Argyle ISD School Employee Carry

[jmra]

As a Public School worker I hope more will do this.

[C-dub]

I understand that the psych eval was necessary for this to be approved by the sheeple and isn't a terrible idea anyway. However, I'm curious to know how often police officers undergo a psych eval.

[jbarn]

I understand that the psych eval was necessary for this to be approved by the sheeple and isn't a terrible idea anyway. However, I'm curious to know how often police officers undergo a psych eval.

How often?

At least once as a prerequisite to employment. Why?

Just as a point of comparison, Texas has a classification in the security industry called Person Protection Officer. We are armed, plainclothes private security who provide personal protection for individuals. Think "armed plainclothes bodyguard". In addition to more training, passing a pysch eval is required; specifically, the MMPI II.

[C-dub]

I may have been mistaken because I can't find it now, but I thought I read where the school employees that would be carrying would have to undergo periodic psych evals to maintain there status just like other training. That only made me wonder how often LEOs submit to periodic psych evals.

[srothstein]

C-dub, LEOs must take a psych eval before being hired. They can then be ordered to take another at any time during their career, by either the agency they work for or by the State. The most common eval is a fitness for duty evaluation that is generally ordered after any critical incident or if there is some suspicion of a problem (usually indicated by behavior).

This means that some officers get one eval in the beginning of their career and others may get several over the course of the careers.

And I just checked the law and it does require a school marshal to be reexamined psychologically for every renewal. That is unfair when compared to cops. But, at the same time, it is not a real psych eval. The law requires TCOLE to consult with psychologists to develop an examination that they can administer to determine psychological fitness and then requires this exam for renewal also. The wording implies (to me) that it will be a written exam and not an interview with psychologists or a real psych eval. That mitigates the unfairness somewhat, but makes me question the whole purpose of the test. I do not believe you can determine psychological fitness through any simple written test without at least one interview. I would look for this to be modified over the next few sessions as we see how many districts adopt the school marshal program.

[C-dub]

Thanks Steve. I thought I had read that somewhere, although, I'm still not sure where.

It does seem unfair, but I understand why. LEOs do get more training for their job and generally go through a more rigorous weeding out process that those getting a CHL do not. And, for some reason, most people don't look at LEOs as being people like anyone else. So, maybe this was one of those things that was needed to get it accepted and may be dropped at some point or, like you say, is not a real psych evaluation and so maybe it isn't that big a deal.

[chasfm11]

I thought that one of the ideas behind the Argyle plan was to use some existing school personnel as marshals as opposed to hiring external ones. If that is the case, I'm assuming and hoping that the background checks and evaluations that are already done for district employees could be used toward confirming suitability. I'd hate to think that it is necessary to start over completely when considering someone to carry in a school. I do understand and accept that additional training is needed and should be required. My point is if a completely new analysis is needed for them to carry a gun in a school, maybe they shouldn't have been a school employee to begin with. Please don't jump on me because an LEO has to deal with life or death situations. I just don't believe that we should have people who would fail a psych evaluation working around kids. And I'm not suggesting that we do have that situation today.

[C-dub]

I thought that one of the ideas behind the Argyle plan was to use some existing school personnel as marshals as opposed to hiring external ones. If that is the case, I'm assuming and hoping that the background checks and evaluations that are already done for district employees could be used toward confirming suitability. I'd hate to think that it is necessary to start over completely when considering someone to carry in a school. I do understand and accept that additional training is needed and should be required. My point is if a completely new analysis is needed for them to carry a gun in a school, maybe they shouldn't have been a school employee to begin with. Please don't jump on me because an LEO has to deal with life or death situations. I just don't believe that we should have people who would fail a psych evaluation working around kids. And I'm not suggesting that we do have that situation today.

I suspect the background check done for employment as a teacher might not be as comprehensive as one they will want to allow individuals to carry guns. I also suspect that no psych eval has been performed at all so far as a condition of employment.

[NOMW]

They have posted signs that sends a message..."Not on My Watch"

[RoyGBiv]

They have posted signs that sends a message..."Not on My Watch"

Serious question...

Should we expect this sign to have any effect on the kind of people who would do harm to our kids?
Is this going to dissuade a mentally ill person from shooting?
or... does it simply provide warning to those who are planning harm?

I certainly like the sentiment, but I find myself wondering whether the net results are a plus or minus.

[C-dub]

They have posted signs that sends a message..."Not on My Watch"

Serious question...

Should we expect this sign to have any effect on the kind of people who would do harm to our kids?
Is this going to dissuade a mentally ill person from shooting?
or... does it simply provide warning to those who are planning harm?

I certainly like the sentiment, but I find myself wondering whether the net results are a plus or minus.

