Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gun control

Gun control has nothing to do with making MCPS safer. MCPS is doing nothing. Most parents wanted them to remove SRO's and police from the schools. They did.

How did the police do in Uvalde? Or Parkland?

Don’t get me wrong, I support having SROs in schools. I just think it is ridiculous to think they’d stop school shootings.

They didn't do well but that's not a justification to not have them. If they did their job they would have gone in, killed the killer and got those kids medical attention and that is the point.

If these incidents are representative, SROs will stand around, run away or arrest parents.

There have been SRO's who have also saved lives.

Neat. What percentage of the very, very long list of school shootings in the US since the 90s were stopped by SROs?

Hint: damn few.

Here’s a report with some statistics for you:
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-w0903-pub.pdf

It highlights 236 cases, of which 168 were adverted. It also contains twelve case studies of SRO-related events. On a personal level, I witnessed the SRO at my high school remove three knives and one gun from students, all taken without incident. He did a lot more than that, but those are the incidences I witnessed with my own eyes. The simple truth is there are many of us who have seen the value of SROs.

We all know the MoCo council pulled SROs without actually surveying the community. Instead, they listened to a small, yet vocal group. We also know that the principals were unanimous in wanting them to remain.

In almost every case in that truth the situation was diverted by a student, teacher, principal or behavioral specialist.

Having an armed guard at a school is the #1 reason a psycho thinks they need an AR15.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7887654/

SROs make schools less safe.

You are welcome to hate SROs, but you are also going to have to accept facts. If you actually look at that report, you’ll realize you are incorrect. As for being “diverted by a student,” I have personally witnessed how that actually happens… 4 times. Students don’t disarm their peers. Students tell adults, who get the SRO to do the disarming. If that’s what you mean by “divert,” then I think we would both have to agree SROs are still necessary.

Again… you may hate SROs all you want. I suspect the majority of MCPS is in support of them, but we won’t know until the BOE or the council decides to send out a survey. I doubt they will since they may not like the results.

I don’t hate SROs my family has many police officers, lawyers and judges. I know SROs never disarm a gunman, never… not once. They are ineffective window dressing.

They call for real police just like a teacher, student or principal can do. They are a useless step in the process.

You can love window dressing all you want but your ignorant anecdotes don’t mean SROs help with shootings. Gun control does.

DP here. You're right. We need Gun control but you're wrong that SROs make schools less safe and wrong when you said that they don't disarm students. At Clarksburg High, an SRO disarmed a student with a gun a few years ago.
All 25 HS principals disagree with you. And students disagree with your position that SROs are harmful. This is from the Blair HS newspaper written by a student recently:

Before MCPS decided to remove SROs, Blair benefited from a mentoring program run by its security team and then-SRO. As Blair's Security Team Leader, Darryl Cooper, describes it, "Everybody on security would take at least five kids [to] mentor throughout the year along with the SRO. So you had a police [officer] that was mentoring kids… they keep in touch with her now that she's been transferred out."
By limiting the presence of these officers on high school campuses, MCPS prevents them from continuing their tradition of mentoring at-risk students. According to the Department of Homeland Security, social isolation is a major risk factor for students who commit violence in schools. A core part of violence prevention is ensuring that at-risk students build positive relationships with mentors–teachers, counselors, coaches, and officers–who can guide them in the right direction.

No an SRO did NOT disarm a student at Clarksburg. A student told a teacher, who told an SRO, who told a principal (because the SRO didn’t even know where the student was/which class). They called the real police and the real police made a plan and called the kid out of class. Nobody was disarmed because he was not holding the gun.

What that kid needed was a mental health intervention before he brought a gun to school. Everybody knew he was unstable. The SRO didn’t stop him from bringing a gun”because he was so in tune with students”.

I agree principals need to identify dangerous kids and remove them but they can’t. They get moved around like the Damascus rapist and Sheinbein.

Mentoring at risk kids FFS. No just no. They need therapists/ psychiatrists and real parents/families. A cop is not a psychologist, most don’t even have a 4 year degree. Hey maybe the school plumber can mentor them too, they have more of an education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gun control

Gun control has nothing to do with making MCPS safer. MCPS is doing nothing. Most parents wanted them to remove SRO's and police from the schools. They did.

How did the police do in Uvalde? Or Parkland?

Don’t get me wrong, I support having SROs in schools. I just think it is ridiculous to think they’d stop school shootings.

