Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m trying to put myself in their shoes. So the gist of it, if my 5 1/2 year old eloped from school, and school employees were unable to stop him at the school property line and had to call the police. Then if it took officers 50 minutes and a bunch of “your mom is going to spank you when you get home” and a ride in the cruiser back to school...

I’d be angry... not at the school or police officers but at my child. I can’t imagine ever thinking I was entitled to money because of this. Without seeing the video, I may have a different opinion but I’m not going to take the lawyer’s play by play.

Well, there are terrible parents and you sound like one. If you have kids snd you think it’s okay to tell a kid they deserve to be beaten get therapy.

We haven’t seen the recordings to know what was said.

We have quotes from the video and you can lie in a suit.

Listen miss blue lives matter, you should want better coworkers, stop defending these horrible cops. Clean house and be better.

We have "quotes" as summarized by the family's lawyer. That's not an objective source at all. And you are right (although I assume it was a typo) you can lie -- or at least greatly distort -- is a lawsuit.

Let me put it this way, if in an answer to the complaint, the cop's attorney provides his own, very different, summary of the video will you take that as gospel as well? You wouldn't, nor should you. Your error is in treating any lawyer's rendition of facts as necessarily accurate.

Generally I agree with you that you can’t take on side of the story. But I just can’t imagine any defense for the specific facts cited. And there are serious consequences for a lawyer who misrepresents facts to the Court, so I can’t believe the Complaint misquotes the video.
The stuff about raised voices and manhandling the child, I’ll give you, as that’s pretty subjective. But the specific words used referencing beating the child just are not acceptable and don’t appear to be lawyerly shading of facts.

Maybe. But it is also possible, for example, that the audio is muffled and open to different interpretations. Counsel has a lot of leeway in presenting facts in a complaint and, shocking as it may be, some counsel go even beyond that great latitude when presenting facts to the court, especially when the court of public opinion is also the audience.

It is probably more likely than not the quotes are fair, but I'll reserve judgement until I either see the video or see an account of the video from a more objective source.

Soooo what you are saying is that if this same scenario happened to your offspring you would be perfectly OK with what happened. Gotcha!

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How on the hell could a SCHOOL have a “policy” that staff are not allowed to stop a FIVE YEAR OLD who is attempting to leave its campus? If I had that policy in my house it would be called child abuse, and rightly so. This idea is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard here. Someone post a link to this alleged policy.

I doubt there is a written policy saying that. The policy on behavior management doesn't say that (https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=282&policyID=JGA-RA§ionID=10) and it addresses use of physical restraint by staff. I wouldn't be surprised if teachers THINK that's the policy though; communication of what laws and policies actually say to teachers is often very poor.

Agreed on perceptions of what teachers are allowed to do versus reality. I would also point out, though, that only staff trained in safe physical restraints can restrain a child. A regular kindergarten classroom teacher is unlikely to be in that group.

The answer here, as others have said, is for every teacher to be trained in trauma-based approaches, for there to be additional adults in the classroom, and for every school to have social workers and counselors that can help keep elopement from happening. Only a tiny fraction of that is within the ability of any individual school, which means we need systemic approaches.

Anonymous wrote:How on the hell could a SCHOOL have a “policy” that staff are not allowed to stop a FIVE YEAR OLD who is attempting to leave its campus? If I had that policy in my house it would be called child abuse, and rightly so. This idea is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard here. Someone post a link to this alleged policy.

I doubt there is a written policy saying that. The policy on behavior management doesn't say that (https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=282&policyID=JGA-RA§ionID=10) and it addresses use of physical restraint by staff. I wouldn't be surprised if teachers THINK that's the policy though; communication of what laws and policies actually say to teachers is often very poor.

This thread demonstrates why it’ll be nearly impossible for teachers to enforce children wearing masks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You could write the whole history of the racist construction of “childhood” and who is entitled to have one by reference to this thread.

do you know the race of the officers?

It's irrelevant. The thread is the story.

well it is relevant. if it was black officers mistreating a black child, that changes the narrative.

It doesn't change the way this kid has been adultified in this thread. That's happening because he is assumed to be black, not because of anyone's particular belief about the race of the police.

An fing 5 year old. Some of the posters here are absolutely vile.

Also need to be careful not to infantilize a child. I’m not saying threatening children is ever appropriate, but there is a realm of acceptable and unacceptable behavior from a child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe evaluate the boundaries you have for acceptable behavior toward a young child - a FIVE year old.

