TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:I support teachers being armed. I also strongly support the concept of a plan for what they will do when something does go down. For most cases, when there is a shooting, I suggest that the armed teachers stay with their students in the locked room. I understand that this has a flaw since I also doubt we will see a majority of teachers armed.

And for those who think the teacher will never leave his or her students, I would point out that almost every school of which I am aware has a plan for specific teachers to respond to trouble areas and handle or help handle it. This is true even in schools with police officers on campus. I know that most of these plans are based on students being involved in fist fights, but those teachers are most likely to be the type of person who would run to the sound of guns. I really don't have too much of a problem with this, IF the teachers are given training in how to handle these situations.

That is actually one of the few parts of the school marshal program I did like. The teachers all must get some training in how to handle these situations. A school can allow armed teachers without participating in the program by just writing a policy on staff members who have a CHL carrying on campus.

And for the Chief who is worried about his officers not being able to tell the good guys from the bad guys, I have a few suggestions. The first, and strongest, is to get better officers and give them better training. this was one of the arguments against CHLs way back when. It is simply not valid because officers need to be able to tell the difference in everyday life and cannot just start shooting anyone with a gun anywhere.

And, as a certified TCOLE trainer, I will offer to teach the class. It would probably only be about a five minute class. Using examples, I would simply show that the good guy is the one who is not shooting or is only shooting at one other person who is also armed and who obeys when you tell him to do something. The bad guy is the one shooting at other people indiscriminately and points his weapon at the officer when the officer yells a command.

I would have to acknowledge that the good guy may react wrong when under the stress of a live fire situation, but these are the guidelines I would teach.

Thank you for your comments, Steve. May I use them if I talk to the chief in person?

Perhaps I'm naive but one of the most attractive parts of the Argyle program is the removal of the gun free zone signs and replacing them with a warning sign that school staff may be armed and will act to protect their kids. I have a lot of problems with people who won't at least go that far.

jmra wrote:What I'm hearing is some responses from people who have no clue what happens during a lock down.
I won't go into our procedures, but I will say that almost every plan I've seen has teachers with students locked in their room. Staff without students at that time have other responsibilities. Often this is going to be administrators and support staff.
If I were putting together the plan, I would strongly urge my admin and support staff to receive the proper training and to be armed as they are most likely going to be the first point of contact. Almost all of these individuals already carry radios which also helps in communicating current status.
I'm not opposed to teachers in the room being armed, but I will say that I know teachers with CHLs that would totally fall apart in a situation like this and a gun is the last thing you would want them to have.
I'm not a big fan of the whole shrink work up, but I do believe that employees who wish to be armed should go through some realistic active shooter training to see how they will react in stressful situations.

I understand your point but would counter that, in a life or death situation, may people seem to find a way to act in ways that the rest of us would not have anticipated. I don't disagree that teachers who are carrying in school would benefit from active shooter training but many LEOs receive a very limited amount of that same training. I'll always side with more training being better. But I'm not sure that it needs to be the minimum price of admission. As I've argued recently with others, there is little difference between being in the candy isle at Wal-Mart before halloween with kids as far as the eye can see, having a CHL and having a BG situation develop and being a school and having that same kind of situation develop. Churches, museums (Perot comes to mind) and other places where kids can and do congregate in number present the same problems as a school.

What I'm looking for in this thread are reasons why my position that the school is not really unique environment is incorrect. Yep, there are lots of kids but there are lots of kids at a church bible school, too.

jbarn wrote:In a school, and armed teacher might feel compelled or emboldened to go in search of the shooter. In a mall, most SOPs for the mall is evacuate/hide. I know I teach CHLers to not go hunting active shooters just because of this concern.

That said, I firmly believe an armed teacher could leave the police with nothing to do but take a report. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Teachers can be taught how to react upon arrival of armed LE.

My thoughts exactly. Police may have to deal with a CHL who hasn't had the kind of extra training that a teacher would have to go through to be allowed to carry in a school. I would think part of that training would be how not to get shot by the police when they arrive.

While I do understand that there may be some police wanna-be's around, I cannot imagine someone with that kind of attitude being selected for a school program. It is much more likely to happen during a shooting in a commercial establishment. Except that I haven't seen an example of that yet. A case could be made for some of the store shootings where the intended victim follows the BG out of the building but if it were me, I won't want the possibility of the BG coming back at me and would want to make sure that the threat didn't quickly redevelop.

My friend shares you sentiment about the police being needed only to take a report. That is a far better outcome than dead kids for a lot of us.

Please indulge me a little background.

I had lunch with a guy that I know today. He is in the process of trying to get a school district to reconsider their rejection of an Argyle-like program. He described his actions and admits that he has a daunting task before him. But he has a number of things working in his favor - including a non-scientific survey of the area with 1,500 showing that 70% of the respondents favor his proposal.

Unfortunately, the district covers several municipalities and it is reported (unconfirmed) that all of the chiefs of police oppose the program. This is quite interesting because the Argyle chief initially opposed the plan, too, but was won over and now oversees that program. But my goal here is not to talk about the Argyle program specifically.

One of the chiefs that my friend will be talking to is quoted as opposing having armed teachers in a school because his officers would not be able to tell, at the distance down a hallway, whether the person was good or bad. Maybe it shouldn't but that comment scares the heck out of me.

There are several large supermarkets in that chief's area and I occasionally go to at least one of those. I have a lot of problem understanding how a situation that might go down in one of those stores tomorrow with a CHL would be different than a school with an armed teacher.

I understand that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that as a hired professional, the chief has to use his best judgement in matters brought before him. But CHL in Texas is settled. Its here and a fact of life. I do understand that it could complicate a public gunfight just like an armed teacher could complicate an active shooter in a school. Life can be complicated and we should be preparing for those complications.

I have to admit that, in the back of my mind, was the situation with man in Ft. Worth at his home and now, today, the report of a teen killed with what was reported as a WII controller. But I'm concerned enough that I may schedule a meeting with the chief and wanted a chance to hash out my thoughts here rather than for the first time in front of the chief.

One last point. My friend today is ex-military and an ex-LEO. He trained extensively with SWAT in North Texas. He talked about the very limited training that he had as an LEO in active shooter situations. I'm wondering if the chief understands that about his officers as well as my friend does and that is the basis for his concern.

I'm listening. What is that I'm missing?