They didn't do well but that's not a justification to not have them. If they did their job they would have gone in, killed the killer and got those kids medical attention and that is the point.

If these incidents are representative, SROs will stand around, run away or arrest parents.

There have been SRO's who have also saved lives.

Neat. What percentage of the very, very long list of school shootings in the US since the 90s were stopped by SROs?

Hint: damn few.

Here’s a report with some statistics for you:
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-w0903-pub.pdf

It highlights 236 cases, of which 168 were adverted. It also contains twelve case studies of SRO-related events. On a personal level, I witnessed the SRO at my high school remove three knives and one gun from students, all taken without incident. He did a lot more than that, but those are the incidences I witnessed with my own eyes. The simple truth is there are many of us who have seen the value of SROs.

We all know the MoCo council pulled SROs without actually surveying the community. Instead, they listened to a small, yet vocal group. We also know that the principals were unanimous in wanting them to remain.

In almost every case in that truth the situation was diverted by a student, teacher, principal or behavioral specialist.

Having an armed guard at a school is the #1 reason a psycho thinks they need an AR15.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7887654/

SROs make schools less safe.

You are welcome to hate SROs, but you are also going to have to accept facts. If you actually look at that report, you’ll realize you are incorrect. As for being “diverted by a student,” I have personally witnessed how that actually happens… 4 times. Students don’t disarm their peers. Students tell adults, who get the SRO to do the disarming. If that’s what you mean by “divert,” then I think we would both have to agree SROs are still necessary.

Again… you may hate SROs all you want. I suspect the majority of MCPS is in support of them, but we won’t know until the BOE or the council decides to send out a survey. I doubt they will since they may not like the results.

I don’t hate SROs my family has many police officers, lawyers and judges. I know SROs never disarm a gunman, never… not once. They are ineffective window dressing.

They call for real police just like a teacher, student or principal can do. They are a useless step in the process.

You can love window dressing all you want but your ignorant anecdotes don’t mean SROs help with shootings. Gun control does.

DP here. You're right. We need Gun control but you're wrong that SROs make schools less safe and wrong when you said that they don't disarm students. At Clarksburg High, an SRO disarmed a student with a gun a few years ago.
All 25 HS principals disagree with you. And students disagree with your position that SROs are harmful. This is from the Blair HS newspaper written by a student recently:

Before MCPS decided to remove SROs, Blair benefited from a mentoring program run by its security team and then-SRO. As Blair's Security Team Leader, Darryl Cooper, describes it, "Everybody on security would take at least five kids [to] mentor throughout the year along with the SRO. So you had a police [officer] that was mentoring kids… they keep in touch with her now that she's been transferred out."
By limiting the presence of these officers on high school campuses, MCPS prevents them from continuing their tradition of mentoring at-risk students. According to the Department of Homeland Security, social isolation is a major risk factor for students who commit violence in schools. A core part of violence prevention is ensuring that at-risk students build positive relationships with mentors–teachers, counselors, coaches, and officers–who can guide them in the right direction.

No an SRO did NOT disarm a student at Clarksburg. A student told a teacher, who told an SRO, who told a principal (because the SRO didn’t even know where the student was/which class). They called the real police and the real police made a plan and called the kid out of class. Nobody was disarmed because he was not holding the gun.

What that kid needed was a mental health intervention before he brought a gun to school. Everybody knew he was unstable. The SRO didn’t stop him from bringing a gun”because he was so in tune with students”.

I agree principals need to identify dangerous kids and remove them but they can’t. They get moved around like the Damascus rapist and Sheinbein.

Mentoring at risk kids FFS. No just no. They need therapists/ psychiatrists and real parents/families. A cop is not a psychologist, most don’t even have a 4 year degree. Hey maybe the school plumber can mentor them too, they have more of an education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gun control

Gun control has nothing to do with making MCPS safer. MCPS is doing nothing. Most parents wanted them to remove SRO's and police from the schools. They did.

How did the police do in Uvalde? Or Parkland?

Don’t get me wrong, I support having SROs in schools. I just think it is ridiculous to think they’d stop school shootings.

They didn't do well but that's not a justification to not have them. If they did their job they would have gone in, killed the killer and got those kids medical attention and that is the point.

If these incidents are representative, SROs will stand around, run away or arrest parents.

There have been SRO's who have also saved lives.

