School Shooting in Parrkman, Florida

I’ll offer an opposing position, and I will kindly, and with great respect, use Roxxmom’s posts as a springboard for my comments since they cover common concerns.


I’m a high school teacher. I break up fights. That’s not required by my contract, but I can’t stand idly by while students hurt one another. I notice that this sentiment is in short supply in the school where I teach. That’s probably because we have two unarmed security personnel on duty in the school and three armed ones on campus. Sometimes they show up promptly when needed, but usually they don’t. The buildings and campus are simply too large for a quick response. They are responsible for five buildings and extensive surrounding parking lots. But I also suspect that intervening in fights is not the strong suit of most people, teachers or not.


I think allowing teachers who want to be armed while on the job is not a bad idea.

Here’s why: Immediacy of action is paramount. Protocol since Columbine is that armed response should immediately locate and neutralize an active shooter whether first responders are alone or in a group.

Immediacy of action saves lives. The more points of resistance an active shooter may encounter, the more likely said shooter may be quickly stopped. This is important because the average length of such events averages eight minutes (at least according the last study I read).

There are three combat veterans in the school where I teach. They are all fine and capable men, and if any of them wanted to carry a gun I believe that the school would be better served, in the event of the gravest emergency, for it.

Summonere said:

in the event of the gravest emergency

Click to expand...

How do you make sure that's the only time the gun comes out? Who is the judge of what constitutes a grave emergency? Where is the gun kept in the mean time? "Immediacy" implies the gun will be open and available. What is to ensure a student willing to fight in the halls won't make a grab for a gun? Or three kids who dislike the teacher won't gang up to get the gun?

What's to keep a teacher who gets annoyed at a student who is looking at their phone or whispering in class from threatening them with the gun, or just taking it out of the holster and putting it on his desk? What if, like Miss Volitich, the teacher is a secret white supremacist and thinks it's okay to make kids of color uncomfortable by displaying a gun in a passive-aggressive way? Or the teacher who harbors a dislike of LGBTQ kids, or kids they *think* might be LGBTQ? Sure they might not *use* it, but tell me it wouldn't be hellishly traumatic for the kids in the room.

Sorry, no. I can never be convinced, under any circumstances, to feel this is a reasonable solution. IMO, Guns. Don't. Belong. In. Schools.

Period.

ElaineA said:

... Sorry, no. I can never be convinced, under any circumstances, to feel this is a reasonable solution. IMO, Guns. Don't. Belong. In. Schools.

Period.

Click to expand...

I am an elementary school teacher and I feel the same as Elaine on this. Putting guns in the hands of school employees is NOT an acceptable solution.

I'm just curious about something. If there's a school with armed teachers - fine and capable men, all of them - and if there is an incident at this school where someone kills a student before these gun-toting teachers can intervene, what legal penalty do the teachers or the school face for not shooting the killer in time?

Marian Perera said:

I'm just curious about something. If there's a school with armed teachers - fine and capable men, all of them - and if there is an incident at this school where someone kills a student before these gun-toting teachers can intervene, what legal penalty do the teachers or the school face for not shooting the killer in time?

Click to expand...

In the US? The school would get sued in civil court, no question about it. Should they lose, the taxpayer would foot the bill, and the entire district would suffer from the drain of $$. School districts are insured, but what company is going to write a policy when X (known or unknown) number of non-LEOs are carrying? And if they do, the cost would be significant. There are just so many reasons this is a bad idea.

Summonere said:

I’ll offer an opposing position, and I will kindly, and with great respect, use Roxxmom’s posts as a springboard for my comments since they cover common concerns.

Teachers have enough to deal with in their jobs without asking them to do something that is not and never has been in their job description.
​

I’m a high school teacher. I break up fights. That’s not required by my contract, but I can’t stand idly by while students hurt one another. I notice that this sentiment is in short supply in the school where I teach. That’s probably because we have two unarmed security personnel on duty in the school and three armed ones on campus. Sometimes they show up promptly when needed, but usually they don’t. The buildings and campus are simply too large for a quick response. They are responsible for five buildings and extensive surrounding parking lots. But I also suspect that intervening in fights is not the strong suit of most people, teachers or not.

