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?

NP but yes. It's easy to Google them and see they are both Black (actually only 100% sure of one of them, 75% on the other). Of course, I assumed from the quoted AAVE-adjacent dialogue that at least one was.

Let's say both officers were Black and so was the boy. This is what I have been assuming. And I've also been assuming that there is a racist element to this story.

Do you somehow think that the racist construction of childhood or the adultification of Black boys does not come into play? Do you think POC cannot perpetuate white supremacy*? Lots of POC think it is their job to toughen up and/or perpetuate fear of white institutions among kids of their own race. Open a book.

As for the school's reaction or involvement, which is a little less clear, the principal and vice principal are both white. But whatever.

*I mean, of course you think that. You almost certainly think an incident can only possibly be racist if someone white directly applies the N-word with a hard R to a Black person, and even then, rap music is probably to blame.

Not everything is racism or racist. Some of it is cultural and those police probably would have beat their own kids or would have been if they did that and its more cultural. Either way, its not the best plan. I've very much against spanking but would consider it in this situation where its a safety issue. There is way more to this. There was a clear lack of supervision at the school and many other things for a child to leave the school.

Its sad that we live in a cultural where any slight is assumed its a white person doing it and every white person is racist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I bet he never leaves school on his own again.

I bet these 2 cops will never abuse a child again.

That too. The cops were over the top for sure. But the child is safe and unharmed.

Unharmed? They told him he should be beaten 20 times. Most scars are invisible.

He didn’t get hit by a car, he didn’t get kidnapped, he didn’t wander off into the woods by himself where it would be much harder to find him. I mean come on. Get real.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its not appropriate for a police officer to say mom will spank you as that's a parenting choice but I would fully expect a police office to pick up a child and put them in a car to return them to school I would assume the child was continuing to act up with price but we don't know until we saw the video. My big concern is what happened at school to make this child leave? Was the child bullied? Threatened? Special needs? Kids don't typically elope except in SN or feeling upset or threatened.

Nope. Spanking is not appropriate. Period.

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?

NP but yes. It's easy to Google them and see they are both Black (actually only 100% sure of one of them, 75% on the other). Of course, I assumed from the quoted AAVE-adjacent dialogue that at least one was.

Let's say both officers were Black and so was the boy. This is what I have been assuming. And I've also been assuming that there is a racist element to this story.

Do you somehow think that the racist construction of childhood or the adultification of Black boys does not come into play? Do you think POC cannot perpetuate white supremacy*? Lots of POC think it is their job to toughen up and/or perpetuate fear of white institutions among kids of their own race. Open a book.

As for the school's reaction or involvement, which is a little less clear, the principal and vice principal are both white. But whatever.

*I mean, of course you think that. You almost certainly think an incident can only possibly be racist if someone white directly applies the N-word with a hard R to a Black person, and even then, rap music is probably to blame.

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 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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There were two kids at our elementary who left school grounds around that age. I think it was 1st and 2nd grade. They do not have special needs.

Ditto, one just wanted a slurpee. I’m friends with him moms boys are just often idk, idiots.

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”.

The kid wasn’t placed in handcuffs. While in the principals office it was suggested that the child feel what a handcuff looks like. It wasn’t more of a learning process. It was one handcuff and it was too large for the kids wrist.this is all lawyer bull crap.

Ah, the Body Camera Footage Viewer has logged in! Tell us, what other proof of the cops' innocence is shown on the tape?

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”.

The kid wasn’t placed in handcuffs. While in the principals office it was suggested that the child feel what a handcuff looks like. It wasn’t more of a learning process. It was one handcuff and it was too large for the kids wrist.this is all lawyer bull crap.

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”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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/

You are hearing one side of the story. The side from a woman looking for a payday. Let’s wait until we hear the other side.

Anonymous wrote: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/

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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.