Neat. What percentage of the very, very long list of school shootings in the US since the 90s were stopped by SROs?

Hint: damn few.

Here’s a report with some statistics for you:
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-w0903-pub.pdf

It highlights 236 cases, of which 168 were adverted. It also contains twelve case studies of SRO-related events. On a personal level, I witnessed the SRO at my high school remove three knives and one gun from students, all taken without incident. He did a lot more than that, but those are the incidences I witnessed with my own eyes. The simple truth is there are many of us who have seen the value of SROs.

We all know the MoCo council pulled SROs without actually surveying the community. Instead, they listened to a small, yet vocal group. We also know that the principals were unanimous in wanting them to remain.

In almost every case in that truth the situation was diverted by a student, teacher, principal or behavioral specialist.

Having an armed guard at a school is the #1 reason a psycho thinks they need an AR15.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7887654/

SROs make schools less safe.

You are welcome to hate SROs, but you are also going to have to accept facts. If you actually look at that report, you’ll realize you are incorrect. As for being “diverted by a student,” I have personally witnessed how that actually happens… 4 times. Students don’t disarm their peers. Students tell adults, who get the SRO to do the disarming. If that’s what you mean by “divert,” then I think we would both have to agree SROs are still necessary.

Again… you may hate SROs all you want. I suspect the majority of MCPS is in support of them, but we won’t know until the BOE or the council decides to send out a survey. I doubt they will since they may not like the results.

I don’t hate SROs my family has many police officers, lawyers and judges. I know SROs never disarm a gunman, never… not once. They are ineffective window dressing.

They call for real police just like a teacher, student or principal can do. They are a useless step in the process.

You can love window dressing all you want but your ignorant anecdotes don’t mean SROs help with shootings. Gun control does.

DP here. You're right. We need Gun control but you're wrong that SROs make schools less safe and wrong when you said that they don't disarm students. At Clarksburg High, an SRO disarmed a student with a gun a few years ago.
All 25 HS principals disagree with you. And students disagree with your position that SROs are harmful. This is from the Blair HS newspaper written by a student recently:

Before MCPS decided to remove SROs, Blair benefited from a mentoring program run by its security team and then-SRO. As Blair's Security Team Leader, Darryl Cooper, describes it, "Everybody on security would take at least five kids [to] mentor throughout the year along with the SRO. So you had a police [officer] that was mentoring kids… they keep in touch with her now that she's been transferred out."
By limiting the presence of these officers on high school campuses, MCPS prevents them from continuing their tradition of mentoring at-risk students. According to the Department of Homeland Security, social isolation is a major risk factor for students who commit violence in schools. A core part of violence prevention is ensuring that at-risk students build positive relationships with mentors–teachers, counselors, coaches, and officers–who can guide them in the right direction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gun control

Gun control has nothing to do with making MCPS safer. MCPS is doing nothing. Most parents wanted them to remove SRO's and police from the schools. They did.

How did the police do in Uvalde? Or Parkland?

Don’t get me wrong, I support having SROs in schools. I just think it is ridiculous to think they’d stop school shootings.

They didn't do well but that's not a justification to not have them. If they did their job they would have gone in, killed the killer and got those kids medical attention and that is the point.

If these incidents are representative, SROs will stand around, run away or arrest parents.

There have been SRO's who have also saved lives.

Neat. What percentage of the very, very long list of school shootings in the US since the 90s were stopped by SROs?

Hint: damn few.

Here’s a report with some statistics for you:
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-w0903-pub.pdf

It highlights 236 cases, of which 168 were adverted. It also contains twelve case studies of SRO-related events. On a personal level, I witnessed the SRO at my high school remove three knives and one gun from students, all taken without incident. He did a lot more than that, but those are the incidences I witnessed with my own eyes. The simple truth is there are many of us who have seen the value of SROs.

We all know the MoCo council pulled SROs without actually surveying the community. Instead, they listened to a small, yet vocal group. We also know that the principals were unanimous in wanting them to remain.

In almost every case in that truth the situation was diverted by a student, teacher, principal or behavioral specialist.

Having an armed guard at a school is the #1 reason a psycho thinks they need an AR15.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7887654/

SROs make schools less safe.

You are welcome to hate SROs, but you are also going to have to accept facts. If you actually look at that report, you’ll realize you are incorrect. As for being “diverted by a student,” I have personally witnessed how that actually happens… 4 times. Students don’t disarm their peers. Students tell adults, who get the SRO to do the disarming. If that’s what you mean by “divert,” then I think we would both have to agree SROs are still necessary.