As for going around with a gun … How can anyone think this is a good idea? Most Americans don't, according to polls. But something like 71% of Male Republicans think it's a great idea. Are they really all that stupid, or do they simply not care if it works as long as they get to keep their lethal "toys"?
​

I think allowing teachers who want to be armed while on the job is not a bad idea.

Here’s why: Immediacy of action is paramount. Protocol since Columbine is that armed response should immediately locate and neutralize an active shooter whether first responders are alone or in a group.

Immediacy of action saves lives. The more points of resistance an active shooter may encounter, the more likely said shooter may be quickly stopped. This is important because the average length of such events averages eight minutes (at least according the last study I read).

There are three combat veterans in the school where I teach. They are all fine and capable men, and if any of them wanted to carry a gun I believe that the school would be better served, in the event of the gravest emergency, for it.

Click to expand...

Aside from the multitude of problems with arming teachers that others have brought up, locating and neutralizing an active shooter is NOT something that random people on the scene are meant to attempt, for a whole slew of reasons. It is an inane Dirty Harry fantasy that armed civilians will stop mass shooters, same as thinking the guard outside the building in Parkham should have gone in. That would have been a bad idea, on several fronts. Arming teachers is problematic, in addition to the above, because, for instance:

Actual law enforcement arriving on the scene will have potential trouble or face the impossibility of determining just who the shooter is, where they are, and what the fuck is going on. If little Timmy starts shooting, say, in the cafeteria, and a teacher a couple floors away hears shots and runs toward the sound, while Timmy is on the move to the principal's office, there are now two armed people running around a school filled with panicked students who don't know what's going on, and actual law enforcement probably getting calls about the TWO people spotted with guns (at least). So now, not only are the cops more cautious, and potentially looking for the disgruntled teacher someone saw running down the hall with a gun, they don't know if there are people working as a team, who have taken hostages, who have set booby traps, etc. It makes it less likely they'll go in and more likely other people get shot when they do.

What if the shooter DOES have hostages, or sees a teacher with a gun coming and grabs hostages? Now the teacher should back away and get out of dodge until there's a negotiation team on site, but see above Dirty Harry fantasies and imagine how well that'd go. Also, what was not a hostage situation turned into one.

What if the shooter is one of a pair or more?

What if the shooter has set booby traps? An untrained teacher running around could cause more damage than if he or she had just gone into lockdown.

What if the armed teacher finds the shooter and starts a gunfight that takes out students and doesn't take down the shooter? It's hardly impossible, especially with untrained actors. Being trained to shoot is not at all the same thing as being trained to shoot at actual people in a live-fire situation.

What if the armed teacher is dispossessed of his or her weapon by the shooter, who is the one who came into the situation intent on shooting people? Goody, now he's got extra firepower.

Also all other reasons.

Oh, I forgot the reason I came in the thread -- weird shooter siblings part II this week.

Nicholas Cruz' brother arrested for trespassing at Stoneman Douglas.

Deputies with the Broward County Sheriff’s Office stopped the brother, Zachary Cruz, at about 4:30 p.m. after he rode a skateboard onto school property. Mr. Cruz, 18, told the deputies that he decided to visit the school to “reflect on the school shooting and to soak it in,” according to the sheriff’s office.

Mr. Cruz was arrested on one count of trespassing on the grounds or facility of a school, a misdemeanor. The sheriff’s office said that school officials had ordered Mr. Cruz to stay away from Stoneman Douglas High. It was not immediately clear when Mr. Cruz had received those warnings.

On Monday night, Mr. Cruz was being held with bail set at $25 in the same Broward County jail where his brother, who faces 17 counts of premeditated murder, is being held without bond.

Click to expand...

