They get it!?! Armed Guards placed in CT schools. Not allowed to arrest.

[neEEGuru]

FINALLY looks like someone gets it, all around.

Trained armed guards to protects the school, and not allowed to carry handcuffs or authorized to arrest or interrogate students.

In other words, they are there to protect the students with NO mission creep. Perfect.

Armed Guards Placed at Enfield Schools | NBC Connecticut

Then you have this,

"I don't think having an armed guard is going to stop anybody if they want to get in. I think they're going to get in," Debby Miller, mother of an Enfield High School student, said.

I believe a .357 magnum to the face has the potential to slow somebody down, surely more potential then a 'gun free school zone', what do you think?

 

[taz-2005]

Debby Miller is a blithering idiot.

 

[45collector]

Well you're right Debbie Miller, they may very well get in. It's what happens the moment they are in, that really matters.

 

[atilla]

no power of arrest, etc.? so they are supposed to go directly to lethal force?

i mean if the perp is armed and this shit is obvious... why are you carrying a rifle at the low ready through a pre-school, etc. then it's go time... but i mean this shit is rare.

it's a tough call here. good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns, but does this condition children to accept a form of a police state from an early age? it's goddamn tragic that we even need to consider this for schools because there are ****s sick enough who will target schools and children.

 

[neEEGuru]

This is why the no powers of arrest and not allowed to interrogate the children is an important part of this. They aren't going to be arresting 13yr olds in the back lot for smoking during lunch, or searching lockers, etc. They are there SOLELY to protect from a deranged gun man.

Amazing that after a year of BS bad laws, rhetoric etc. the best solution, so simple, finally comes out.

Kind of like armored locked cockpit doors being the only real benefit of all the post 9/11 crap.

 

[ToddDubya]

no power of arrest, etc.? so they are supposed to go directly to lethal force?

From the article...

The guards are retired officers from local police departments who've all undergone training, drug screenings, psychological evaluations and background checks. They will not carry handcuffs and won’t be authorized to arrest or interrogate students.

They're there in a security capacity, not a law enforcement capacity. If they could be used against the students, the school would use them that way. The school would be approaching a prison and the kids would quickly learn/grow to distrust them.

I just hope they know enough not to let the kids play with their guns.

 

[cekim]

no power of arrest, etc.? so they are supposed to go directly to lethal force?

i mean if the perp is armed and this shit is obvious... why are you carrying a rifle at the low ready through a pre-school, etc. then it's go time... but i mean this shit is rare.

it's a tough call here. good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns, but does this condition children to accept a form of a police state from an early age? it's goddamn tragic that we even need to consider this for schools because there are ****s sick enough who will target schools and children.

'merica!

I thought the same thing... Frankly though, I think it would be cheaper and equally or more effctive to encourage teachers and admin to carry and train and let that be known.

Schools would become known for this and no longer be considered soft targets. An armed guard is a start, but it is not the answer. Baby steps for these idiots to realize that the only way to stop violence for YOUR child in that moment is opposing violence aka: self defense, in loco parentis.

 

[ToddDubya]

This is why the no powers of arrest and not allowed to interrogate the children is an important part of this. They aren't going to be arresting 13yr olds in the back lot for smoking during lunch, or searching lockers, etc. They are there SOLELY to protect from a deranged gun man.

Amazing that after a year of BS bad laws, rhetoric etc. the best solution, so simple, finally comes out.

Kind of like armored locked cockpit doors being the only real benefit of all the post 9/11 crap.

Beat me to it.

 

[atilla]

the show VICE did an episode on a school in... new mexico i believe... also a church, so most likely a private school. the children get instruction on how to take down an armed attacker, older/larger students rush the guy, smaller ones are instructed to hide in a safe place while the older students do their thing, and the administration encourages teachers to arm themselves and receive training.

episode 3 in their HBO series IIRC.

 

[FSTC]

no power of arrest, etc.? so they are supposed to go directly to lethal force?

.

The way I read it: The armed school district employees are no different than a regular law abiding citizen. They should be subject to the same use of force that civilians are.

IMO: If I were in charge they would be dressed just like the teachers. no badges, Sam Browne belts etc.

The reality: they are retired cops, so theposture gained from being "on the street" will carry over into the schools. and IMO, if they use lethal force, their previous vocation will weigh heavily into the decision whether or not to prosecute.

 

[DukeNukem]

Anyone can arrest/detain someone, whether by CA or lawful instruction over the phone by LE. I hope they get some decent training on use of force as well as active shooter or one hero could cause alot of problems when an irate parent shows up and challenges their imginary authority....all in all a great idea though.