Again… you may hate SROs all you want. I suspect the majority of MCPS is in support of them, but we won’t know until the BOE or the council decides to send out a survey. I doubt they will since they may not like the results.

I don’t hate SROs my family has many police officers, lawyers and judges. I know SROs never disarm a gunman, never… not once. They are ineffective window dressing.

They call for real police just like a teacher, student or principal can do. They are a useless step in the process.

You can love window dressing all you want but your ignorant anecdotes don’t mean SROs help with shootings. Gun control does.

My statistics and real-world anecdotes were countered with insults. When you can back up your beliefs with something other than hate, we may get somewhere. Until then, I’ll just be thankful that logic is prevailing and SROs are being reinstated.

You don’t have statistics and if you’ve seen 4 SROs disarm students you are delusion and need therapy.

Being ignorant is not an insult it’s a call to educate yourself.

If a farmer told me I was ignorant about farming it would be a correct statement not an insult and I’d listen Instead of talk.

SRO reinstatement is a.waste of money and a call to a psycho they need more fire power. Enjoy your future AR15 day.

So, what is your "better" solution?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gun control

Gun control has nothing to do with making MCPS safer. MCPS is doing nothing. Most parents wanted them to remove SRO's and police from the schools. They did.

How did the police do in Uvalde? Or Parkland?

Don’t get me wrong, I support having SROs in schools. I just think it is ridiculous to think they’d stop school shootings.

They didn't do well but that's not a justification to not have them. If they did their job they would have gone in, killed the killer and got those kids medical attention and that is the point.

If these incidents are representative, SROs will stand around, run away or arrest parents.

There have been SRO's who have also saved lives.

Neat. What percentage of the very, very long list of school shootings in the US since the 90s were stopped by SROs?

Hint: damn few.

Here’s a report with some statistics for you:
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-w0903-pub.pdf

It highlights 236 cases, of which 168 were adverted. It also contains twelve case studies of SRO-related events. On a personal level, I witnessed the SRO at my high school remove three knives and one gun from students, all taken without incident. He did a lot more than that, but those are the incidences I witnessed with my own eyes. The simple truth is there are many of us who have seen the value of SROs.

We all know the MoCo council pulled SROs without actually surveying the community. Instead, they listened to a small, yet vocal group. We also know that the principals were unanimous in wanting them to remain.

In almost every case in that truth the situation was diverted by a student, teacher, principal or behavioral specialist.

Having an armed guard at a school is the #1 reason a psycho thinks they need an AR15.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7887654/

SROs make schools less safe.

You are welcome to hate SROs, but you are also going to have to accept facts. If you actually look at that report, you’ll realize you are incorrect. As for being “diverted by a student,” I have personally witnessed how that actually happens… 4 times. Students don’t disarm their peers. Students tell adults, who get the SRO to do the disarming. If that’s what you mean by “divert,” then I think we would both have to agree SROs are still necessary.

Again… you may hate SROs all you want. I suspect the majority of MCPS is in support of them, but we won’t know until the BOE or the council decides to send out a survey. I doubt they will since they may not like the results.

I don’t hate SROs my family has many police officers, lawyers and judges. I know SROs never disarm a gunman, never… not once. They are ineffective window dressing.

They call for real police just like a teacher, student or principal can do. They are a useless step in the process.

You can love window dressing all you want but your ignorant anecdotes don’t mean SROs help with shootings. Gun control does.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gun control

Gun control has nothing to do with making MCPS safer. MCPS is doing nothing. Most parents wanted them to remove SRO's and police from the schools. They did.

How did the police do in Uvalde? Or Parkland?

Don’t get me wrong, I support having SROs in schools. I just think it is ridiculous to think they’d stop school shootings.

They didn't do well but that's not a justification to not have them. If they did their job they would have gone in, killed the killer and got those kids medical attention and that is the point.

If these incidents are representative, SROs will stand around, run away or arrest parents.

There have been SRO's who have also saved lives.

Neat. What percentage of the very, very long list of school shootings in the US since the 90s were stopped by SROs?

Hint: damn few.