It’s one thing to pick up the child, let him know in no uncertain terms the behavior was totally unacceptable, and to coordinate with the parent to determine an appropriate path forward. This could include suspension, etc.

It’s another thing to berate, terrorize, and threaten a child with physical harm for over 50 minutes. That’s despicable and completely out of bounds of professional behavior, let alone how any LEO and school should treat a child. Can you as an adult imagine a scenario where you were detained by police who threatened physical harm to you for almost an hour? How would you feel?

Also, how the hell did a child leave the school to begin with? Again, we’re talking a five year old. Where were the responsible adults who are supposed to ensure that young children don’t just walk off school property. If this were a 15 year old, different situation. This is a FIVE year old.

Teachers have 2 eyes, usually pointing in the same direction. It's not that hard for a kid to slip out. Heck, just go to the bathroom and don't come back...

We're running schools. Not prisons.

If you are suggestion that it’s in any way, shape, or form excusable that a young child is able to leave school grounds unnoticed, you have a pathetically low bar. This is about student safety - not incarceration.

We actually don't know that he left unnoticed, for what it is worth. We have no idea whether he turned up missing at the count after recess, or whether he made a fully witnessed break for it but staff were not allowed to follow him beyond school grounds. Given student privacy concerns, we also may never know the answer to this question.

How on the hell could a SCHOOL have a “policy” that staff are not allowed to stop a FIVE YEAR OLD who is attempting to leave its campus? If I had that policy in my house it would be called child abuse, and rightly so. This idea is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard here. Someone post a link to this alleged policy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m trying to put myself in their shoes. So the gist of it, if my 5 1/2 year old eloped from school, and school employees were unable to stop him at the school property line and had to call the police. Then if it took officers 50 minutes and a bunch of “your mom is going to spank you when you get home” and a ride in the cruiser back to school...

I’d be angry... not at the school or police officers but at my child. I can’t imagine ever thinking I was entitled to money because of this. Without seeing the video, I may have a different opinion but I’m not going to take the lawyer’s play by play.

Maybe evaluate the boundaries you have for acceptable behavior toward a young child - a FIVE year old.

It’s one thing to pick up the child, let him know in no uncertain terms the behavior was totally unacceptable, and to coordinate with the parent to determine an appropriate path forward. This could include suspension, etc.

It’s another thing to berate, terrorize, and threaten a child with physical harm for over 50 minutes. That’s despicable and completely out of bounds of professional behavior, let alone how any LEO and school should treat a child. Can you as an adult imagine a scenario where you were detained by police who threatened physical harm to you for almost an hour? How would you feel?

Also, how the hell did a child leave the school to begin with? Again, we’re talking a five year old. Where were the responsible adults who are supposed to ensure that young children don’t just walk off school property. If this were a 15 year old, different situation. This is a FIVE year old.

Nothing from the any articles I’ve read suggested the student was unsupervised. We’ve heard one side- the lawyers.

The child left school grounds. Someone was asleep at the wheel.

Someone may have been asleep at the wheel, but just so we're having a fact-based discussion, MCPS policy is that school staff cannot physically stop a child who is eloping, nor can they follow beyond the school boundary. So, if a child is determined to walk away, school officials can *try* to reason with them (but not touch them) and *try* to redirect their attention, but their choices are extremely constrained.

This is for good reason (staff can't touch kids), but the result is that calling police to retrieve an eloping child is not uncommon at any school in MCPS.

The answer would be more teachers and teacher's aides, and more social workers and counselors to work through the eloping impulses before the child walks out.

Anonymous wrote:You could write the whole history of the racist construction of “childhood” and who is entitled to have one by reference to this thread.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe evaluate the boundaries you have for acceptable behavior toward a young child - a FIVE year old.

It’s one thing to pick up the child, let him know in no uncertain terms the behavior was totally unacceptable, and to coordinate with the parent to determine an appropriate path forward. This could include suspension, etc.

It’s another thing to berate, terrorize, and threaten a child with physical harm for over 50 minutes. That’s despicable and completely out of bounds of professional behavior, let alone how any LEO and school should treat a child. Can you as an adult imagine a scenario where you were detained by police who threatened physical harm to you for almost an hour? How would you feel?

Also, how the hell did a child leave the school to begin with? Again, we’re talking a five year old. Where were the responsible adults who are supposed to ensure that young children don’t just walk off school property. If this were a 15 year old, different situation. This is a FIVE year old.

