I am also a teacher at Magruder. I don’t think having an SRO would make a difference.

I once worked at a small specialized school where every kid was wanded and checked for weapons every day. We still had kids bring in huge hunting knives.

The more realistic issue is that their is no way fail classes at the moment. 50% rule and lack of failure due to attendance means that kids can just wander the school, skip classes and hang out in bathrooms. Happens at every middle school and high school I have taught at. Teachers cant really enforce rules anymore. Basically everything is optional from a student point of view.

Anonymous wrote:As a staff member who was in the building during the shooting and working in the schools prior to the removal of SROs, I earnestly believe that this would not have happened had we had an SRO in the building. Good SROs build relationships with students and someone would've told the SRO before it got to this. Bring them BACK int

o the BUILDING!!!!

Thank you. Will you be there Wednesday night?

I plan on asking to have SROs brought back in the community policing, relationship building capacity they used to have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.wusa9.com/article/features/originals/magruder-high-school-shooting-in-bathroom-mom-of-victim-thankful-son-is-alive-recovery-ghost-gun/65-73bb1336-b270-47ab-91e9-ed57c8249e57?fbclid=IwAR3-aeJLFgWhjo_Q7uxu_TtNIimYt96L63RZ9oexxLaFbYjMOBNTWnrCJcY

"During a national and local crime wave in schools with stabbings and with kids bringing guns into schools, they decided that that was the perfect time to remove the school resource officers and replace them with nothing," the Thomas family attorney, Alexander Bush, said. "So I think they share a significant portion of the guilt here for what happened."

I'm glad someone is challenging these progressive policies in court. They are impossible to debate in open politics since extremists just shout you down as racist but in court the facts actually comes out about their negligent decision making. I'm assuming Elrich removed SROs because of social media posts about SRO presence being a "crime of violence" etc?

They were removed because progressives at the time were organizing against the “school to prison pipeline”, despite the fact that there was no evidence in MCPS of SROs leading to excessive arrests for minor violations. There was a task force and they even made a report.

The reality that made these people uncomfortable was that Montgomery County was supposed to be affluent and people don’t normally associate affluent suburban high schools with police. That’s a poor, urban high school thing. The problem is that the perception of MCPS as affluent doesn’t match the reality, which is that 40% of kids are on free and reduced lunch.

As a staff member who was in the building during the shooting and working in the schools prior to the removal of SROs, I earnestly believe that this would not have happened had we had an SRO in the building. Good SROs build relationships with students and someone would've told the SRO before it got to this. Bring them BACK int

o the BUILDING!!!!

Anonymous wrote:https://www.wusa9.com/article/features/originals/magruder-high-school-shooting-in-bathroom-mom-of-victim-thankful-son-is-alive-recovery-ghost-gun/65-73bb1336-b270-47ab-91e9-ed57c8249e57?fbclid=IwAR3-aeJLFgWhjo_Q7uxu_TtNIimYt96L63RZ9oexxLaFbYjMOBNTWnrCJcY

"During a national and local crime wave in schools with stabbings and with kids bringing guns into schools, they decided that that was the perfect time to remove the school resource officers and replace them with nothing," the Thomas family attorney, Alexander Bush, said. "So I think they share a significant portion of the guilt here for what happened."

I'm glad someone is challenging these progressive policies in court. They are impossible to debate in open politics since extremists just shout you down as racist but in court the facts actually comes out about their negligent decision making. I'm assuming Elrich removed SROs because of social media posts about SRO presence being a "crime of violence" etc?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s like suing Budweiser and Honda because you got run over by a drunk driver, because they have more money than the drunk who hit you. Ridiculous.

The bar/beer/grocery store who sold the beer/booze that the driver consumed has more insurance than the drunk driver.

I got hit by a drunk driver in 2013.

Should I sue you? You undoubtedly have more money than the loser who hit me. Why shouldn’t I sue you?

Does the PP have a logical nexus to your accident?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s like suing Budweiser and Honda because you got run over by a drunk driver, because they have more money than the drunk who hit you. Ridiculous.