Here’s a report with some statistics for you:
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-w0903-pub.pdf

It highlights 236 cases, of which 168 were adverted. It also contains twelve case studies of SRO-related events. On a personal level, I witnessed the SRO at my high school remove three knives and one gun from students, all taken without incident. He did a lot more than that, but those are the incidences I witnessed with my own eyes. The simple truth is there are many of us who have seen the value of SROs.

We all know the MoCo council pulled SROs without actually surveying the community. Instead, they listened to a small, yet vocal group. We also know that the principals were unanimous in wanting them to remain.

In almost every case in that truth the situation was diverted by a student, teacher, principal or behavioral specialist.

Having an armed guard at a school is the #1 reason a psycho thinks they need an AR15.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7887654/

SROs make schools less safe.

Here is a bigger study that found the exact opposite. Of the 652 cases they studied (after starting with a 1,400 case sample frame), presence of a police officer (a more precise category than "armed guard") is associated with a shooting being non-fatal rather than fatal.

It also showed only about 26% of shooters had mental health problems.



https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/creation-school-shooting-open-source-database-fuels-understanding?fbclid=IwAR0r8LS5KGW90ESB05ub2Hs2zgkyxrGAxAkYIDomsLWKdZBk0jEYt3OSR9Y#noteReferrer1


https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/301665.pdf

What does that really mean? There is no way these shooters DON'T have mental health issues. They may not be diagnosed but no one in their right mind does this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gun control

Gun control has nothing to do with making MCPS safer. MCPS is doing nothing. Most parents wanted them to remove SRO's and police from the schools. They did.

How did the police do in Uvalde? Or Parkland?

Don’t get me wrong, I support having SROs in schools. I just think it is ridiculous to think they’d stop school shootings.

They didn't do well but that's not a justification to not have them. If they did their job they would have gone in, killed the killer and got those kids medical attention and that is the point.

If these incidents are representative, SROs will stand around, run away or arrest parents.

There have been SRO's who have also saved lives.

Neat. What percentage of the very, very long list of school shootings in the US since the 90s were stopped by SROs?

Hint: damn few.

Here’s a report with some statistics for you:
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-w0903-pub.pdf

It highlights 236 cases, of which 168 were adverted. It also contains twelve case studies of SRO-related events. On a personal level, I witnessed the SRO at my high school remove three knives and one gun from students, all taken without incident. He did a lot more than that, but those are the incidences I witnessed with my own eyes. The simple truth is there are many of us who have seen the value of SROs.

We all know the MoCo council pulled SROs without actually surveying the community. Instead, they listened to a small, yet vocal group. We also know that the principals were unanimous in wanting them to remain.

In almost every case in that truth the situation was diverted by a student, teacher, principal or behavioral specialist.

Having an armed guard at a school is the #1 reason a psycho thinks they need an AR15.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7887654/

SROs make schools less safe.

Here is a bigger study that found the exact opposite. Of the 652 cases they studied (after starting with a 1,400 case sample frame), presence of a police officer (a more precise category than "armed guard") is associated with a shooting being non-fatal rather than fatal.

It also showed only about 26% of shooters had mental health problems.



https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/creation-school-shooting-open-source-database-fuels-understanding?fbclid=IwAR0r8LS5KGW90ESB05ub2Hs2zgkyxrGAxAkYIDomsLWKdZBk0jEYt3OSR9Y#noteReferrer1


https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/301665.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gun control

Gun control has nothing to do with making MCPS safer. MCPS is doing nothing. Most parents wanted them to remove SRO's and police from the schools. They did.

How did the police do in Uvalde? Or Parkland?

Don’t get me wrong, I support having SROs in schools. I just think it is ridiculous to think they’d stop school shootings.

They didn't do well but that's not a justification to not have them. If they did their job they would have gone in, killed the killer and got those kids medical attention and that is the point.

If these incidents are representative, SROs will stand around, run away or arrest parents.

There have been SRO's who have also saved lives.

Neat. What percentage of the very, very long list of school shootings in the US since the 90s were stopped by SROs?

Hint: damn few.

Here’s a report with some statistics for you:
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-w0903-pub.pdf

It highlights 236 cases, of which 168 were adverted. It also contains twelve case studies of SRO-related events. On a personal level, I witnessed the SRO at my high school remove three knives and one gun from students, all taken without incident. He did a lot more than that, but those are the incidences I witnessed with my own eyes. The simple truth is there are many of us who have seen the value of SROs.