It did for the Aurora theater shooter. IIRC, he has stated that he chose that theater because it had a "no guns " sign and other theaters closer to him did not.

[txglock21]

They have posted signs that sends a message..."Not on My Watch"

Serious question...

Should we expect this sign to have any effect on the kind of people who would do harm to our kids?
Is this going to dissuade a mentally ill person from shooting?
or... does it simply provide warning to those who are planning harm?

I certainly like the sentiment, but I find myself wondering whether the net results are a plus or minus.

I don't know the answer to your question, but I would prefer this sign in front of my kid's school as opposed to any "gun free zone" sign.

[treeman]

I don't know how those type folks think, but if someone has a specific target the sign might very well mean nothing, but if on the other hand someone is just trying to make the news and get body count, it makes sense to me that the less potential resistance the better from their standpoint. I don't see the harm in a sign similiar to this. It certainly adds another concern for anyone contemplating a rampage and in a rural school district it takes away the probability that armed response is 10 or 15 minutes away. Having watched video of the Colorado Columbine shooting where the shooters wandered around, joked, stalked, and shot students for 15 to 20 minutes with absolutly no resistance, I firmly believe there has to be armed resistance as soon as possible if the unimaginable comes to my school.

[chasfm11]

They have posted signs that sends a message..."Not on My Watch"

Serious question...

Should we expect this sign to have any effect on the kind of people who would do harm to our kids?
Is this going to dissuade a mentally ill person from shooting?
or... does it simply provide warning to those who are planning harm?

I certainly like the sentiment, but I find myself wondering whether the net results are a plus or minus.

An Interesting question. One could also pose the question if the "gun free zone" signs have had any effect. I suggest that they have had the opposite effect

I'm currently lobbying our local district to take a similar approach to Argyle. I don't know whether it would be more effect or not. For the mass killers, there is clear evidence that confronting some of them accelerates the suicide that they probably had in mind all along. For others, like the Norfolk Navy yard, permanently disabling them seems to be the only way to deal with them.

I take my cue from the interviews with prison inmates who reported being more afraid of homeowners with guns than they are of the police. The Argyle sign suggests that the school employees who might be armed would share the homeowner approach to a confrontation. The police should have a responsibility to try to take a suspect alive so that the suspect can face the criminal justice system and LE has a variety of ways and hopefully superior force with them in that attempt. The homeowner, and hopefully the armed school employee, is more concerned about protecting their own life and the lives of those around them than in making sure that the prep survives the incident. I would like to have potential killers connect the dots that way.

The foundation of most of our laws is that telling citizens what the rules are gains their compliance. The gun free zone sign fits into that line of thinking. The evidence suggests that much of the public ignores the rules and that there is less compliance with them today than there was 20 years ago. For those situations, enforcement of the rules is added to notification. There isn't just a speed limit sign, there is an LEO with a radar gun to remind me how fast that I can drive. The flaw of the gun free zone sign is that it is widely understood by everyone that there is extremely limited enforcement. Sure, there are resource officers and even some security officers in some schools. But everyone knows that they have a much better chance of an encounter with a speed enforcement officer than with a school security officer. Anything that happens is going to be after the fact, when the mass shooting suspect has probably already taken their own life. Like a suicide bomber, if there isn't effective prevention, the results are disastrous.

That's why I'm glad to see the sign changed at the Argyle schools. Like the alarm system sign outside of a house, it is only likely to have a limited effect on some potential BGs and it needs the advertized armed school personnel to back it up.

[Excaliber]

They have posted signs that sends a message..."Not on My Watch"

Serious question...

Should we expect this sign to have any effect on the kind of people who would do harm to our kids?
Is this going to dissuade a mentally ill person from shooting?
or... does it simply provide warning to those who are planning harm?

I certainly like the sentiment, but I find myself wondering whether the net results are a plus or minus.

The short answer to your question is: yes, the signs will have the intended effect.

I've been studying active shooter incidents since 1986. The most common element in the venues is the prohibition of firearms possession. The reason is that it ensures no armed opposition will be present.

Regardless of the motivation of the shooter (revenge, delusions, etc.) the one common element in their go / no go decision making is: Will I have five to ten minutes of unopposed killing before police intervene?

If the answer is yes, it's a go. If the answer is no, it's a pass.

Gunbuster signs are a definite go signal. Argyle's sign is a definite no go signal.

If an active shooter chose Argyle with that sign in place, it would be a one of a kind incident in a very long history and I would be astonished. I wouldn't hold my breath on that coming to pass.

However, we'll continue to see shootings in guns prohibited zones for as long as those attack encouragement signs remain in place.