The bar/beer/grocery store who sold the beer/booze that the driver consumed has more insurance than the drunk driver.

I got hit by a drunk driver in 2013.

Should I sue you? You undoubtedly have more money than the loser who hit me. Why shouldn’t I sue you?

https://www.wusa9.com/article/features/originals/magruder-high-school-shooting-in-bathroom-mom-of-victim-thankful-son-is-alive-recovery-ghost-gun/65-73bb1336-b270-47ab-91e9-ed57c8249e57?fbclid=IwAR3-aeJLFgWhjo_Q7uxu_TtNIimYt96L63RZ9oexxLaFbYjMOBNTWnrCJcY

"During a national and local crime wave in schools with stabbings and with kids bringing guns into schools, they decided that that was the perfect time to remove the school resource officers and replace them with nothing," the Thomas family attorney, Alexander Bush, said. "So I think they share a significant portion of the guilt here for what happened."

Anonymous wrote:

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

DP. Sure, but there’s no reason to think reporting to an SRO versus a different officer within the police department (or reporting to the school) would have led a different outcome.

I think there’s good reason to have SROs, mind you. Special training and MOUs can help to establish and maintain the proper boundaries and roles between police/criminal matters and school/disciplinary matters. But that has little to do with safety.

Yes, and that special training and those boundaries already existed before Elrich decided to remove SROs. No true research went into that decision. School administrators unanimously wanted to keep them, but a small group of loud voices wanted them gone. No survey was conducted. The task group used to support the decision had only a handful of voices for a community of over 1 million. Ridiculous. Meanwhile, PGCPS conducted a county-wide survey and 80% of the many, many responses said to keep SROs.

Imagine the outcome if Elrich had decided to survey the community. I suspect that loud anti-police group wouldn’t have gained any traction.

Agreed.

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

DP. Sure, but there’s no reason to think reporting to an SRO versus a different officer within the police department (or reporting to the school) would have led a different outcome.

I think there’s good reason to have SROs, mind you. Special training and MOUs can help to establish and maintain the proper boundaries and roles between police/criminal matters and school/disciplinary matters. But that has little to do with safety.

Yes, and that special training and those boundaries already existed before Elrich decided to remove SROs. No true research went into that decision. School administrators unanimously wanted to keep them, but a small group of loud voices wanted them gone. No survey was conducted. The task group used to support the decision had only a handful of voices for a community of over 1 million. Ridiculous. Meanwhile, PGCPS conducted a county-wide survey and 80% of the many, many responses said to keep SROs.

Imagine the outcome if Elrich had decided to survey the community. I suspect that loud anti-police group wouldn’t have gained any traction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sued for what?

This will be interesting, as I recall he wouldn't tell first responders what had happened. Curious how that will be handled.

The child was shot at school. He endured at least 8 surgeries and will likely suffer for the rest of his life. MCPS can effing pay.

MCPS gets their revenue from tax dollars so its really you who are paying WTF. It's like suing lapd instead of OJ

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sued for what?

This will be interesting, as I recall he wouldn't tell first responders what had happened. Curious how that will be handled.

The child was shot at school. He endured at least 8 surgeries and will likely suffer for the rest of his life. MCPS can effing pay.

Yeah this will cost MCPS/MoCo millions. Your tax money at work. Fkers!

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

DP. Sure, but there’s no reason to think reporting to an SRO versus a different officer within the police department (or reporting to the school) would have led a different outcome.

I think there’s good reason to have SROs, mind you. Special training and MOUs can help to establish and maintain the proper boundaries and roles between police/criminal matters and school/disciplinary matters. But that has little to do with safety.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

? The person who schedules witnesses for court is the court clerk.

I suspect the pp is confused by the term “officer of the court,” not realizing that means something entirely different than “police officer.”

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s like suing Budweiser and Honda because you got run over by a drunk driver, because they have more money than the drunk who hit you. Ridiculous.

The bar/beer/grocery store who sold the beer/booze that the driver consumed has more insurance than the drunk driver.