Teachers have 2 eyes, usually pointing in the same direction. It's not that hard for a kid to slip out. Heck, just go to the bathroom and don't come back...

We're running schools. Not prisons.

If you are suggestion that it’s in any way, shape, or form excusable that a young child is able to leave school grounds unnoticed, you have a pathetically low bar. This is about student safety - not incarceration.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m trying to put myself in their shoes. So the gist of it, if my 5 1/2 year old eloped from school, and school employees were unable to stop him at the school property line and had to call the police. Then if it took officers 50 minutes and a bunch of “your mom is going to spank you when you get home” and a ride in the cruiser back to school...

I’d be angry... not at the school or police officers but at my child. I can’t imagine ever thinking I was entitled to money because of this. Without seeing the video, I may have a different opinion but I’m not going to take the lawyer’s play by play.

Maybe evaluate the boundaries you have for acceptable behavior toward a young child - a FIVE year old.

It’s one thing to pick up the child, let him know in no uncertain terms the behavior was totally unacceptable, and to coordinate with the parent to determine an appropriate path forward. This could include suspension, etc.

It’s another thing to berate, terrorize, and threaten a child with physical harm for over 50 minutes. That’s despicable and completely out of bounds of professional behavior, let alone how any LEO and school should treat a child. Can you as an adult imagine a scenario where you were detained by police who threatened physical harm to you for almost an hour? How would you feel?

Also, how the hell did a child leave the school to begin with? Again, we’re talking a five year old. Where were the responsible adults who are supposed to ensure that young children don’t just walk off school property. If this were a 15 year old, different situation. This is a FIVE year old.

Nothing from the any articles I’ve read suggested the student was unsupervised. We’ve heard one side- the lawyers.

The child left school grounds. Someone was asleep at the wheel.

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.

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.

There is resistance to le in elementary schools because they abuse the kids. Statistics show younger kids are LESS safe because of these exact situations. The school should never have allowed this. This is the reason we do not need police in elementary schools and this type of stuff happens all the time. There are so many documented cases of police going out of bounds on elementary aged kids even when school staff ask them to stop and let them handle the situation. Special Ed teachers should know how to handle this. I would absolutely sue this school for sharing private information. This case is outrageous and I can't believe adults here are not outraged.

One of the many questions that we don't have answers for is how much of this abuse happened in front of school staff.

If the child eloped, and if MCPS policy still dictates that staff can't stop a child and cannot retrieve them from off school grounds, then the school's hands were tied in terms of involving the police. So, for that piece I think the problem is the MCPS policy, not the school staff. It's also unclear how much of the 50-minute ordeal happened at the school, and how much happened offsite.

However, if school staff witnessed the abuse (as reported) and if they shared student information (as reported), then it's a huge issue. At absolute best, the front office staff need bystander training on how to deescalate a situation and information on what can and cannot be shared with law enforcement. At worst, school staff were complicit in the abuse of a young child. That's the piece that the school community, and the broader community, will need to seek answers on.

The vaaaast majority of the fault here, though. lies with Montgomery County PD. The school staff should never have been put in the position of trying to figure out how to deescalate two angry, abusive, and armed police officers. We don't pay school secretaries nearly enough to deal with that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You could write the whole history of the racist construction of “childhood” and who is entitled to have one by reference to this thread.

do you know the race of the officers?

It's irrelevant. The thread is the story.

well it is relevant. if it was black officers mistreating a black child, that changes the narrative.

It doesn't change the way this kid has been adultified in this thread. That's happening because he is assumed to be black, not because of anyone's particular belief about the race of the police.

An fing 5 year old. Some of the posters here are absolutely vile.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You could write the whole history of the racist construction of “childhood” and who is entitled to have one by reference to this thread.

do you know the race of the officers?

It's irrelevant. The thread is the story.

well it is relevant. if it was black officers mistreating a black child, that changes the narrative.

....it really doesn't.

I think most of us who read the story assumed that at least one of the cops was Black, and probably both. That doesn't mean race wasn't a factor at key points in this story.

Police officers, even Black ones, work inside a system in which Black children are adultified and where abuse of Black kids is less likely to be reported or taken seriously. The individual officer doesn't need to be racist against the child for this to have racial implications. The cop can just be abusive, and have a sense that they will get away with it because the child is Black.