We all know the MoCo council pulled SROs without actually surveying the community. Instead, they listened to a small, yet vocal group. We also know that the principals were unanimous in wanting them to remain.

In almost every case in that truth the situation was diverted by a student, teacher, principal or behavioral specialist.

Having an armed guard at a school is the #1 reason a psycho thinks they need an AR15.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7887654/

SROs make schools less safe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gun control

Gun control has nothing to do with making MCPS safer. MCPS is doing nothing. Most parents wanted them to remove SRO's and police from the schools. They did.

How did the police do in Uvalde? Or Parkland?

Don’t get me wrong, I support having SROs in schools. I just think it is ridiculous to think they’d stop school shootings.

They didn't do well but that's not a justification to not have them. If they did their job they would have gone in, killed the killer and got those kids medical attention and that is the point.

If these incidents are representative, SROs will stand around, run away or arrest parents.

There have been SRO's who have also saved lives.

Neat. What percentage of the very, very long list of school shootings in the US since the 90s were stopped by SROs?

Hint: damn few.

Here’s a report with some statistics for you:
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-w0903-pub.pdf

It highlights 236 cases, of which 168 were adverted. It also contains twelve case studies of SRO-related events. On a personal level, I witnessed the SRO at my high school remove three knives and one gun from students, all taken without incident. He did a lot more than that, but those are the incidences I witnessed with my own eyes. The simple truth is there are many of us who have seen the value of SROs.

We all know the MoCo council pulled SROs without actually surveying the community. Instead, they listened to a small, yet vocal group. We also know that the principals were unanimous in wanting them to remain.

In almost every case in that truth the situation was diverted by a student, teacher, principal or behavioral specialist.

Having an armed guard at a school is the #1 reason a psycho thinks they need an AR15.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7887654/

SROs make schools less safe.

You are welcome to hate SROs, but you are also going to have to accept facts. If you actually look at that report, you’ll realize you are incorrect. As for being “diverted by a student,” I have personally witnessed how that actually happens… 4 times. Students don’t disarm their peers. Students tell adults, who get the SRO to do the disarming. If that’s what you mean by “divert,” then I think we would both have to agree SROs are still necessary.

Again… you may hate SROs all you want. I suspect the majority of MCPS is in support of them, but we won’t know until the BOE or the council decides to send out a survey. I doubt they will since they may not like the results.

They are bring them back in a modified form. One good thing MCPS is doing this year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gun control

Gun control has nothing to do with making MCPS safer. MCPS is doing nothing. Most parents wanted them to remove SRO's and police from the schools. They did.

How did the police do in Uvalde? Or Parkland?

Don’t get me wrong, I support having SROs in schools. I just think it is ridiculous to think they’d stop school shootings.

They didn't do well but that's not a justification to not have them. If they did their job they would have gone in, killed the killer and got those kids medical attention and that is the point.

If these incidents are representative, SROs will stand around, run away or arrest parents.

There have been SRO's who have also saved lives.

Neat. What percentage of the very, very long list of school shootings in the US since the 90s were stopped by SROs?

Hint: damn few.

Here’s a report with some statistics for you:
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-w0903-pub.pdf

It highlights 236 cases, of which 168 were adverted. It also contains twelve case studies of SRO-related events. On a personal level, I witnessed the SRO at my high school remove three knives and one gun from students, all taken without incident. He did a lot more than that, but those are the incidences I witnessed with my own eyes. The simple truth is there are many of us who have seen the value of SROs.

We all know the MoCo council pulled SROs without actually surveying the community. Instead, they listened to a small, yet vocal group. We also know that the principals were unanimous in wanting them to remain.

In almost every case in that truth the situation was diverted by a student, teacher, principal or behavioral specialist.

Having an armed guard at a school is the #1 reason a psycho thinks they need an AR15.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7887654/

SROs make schools less safe.

You are welcome to hate SROs, but you are also going to have to accept facts. If you actually look at that report, you’ll realize you are incorrect. As for being “diverted by a student,” I have personally witnessed how that actually happens… 4 times. Students don’t disarm their peers. Students tell adults, who get the SRO to do the disarming. If that’s what you mean by “divert,” then I think we would both have to agree SROs are still necessary.

Again… you may hate SROs all you want. I suspect the majority of MCPS is in support of them, but we won’t know until the BOE or the council decides to send out a survey. I doubt they will since they may not like the results.

