their side". They chose not to and there is a strong chance you will never hear "their side" because what happens next is that in the county will negotiate a settlement before this case goes to depositions.

I admittedly have not seen the BWC footage in this case, but if this was as cut and dried as police threatening and screaming at a terrified 5 year old, this would have been settled before the suit was filed. I am not saying there is any justification to threaten a 5 year old, but there is more to this story if it hasn’t already settled out of public view.

-a civil defense attorney

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, but that footage could support either side, or be open to differing interpretations. I'm certainly not going to take an attorney's description of what the body camera footage shows as gospel given his obvious self-interest in the matter.

At any time in the last year the police and MCPS could have come forward and presented "their side". They chose not to and there is a strong chance you will never hear "their side" because what happens next is that in the county will negotiate a settlement before this case goes to depositions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, but that footage could support either side, or be open to differing interpretations. I'm certainly not going to take an attorney's description of what the body camera footage shows as gospel given his obvious self-interest in the matter.

Why would the attorney lie about something that can be verified? I'm no experts but I think there are consequences for attorneys that lie in court documents.

I am an attorney and "lie" is quite strong. Yes, you cannot knowingly make a false statement in a pleading. You absolutely can and many do shade the facts in the absolute most favorable light to your client.

Playing fast and loose with facts can be a strategic mistake, but most plaintiff's side lawyers aren't known for their discretion and tend to like a flair for the dramatic, particularly when there is an ability to get favorable press. But it is going to take quite a lot for an attorney to actual face an ethical issue if there is even a chance the video could be interpreted as he described.

So in other words yes the police did place handcuffs on a 5 year old's wrist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, but that footage could support either side, or be open to differing interpretations. I'm certainly not going to take an attorney's description of what the body camera footage shows as gospel given his obvious self-interest in the matter.

Why would the attorney lie about something that can be verified? I'm no experts but I think there are consequences for attorneys that lie in court documents.

I am an attorney and "lie" is quite strong. Yes, you cannot knowingly make a false statement in a pleading. You absolutely can and many do shade the facts in the absolute most favorable light to your client.

Playing fast and loose with facts can be a strategic mistake, but most plaintiff's side lawyers aren't known for their discretion and tend to like a flair for the dramatic, particularly when there is an ability to get favorable press. But it is going to take quite a lot for an attorney to actual face an ethical issue if there is even a chance the video could be interpreted as he described.