Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the BS posted above is meaningless.

There is 1 SRO in all of the US in the history of SROs that has stopped a shooting. So, SRO's are not a reasonable "fault".

The only way they will win if they have history showing the shooter was a problem and he was not removed.

"School resource officers (SROs) play an important role in school violence prevention. In nearly one-third of the
cases, an SRO played a role in either reporting the plot or responding to a report made by someone else. In eight
cases, it was the SRO who received the initial report of an attack plot from students or others, highlighting their role
as a trusted adult within the school community. "

https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/ default/files/reports/2021-03/USSS%20Averting%20Targeted%20School%20Violence.2021.03.pdf

Nope

In every case a student or parent reported the person. In 8 incidents the student/parent reported it to the SRO. Not once did the SRO identify a threat themselves.

1/3 if the time the called the real police. That’s a useless role.

SROs are the real police. You have to have been a Patrol officer before you can be an SRO

But their procedure is to call patrol before engaging.

The guy who does the schedule for court is a “real police officer” too.

Not all cops are made the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was a kid magruder had trucks with shotgun racks in the parking lot. We’d have field trips there to see plays. They didn’t have school shootings back then

A student died every year on Muncaster mill road back then.

Anonymous wrote:When I was a kid magruder had trucks with shotgun racks in the parking lot. We’d have field trips there to see plays. They didn’t have school shootings back then

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the BS posted above is meaningless.

There is 1 SRO in all of the US in the history of SROs that has stopped a shooting. So, SRO's are not a reasonable "fault".

The only way they will win if they have history showing the shooter was a problem and he was not removed.

"School resource officers (SROs) play an important role in school violence prevention. In nearly one-third of the
cases, an SRO played a role in either reporting the plot or responding to a report made by someone else. In eight
cases, it was the SRO who received the initial report of an attack plot from students or others, highlighting their role
as a trusted adult within the school community. "

https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/ default/files/reports/2021-03/USSS%20Averting%20Targeted%20School%20Violence.2021.03.pdf

Nope

In every case a student or parent reported the person. In 8 incidents the student/parent reported it to the SRO. Not once did the SRO identify a threat themselves.

1/3 if the time the called the real police. That’s a useless role.

SROs are the real police. You have to have been a Patrol officer before you can be an SRO

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the BS posted above is meaningless.

There is 1 SRO in all of the US in the history of SROs that has stopped a shooting. So, SRO's are not a reasonable "fault".

The only way they will win if they have history showing the shooter was a problem and he was not removed.

"School resource officers (SROs) play an important role in school violence prevention. In nearly one-third of the
cases, an SRO played a role in either reporting the plot or responding to a report made by someone else. In eight
cases, it was the SRO who received the initial report of an attack plot from students or others, highlighting their role
as a trusted adult within the school community. "

https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/ default/files/reports/2021-03/USSS%20Averting%20Targeted%20School%20Violence.2021.03.pdf

Nope

In every case a student or parent reported the person. In 8 incidents the student/parent reported it to the SRO. Not once did the SRO identify a threat themselves.

1/3 if the time the called the real police. That’s a useless role.

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

It's not worth suing them, assuming they have very little assets.

The County and School District have huge budgets... and (more importantly) a lot of insurance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the BS posted above is meaningless.

There is 1 SRO in all of the US in the history of SROs that has stopped a shooting. So, SRO's are not a reasonable "fault".

The only way they will win if they have history showing the shooter was a problem and he was not removed.

"School resource officers (SROs) play an important role in school violence prevention. In nearly one-third of the
cases, an SRO played a role in either reporting the plot or responding to a report made by someone else. In eight
cases, it was the SRO who received the initial report of an attack plot from students or others, highlighting their role
as a trusted adult within the school community. "

https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2021-03/USSS%20Averting%20Targeted%20School%20Violence.2021.03.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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…

are you forced to be at target? There are laws forcing you to attend schools . If that’s the case then schools need to provide safety

Reasonable safety. They can't account for a lone crazy person.

so why do they act like Nazis over vaping but not over safety ?

They are very serious about safety.

Vaping is something parents have asked them to be crazy about so they are crazy about it. A girl from our HS died of vaping (NW HS) so actually more people have died of vaping than gun violence in moco schools.

how do you die from vaping unless it was done kind of black market illegal drug?

Anonymous wrote:

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

It's not worth suing them, assuming they have very little assets.

The County and School District have huge budgets... and (more importantly) a lot of insurance.

Anonymous wrote:All the BS posted above is meaningless.

There is 1 SRO in all of the US in the history of SROs that has stopped a shooting. So, SRO's are not a reasonable "fault".

The only way they will win if they have history showing the shooter was a problem and he was not removed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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…

are you forced to be at target? There are laws forcing you to attend schools . If that’s the case then schools need to provide safety

Reasonable safety. They can't account for a lone crazy person.

so why do they act like Nazis over vaping but not over safety ?

They are very serious about safety.

Vaping is something parents have asked them to be crazy about so they are crazy about it. A girl from our HS died of vaping (NW HS) so actually more people have died of vaping than gun violence in moco schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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…

are you forced to be at target? There are laws forcing you to attend schools . If that’s the case then schools need to provide safety

Reasonable safety. They can't account for a lone crazy person.

so why do they act like Nazis over vaping but not over safety ?