I don’t hate SROs my family has many police officers, lawyers and judges. I know SROs never disarm a gunman, never… not once. They are ineffective window dressing.

They call for real police just like a teacher, student or principal can do. They are a useless step in the process.

You can love window dressing all you want but your ignorant anecdotes don’t mean SROs help with shootings. Gun control does.

My statistics and real-world anecdotes were countered with insults. When you can back up your beliefs with something other than hate, we may get somewhere. Until then, I’ll just be thankful that logic is prevailing and SROs are being reinstated.

You don’t have statistics and if you’ve seen 4 SROs disarm students you are delusion and need therapy.

Being ignorant is not an insult it’s a call to educate yourself.

If a farmer told me I was ignorant about farming it would be a correct statement not an insult and I’d listen Instead of talk.

SRO reinstatement is a.waste of money and a call to a psycho they need more fire power. Enjoy your future AR15 day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gun control

Gun control has nothing to do with making MCPS safer. MCPS is doing nothing. Most parents wanted them to remove SRO's and police from the schools. They did.

How did the police do in Uvalde? Or Parkland?

Don’t get me wrong, I support having SROs in schools. I just think it is ridiculous to think they’d stop school shootings.

They didn't do well but that's not a justification to not have them. If they did their job they would have gone in, killed the killer and got those kids medical attention and that is the point.

If these incidents are representative, SROs will stand around, run away or arrest parents.

There have been SRO's who have also saved lives.

Neat. What percentage of the very, very long list of school shootings in the US since the 90s were stopped by SROs?

Hint: damn few.

Here’s a report with some statistics for you:
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-w0903-pub.pdf

It highlights 236 cases, of which 168 were adverted. It also contains twelve case studies of SRO-related events. On a personal level, I witnessed the SRO at my high school remove three knives and one gun from students, all taken without incident. He did a lot more than that, but those are the incidences I witnessed with my own eyes. The simple truth is there are many of us who have seen the value of SROs.

We all know the MoCo council pulled SROs without actually surveying the community. Instead, they listened to a small, yet vocal group. We also know that the principals were unanimous in wanting them to remain.

In almost every case in that truth the situation was diverted by a student, teacher, principal or behavioral specialist.

Having an armed guard at a school is the #1 reason a psycho thinks they need an AR15.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7887654/

SROs make schools less safe.

You are welcome to hate SROs, but you are also going to have to accept facts. If you actually look at that report, you’ll realize you are incorrect. As for being “diverted by a student,” I have personally witnessed how that actually happens… 4 times. Students don’t disarm their peers. Students tell adults, who get the SRO to do the disarming. If that’s what you mean by “divert,” then I think we would both have to agree SROs are still necessary.

Again… you may hate SROs all you want. I suspect the majority of MCPS is in support of them, but we won’t know until the BOE or the council decides to send out a survey. I doubt they will since they may not like the results.

I don’t hate SROs my family has many police officers, lawyers and judges. I know SROs never disarm a gunman, never… not once. They are ineffective window dressing.

They call for real police just like a teacher, student or principal can do. They are a useless step in the process.

You can love window dressing all you want but your ignorant anecdotes don’t mean SROs help with shootings. Gun control does.

My statistics and real-world anecdotes were countered with insults. When you can back up your beliefs with something other than hate, we may get somewhere. Until then, I’ll just be thankful that logic is prevailing and SROs are being reinstated.

You don’t have statistics and if you’ve seen 4 SROs disarm students you are delusion and need therapy.

Being ignorant is not an insult it’s a call to educate yourself.

If a farmer told me I was ignorant about farming it would be a correct statement not an insult and I’d listen Instead of talk.

SRO reinstatement is a.waste of money and a call to a psycho they need more fire power. Enjoy your future AR15 day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gun control

Gun control has nothing to do with making MCPS safer. MCPS is doing nothing. Most parents wanted them to remove SRO's and police from the schools. They did.

How did the police do in Uvalde? Or Parkland?

Don’t get me wrong, I support having SROs in schools. I just think it is ridiculous to think they’d stop school shootings.

They didn't do well but that's not a justification to not have them. If they did their job they would have gone in, killed the killer and got those kids medical attention and that is the point.

If these incidents are representative, SROs will stand around, run away or arrest parents.

There have been SRO's who have also saved lives.

Neat. What percentage of the very, very long list of school shootings in the US since the 90s were stopped by SROs?

