Armed Teachers - what am I seeing incorrectly?

[howdy]

The BG's go to gun free zones to do their killing. When they think schools are no longer a GFZ, they will go somewhere else. The armed Teacher is a deterrent...plain and simple. The Teachers at Sandy Hook acted with extreme bravery. I have no doubt they would do just fine if confronted with some crazy trying to shoot their students.

[Excaliber]

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.

I'm also a certified TCOLE trainer and teach active shooter response to the full range of personnel, from emergency responders to teachers, students, and company workers.

I agree with the criteria you outlined for telling armed good guys from armed bad guys. It's the same problem we're presented with in situations where off duty LEO's are involved, except the good guys in schools don't have a badge to display even when that would be possible. That isn't as big a protective factor as some believe. Studies by the Force Science Institute have found that officers who encounter someone displaying both a badge and a gun often see only the gun because the eye instinctively focuses on the threat.

I'll endure the inevitable sash and tiara comments to get another aspect into the discussion:

An easily observable visual characteristic that can be readily displayed during an incident, is visible from 360 degrees, and is known to the police and armed good guys but not to the general public would be really helpful. There are challenges with doing this as a number of police agencies have found, but it's another discriminator that can help prevent a tragedy within a tragedy.

[TexasCajun]

The problem in comparing a school to a busy aisle at a store is that there are usually more care takers per child in the store. But it's not surprising that there is initial resistance from police chiefs. In most urban areas, a police chief is really a badged & gunned politician who have no more police skill than the rest of us. It's an excuse born out of laziness that leads an official to say that arming citizens would make it too hard for police to determine who is the bad guy and who is the good guy. And we need to put pressure on any chief who can't or won't have his department train to a higher standard than "see a gun, shoot the person holding it".

Most of this discussion is centering on arming teachers. And that's a good idea as long as it's part of the plan & not the whole plan. Using some form of school Marshall as a first line of defense needs to also be included, probably as a prerequisite.

[Chris]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I know I'd much rather take a report from an armed and cooperative citizen who killed one bad guy, than deliver multiple death notifications to all the murder victims. You take care of business first; there will always be time for introductions at the end.

[ShootDontTalk]

Does anyone have statistics that show how many times police arrive on-scene while an active shooter event is still on-going? I would be willing to bet that the whole issue of true "first responders" takes on much more significance if the true numbers were known.

[chasfm11]

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.

[srothstein]

Chasfm11, feel free to use my comments anytime. When you talk to the chief, there is one other argument you might use and find helpful. I don't know what the response will be since I have never asked on this question, but I know the professors who run the ALERRT training center at Texas State University are very pro-gun and pro-self defense. You might suggest he call them and see what they think. They do have statistics and studies on active shooter situations in school and have done some research on it. For that matter, you might call them yourself and see what they say. Given their jobs, i am confident they will answer the chief but not as confident that they will ahve the time to answer a citizen. Not that they are biased, just the time involved and their salaries get paid for working with law enforcement.

[Jumping Frog]

... professors who run the ALERRT training center at Texas State University ...

Went to their website, and the first page had a link to the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin: Active Shooter Events from 2000 to 2012

Very interesting article!

Found it interesting that basically half of all active shooter events are resolved before the police arrive on scene. Of the ones that are resolved, 2/3 were because the shooter either committed suicide or fled the scene. The other 1/3 were resolved by ordinary citizens stopping the shooter, either by overpowering the shooter or by shooting him.

[ShootDontTalk]

Very interesting statistics from the FBI. Would it be correct to say that true first responders (other than LEO) have more effect on the outcome than police spokespersons would have us believe? At least in those events where outside intervention made a difference?
Thanks Jumping Frog

[Greybeard]

In "smaller" communities, people tend to be able to get to know who is who. In the "real world", local police officers (possibly the 2nd responders) often get acquainted with local school faculty (likely the first responders) rather quickly. If not, they need to. Or at least be able to recognize them from a distance.