 

[PappyM3]

If CT is similar to MA regarding citizen's arrest, these guys will be able to arrest if they witnessed/are witnessing a felony.

So they wouldn't be able o arrest/detain for minor things, but theoretical could for major crimes.

 

[Bob Palermo]

The reality: they are retired cops, so theposture gained from being "on the street" will carry over into the schools. and IMO, if they use lethal force, their previous vocation will weigh heavily into the decision whether or not to prosecute.

So wait, you are saying that if these "armed guards" do in fact prevent another school shooting, saving countless children, and killing the bad guy, you would want them to be prosecuted? (just like a civilian would).

If I am reading your statement correctly, I disagree.

 

[lancecolonel]

i would like the plan a lot better if the guards were plainclothes guards who tried to blend in. i kind of agree with attila about the "conditioning" thing. i would much rather have my kids see someone they think is a teacher protecting them than someone they KNOW is a uniformed guard entity protecting them.
of course, the perfect plan would be to let normal staff carry if the staff member so desired.......

 

[Bob Palermo]

I agree with the conditioning thing, but another downside to the uniform is it paints a big target as to who to shoot first if you are a "bad guy". I think that not knowing who is armed makes it a lot more difficult for any would be sicko charging into a school with a gun.

 

[cekim]

I agree with the conditioning thing, but another downside to the uniform is it paints a big target as to who to shoot first if you are a "bad guy". I think that not knowing who is armed makes it a lot more difficult for any would be sicko charging into a school with a gun.

The reality of school shooters is that they are cowards expecting the die most of the time, so the target problem is not the principle concern there.

The principle concern is avoiding the easy to identify barrier (i.e. go around the back if he is in the front). Better than nothing, but far from the ideal of an armed and capable teacher in many classrooms as an effective deterrent.

If they have to wonder if each and every adult in the building might be the one to stop them, the target loses its attractiveness. I am basing this assertion on the findings of the law-enforcement studies in the years that followed Columbine that found, among other things that most of them ended the spree the first time they were confronted with a credible threat. That is why policy changed from "surround and contain" to "get in there".

 

[Bob Palermo]

The principle concern is avoiding the easy to identify barrier (i.e. go around the back if he is in the front). Better than nothing, but far from the ideal of an armed and capable teacher in many classrooms as an effective deterrent.

I agree completely.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

The reality of school shooters is that they are cowards expecting the die most of the time, so the target problem is not the principle concern there.

The principle concern is avoiding the easy to identify barrier (i.e. go around the back if he is in the front). Better than nothing, but far from the ideal of an armed and capable teacher in many classrooms as an effective deterrent.

If they have to wonder if each and every adult in the building might be the one to stop them, the target loses its attractiveness. I am basing this assertion on the findings of the law-enforcement studies in the years that followed Columbine that found, among other things that most of them ended the spree the first time they were confronted with a credible threat. That is why policy changed from "surround and contain" to "get in there".

I can't rep you anymore. System say perma ban

 

[davidmcbeth]

Ahem. Columbine had armed guards.

 

[cekim]

I can't rep you anymore. System say perma ban

Thank you.

It frustrates me to no end that we are still debating 1970's gun bans in this state in response to CT when the only possible debate to be had relating to that event is why aren't we encouraging teachers to get armed and trained?

Of course, we know why, the Bacon Hill debate has nothing to do with making anyone safer, it has everything to do with pandering like no panda has pandered before to the idiots in this state who still buy the 1970's gun ban crap.

But you knew that already... [sad2]

[/rantoff]

 

[cekim]

Ahem. Columbine had armed guards.

Proving the point. It is a start, but one SRO or rent-a-cop isn't the ultimate answer. A total policy re-write and societal shift to self-reliant parents and teachers is the answer.

One person or even a few can no more be everywhere than police can in the broader community. Teachers, on the other hand are almost invariably close by to their class at any given moment.

More important than the tactical improvement is the perception of a hard target.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Proving the point. It is a start, but one SRO or rent-a-cop isn't the ultimate answer. A total policy re-write and societal shift to self-reliant parents and teachers is the answer.

One person or even a few can no more be everywhere than police can in the broader community. Teachers, on the other hand are almost invariably close by to their class at any given moment.

More important than the tactical improvement is the perception of a hard target.

I would start (and finish) with a good quality DOOR. Huff and puff, ya can't get in.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

Proving the point. It is a start, but one SRO or rent-a-cop isn't the ultimate answer. A total policy re-write and societal shift to self-reliant parents and teachers is the answer.

One person or even a few can no more be everywhere than police can in the broader community. Teachers, on the other hand are almost invariably close by to their class at any given moment.