Hint: damn few.

Here’s a report with some statistics for you:
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-w0903-pub.pdf

It highlights 236 cases, of which 168 were adverted. It also contains twelve case studies of SRO-related events. On a personal level, I witnessed the SRO at my high school remove three knives and one gun from students, all taken without incident. He did a lot more than that, but those are the incidences I witnessed with my own eyes. The simple truth is there are many of us who have seen the value of SROs.

We all know the MoCo council pulled SROs without actually surveying the community. Instead, they listened to a small, yet vocal group. We also know that the principals were unanimous in wanting them to remain.

In almost every case in that truth the situation was diverted by a student, teacher, principal or behavioral specialist.

Having an armed guard at a school is the #1 reason a psycho thinks they need an AR15.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7887654/

SROs make schools less safe.

You are welcome to hate SROs, but you are also going to have to accept facts. If you actually look at that report, you’ll realize you are incorrect. As for being “diverted by a student,” I have personally witnessed how that actually happens… 4 times. Students don’t disarm their peers. Students tell adults, who get the SRO to do the disarming. If that’s what you mean by “divert,” then I think we would both have to agree SROs are still necessary.

Again… you may hate SROs all you want. I suspect the majority of MCPS is in support of them, but we won’t know until the BOE or the council decides to send out a survey. I doubt they will since they may not like the results.

I don’t hate SROs my family has many police officers, lawyers and judges. I know SROs never disarm a gunman, never… not once. They are ineffective window dressing.

They call for real police just like a teacher, student or principal can do. They are a useless step in the process.

You can love window dressing all you want but your ignorant anecdotes don’t mean SROs help with shootings. Gun control does.

Clearly you don't read the news:

https://www.police1.com/active-shooter/articles/armed-sro-stopped-md-school-shooting-2-students-shot-BvrrqaXiOdlQlnqq/

Just one example.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gun control

Gun control has nothing to do with making MCPS safer. MCPS is doing nothing. Most parents wanted them to remove SRO's and police from the schools. They did.

How did the police do in Uvalde? Or Parkland?

Don’t get me wrong, I support having SROs in schools. I just think it is ridiculous to think they’d stop school shootings.

They didn't do well but that's not a justification to not have them. If they did their job they would have gone in, killed the killer and got those kids medical attention and that is the point.

If these incidents are representative, SROs will stand around, run away or arrest parents.

There have been SRO's who have also saved lives.

Neat. What percentage of the very, very long list of school shootings in the US since the 90s were stopped by SROs?

Hint: damn few.

Here’s a report with some statistics for you:
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-w0903-pub.pdf

It highlights 236 cases, of which 168 were adverted. It also contains twelve case studies of SRO-related events. On a personal level, I witnessed the SRO at my high school remove three knives and one gun from students, all taken without incident. He did a lot more than that, but those are the incidences I witnessed with my own eyes. The simple truth is there are many of us who have seen the value of SROs.

We all know the MoCo council pulled SROs without actually surveying the community. Instead, they listened to a small, yet vocal group. We also know that the principals were unanimous in wanting them to remain.

In almost every case in that truth the situation was diverted by a student, teacher, principal or behavioral specialist.

Having an armed guard at a school is the #1 reason a psycho thinks they need an AR15.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7887654/

SROs make schools less safe.

You are welcome to hate SROs, but you are also going to have to accept facts. If you actually look at that report, you’ll realize you are incorrect. As for being “diverted by a student,” I have personally witnessed how that actually happens… 4 times. Students don’t disarm their peers. Students tell adults, who get the SRO to do the disarming. If that’s what you mean by “divert,” then I think we would both have to agree SROs are still necessary.

Again… you may hate SROs all you want. I suspect the majority of MCPS is in support of them, but we won’t know until the BOE or the council decides to send out a survey. I doubt they will since they may not like the results.

I don’t hate SROs my family has many police officers, lawyers and judges. I know SROs never disarm a gunman, never… not once. They are ineffective window dressing.

They call for real police just like a teacher, student or principal can do. They are a useless step in the process.

You can love window dressing all you want but your ignorant anecdotes don’t mean SROs help with shootings. Gun control does.

My statistics and real-world anecdotes were countered with insults. When you can back up your beliefs with something other than hate, we may get somewhere. Until then, I’ll just be thankful that logic is prevailing and SROs are being reinstated.