Summonere said:

I

I’m a high school teacher. I break up fights. That’s not required by my contract, but I can’t stand idly by while students hurt one another.

Click to expand...

I can't speak from experience with breaking up fights as a job requirement, because I teach at the college level, and I've never had to break up a fight. I have sometimes needed do things that aren't specifically part of my contract, however. I've comforted students who are crying, and I've directed them to appropriate campus and community resources when they confide in me about health issues or problems at home or whatever. I suppose it's not impossible that I may someday have to break up a fight between students, though a lot of growing up happens between high school and college.

However, Breaking up fights or helping students with personal issues is not, imo, the same thing as using lethal force. When and how to use lethal force is something police receive a lot of training in, as it a major component of their job, and they still screw up with great regularity. Police also lose control of their guns sometimes and have accidents with their guns.

Teachers will never receive the same kind and amount of training as cops. And if they did, the focus of their job will no longer be teaching, but policing. I'm supposed to multitask to the degree I already am in the classroom and keep track of a gun too? I don't think I'd be capable of thinking about it, keeping track of it, every second while I'm doing the other mentally taxing things I have to do for my job. I have trouble believing any teacher can.

Teachers are screwing this up already, and I can't imagine the situation will get better if more teachers are armed.

Here’s why: Immediacy of action is paramount. Protocol since Columbine is that armed response should immediately locate and neutralize an active shooter whether first responders are alone or in a group.

Immediacy of action saves lives. The more points of resistance an active shooter may encounter, the more likely said shooter may be quickly stopped. This is important because the average length of such events averages eight minutes (at least according the last study I read).

Click to expand...

So, assuming that a handgun will be any match for someone who is firing an assault rifle through windows of classrooms, how will the first responders know which person is the actual shooter? How will the armed teacher, in the chaos and confusion, know if the armed person who comes around a corner or bursts through a door is the shooter or a cop who just arrived on the scene. There's little evidence that armed civilians are effective at stopping mass shootings.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings/

http://www.politifact.com/new-hamps...bens-says-when-armed-civilians-stop-mass-sho/

Interestingly, with most shootings where civilians actually stopped a shooter, they were not armed.

ElaineA said:

What's to keep a teacher who gets annoyed at a student who is looking at their phone or whispering in class from threatening them with the gun, or just taking it out of the holster and putting it on his desk? What if, like Miss Volitich, the teacher is a secret white supremacist and thinks it's okay to make kids of color uncomfortable by displaying a gun in a passive-aggressive way? Or the teacher who harbors a dislike of LGBTQ kids, or kids they *think* might be LGBTQ? Sure they might not *use* it, but tell me it wouldn't be hellishly traumatic for the kids in the room.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. This will certainly happen, at least occasionally. And there will be even more situations where kids will wonder if it is happening.

And even if the armed teachers are all moderate in their views and impartial in their treatment of students, they will now be scary and threatening in the way police officers and soldiers are scary and threatening. Everyone will have to walk on eggshells around them, the way we do with cops. Teachers will be enforcers, not mentors. The nature of their job, and their relationship with their pupils, will change, and not for the better (imo).

How can people learn in such an adrenaline-charged setting?

I still think it is a terrible idea, one that is being used to deflect conversation away from the real issue--why it's so easy for civilians to get their hands on weapons that are designed to kill large numbers of people in a very short time?

ElaineA said:

In the US? The school would get sued in civil court, no question about it. Should they lose, the taxpayer would foot the bill, and the entire district would suffer from the drain of $$. School districts are insured, but what company is going to write a policy when X (known or unknown) number of non-LEOs are carrying? And if they do, the cost would be significant. There are just so many reasons this is a bad idea.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Elaine. I didn't think it was a good idea either.

I also wondered : what if, say, a teacher kills an unarmed student, then says the student did something threatening that made the teacher fear for his life? How can we prove whether the teacher is telling the truth? Should gun-toting teachers wear bodycams?