More important than the tactical improvement is the perception of a hard target.

As a general rule, predators don't prey on other predators. Only the REALLY dumb ones. If we could get media stories highlighting the VENTALATING of a school shooter attempt by a citizen. Post pictures of his yellow underwear and bed wetting, interview people that said he smelled and never got laid, and put his entire miserable existence on display, that would start sending a small message. Then name the ****ing school bathroom after him and make a statue of the hero taking a dump on his head (if that's cool with the hero)

 

[In God We Trust]

I agree with the conditioning thing, but another downside to the uniform is it paints a big target as to who to shoot first if you are a "bad guy". I think that not knowing who is armed makes it a lot more difficult for any would be sicko charging into a school with a gun.

Just like open carrying! :-D

 

[cekim]

I would start (and finish) with a good quality DOOR. Huff and puff, ya can't get in.

Assuming you are kidding, because that is laughably absurd, but not funny all at the same time.

a. The shooter may be/has been a student.
b. Schools are frequently porous facilities with many entrances and people coming/going throughout the day - the best door in the world is useless if left open.
c. I would not want my kids going to a facility that looked or acted like a prison. That is the antithesis of what and how I want them to learn.

So, no. Try again.

 

[bullseye]

no power of arrest, etc.? so they are supposed to go directly to lethal force?

i mean if the perp is armed and this shit is obvious... why are you carrying a rifle at the low ready through a pre-school, etc. then it's go time... but i mean this shit is rare.

it's a tough call here. good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns, but does this condition children to accept a form of a police state from an early age? it's goddamn tragic that we even need to consider this for schools because there are ****s sick enough who will target schools and children.

We put armed guards that are told to shoot to kill to protect worthless, or damn near, bags of paper with numbers on them, the very least is to put hopefully experienced, armed individuals to protect what we hope is the future generations. If they are able to protect once, hopefully they will not be tested, but if they are and they prevent one arsswipe from completing his mission, then the whole program is worth it.
And retired ones to boot, the casinos will be pissed!

 

[bullseye]

Just like open carrying! :-D

See, that is the problem. In your neck of the woods, if you have one person OC'ing, it is a rarity and everyone has the theory they get the first ticket. Down here, there may be a half dozen that OC in a grocery store, or Walmart or Walgreens, you may get one, but then you've announced there is a blue light special of a target to go seek.
Martha's conditioning works.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Assuming you are kidding, because that is laughably absurd, but not funny all at the same time.

a. The shooter may be/has been a student.
b. Schools are frequently porous facilities with many entrances and people coming/going throughout the day - the best door in the world is useless if left open.
c. I would not want my kids going to a facility that looked or acted like a prison. That is the antithesis of what and how I want them to learn.

So, no. Try again.

If the shooter is a student who already has access then there is little one can do really ... And a prison atmosphere is not needed .. just a door that requires a key (like 80% of manufacturing businesses) and people there during the normal in and out times....

Ya cannot stop school shootings 100% ... and if you could (like Israel has been somewhat successful) ~ then you just get school bombings, like in Israel.

I guess people would just be happy with all killings being done with shotguns ...

Even in Newtown, they replaced their crappy door that was easily breached with the same type of door. Doh! When asked why, they just refuse to answer. 'cause they know it was just a freak incident....one that happens about every 20 yrs in almost every country ... if by a AR or machete...

 

[CTpatriot]

FINALLY looks like someone gets it, all around.

Trained armed guards to protects the school, and not allowed to carry handcuffs or authorized to arrest or interrogate students.

In other words, they are there to protect the students with NO mission creep. Perfect.

Armed Guards Placed at Enfield Schools | NBC Connecticut

Then you have this,

I believe a .357 magnum to the face has the potential to slow somebody down, surely more potential then a 'gun free school zone', what do you think?

how could this be? more guns in school equals safer schools, it defies common sense.

now the question is will the armed guards be allowed to carry more than 10 rounds in their mags, after all they are on school property at the employ of the town? is 17 rounds of 9mm better than 10?

 

[CTpatriot]

no power of arrest, etc.? so they are supposed to go directly to lethal force?

i mean if the perp is armed and this shit is obvious... why are you carrying a rifle at the low ready through a pre-school, etc. then it's go time... but i mean this shit is rare.

it's a tough call here. good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns, but does this condition children to accept a form of a police state from an early age? it's goddamn tragic that we even need to consider this for schools because there are ****s sick enough who will target schools and children.

these guys will have be like an on/off switch. man with gun-no questions asked
they will be the number one target for a loony that is crazy enough to try.