|
We are a group of people interested in the protection of children.
Our foremost contemporary effort is to educate the public regarding
risks to our children and appropriate response options in the
arena of human violence, particularly in schools.
We base our examination of this and other topics
on logic & reason. We have been called “radical”
and even some derogatory names, but we are content to play an
objective role in helping make our children safer, even though
we recognize that new ideas sometimes have difficulty gaining
public acceptance..
Our members:
Our members have varied backgrounds and include
military tacticians, law enforcement, educators, parents, psychologists
& counselors, crimes against children detectives, attorneys,
doctors and children themselves.
School “Shootings”:
We recognize that serious school violence comes
in many forms. Inner-city gangs are comprised of many members
of high school age, and sometimes gang violence spills into schools.
We recognize that a 17-year-old Hispanic male gang member that
attends high school in Compton California has a greater likelihood
of being attacked by a person or group known to him than a “Random”
“crazed” gunman. The prevention and response to this
sort of violence is different in some ways than that of the random
attacker, but the basic elements are the same.
Secondly, we focus on the gun as the weapon used
by attackers. This is not to infer that guns are the only dangerous
weapon system to we used by attackers. Pipe bombs, knives, swords,
clubs and stones have killed many humans over the course of our
history. Guns have only been in common usage for less than half
a millennium. When we, or the evening news, refers to a potential
gunman, observers should recognize that there are a multitude
of other weapons that an attacker might use.
Thirdly, we understand that there are many other
more probable risks to our children. It is far more likely for
a child to be seriously injured or killed in an automobile collision
than in a school shooting. There are many dangers in life, but
our alliance focuses on violence, the universal
human phobia. We do not seek to be fear mongerer, we have
simply chosen one risk, and are working to make ourselves safer.
Guns in schools:
Several politicians have suggested examining the merits of school-directed
arming of school teachers and administrators. This suggestion
has often preceded the politician’s untimely demise. We seek
only to continue the examination, and do not offer a definitive
opinion at this time. Our recommendations are based on tactics,
and each school should use their legal resources to evaluate the
appropriateness of this option.
Another way for guns to be in schools is for teachers to “sneak”
them in. Unfortunately, some teachers should not be armed and
do not have the “warrior mindset” that will allow them
to perform appropriately and safely in a violent situation.
Suggested SOP:
Any policy regarding arming teachers should include at minimum:
- Uncoerced volunteers
- Law enforcement selection panel
- Thorough background investigations
- Psychological evaluations
- A minimum of 40-hours of initial training
- A minimum of 8 hours of ongoing quarterly training
- Ongoing proficiency standards, both physical and mental
- Notification to parents and community of potential risks
- Other legal considerations
- Safe but tactically effective weapon storage policy
Gun Control:
The gun control debate has continued for many years
and is not likely to be settled today. Wonderful defenses to the
argument that citizens should not have a right to bear arms are
well-stated in redneck “gun rights” activists’
clichés. “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws [and
cops] will have guns.” “If guns are to blame for violence,
then pencils are to be blamed for misspelled words.” “Smith
& Wesson, The Great Equalizer.”
Supporters of gun control do not have a realistic
or valid argument. Even if 90% of the population agreed to turn
their guns over to the government in ridiculous “gun buy-back”
programs, and we agreed that neglected & abused children with
hate in their heart and an urge and proclivity to kill grow up
into hateful sociopath killers but would be completely thwarted
if they did not have access to a single type of weapon system
(of the thousands that exist), we still can’t control the
20 million guns that would still be in circulation. Even if 99%
of the guns existing in the US were collected, there would still
be over two million in circulation. Any person that does not understand
that it is impossible to make our country gun-free is not in touch
with reality.
So, who has access to the guns that are in circulation,
now and if the government had a 99% success rate of getting guns
out of circulation? Everyone. We know that we can’t control
the bad guy’s behavior, and we know that bad people with
violent plans have, and will always have access to swords and/or
guns. Regardless of any “control” legislation, those
that would enter our schools and hard our children have access
to guns. Since we can’t control the bad guy’s behavior
or armaments then, would it not make sense to prepare ourselves
to respond?
“You shouldn’t bring a knife to a gunfight”
is a humorous old saying. What should teachers bring to a potential
gunfight in which our children’s lives are at stake? A knife,
a plan to encourage children to beg for their life while hiding
under a desk, a bigger gun that the bad guy…? I would argue
that teachers should have tactical training and proper armament
to defeat the attacker.
ID Badges:
Having ID badges is effective in providing a false
sense of security. We are teaching students and teachers to predict
violent behavior based on a nametag. There are many more indicators
that even first-graders can and should be evaluating to determine
if a person is a threat. If a “strange” man dressed
unlike most men in a school is walking down the hallway with a
duffle bag and is sweating profusely while acting paranoid, should
his nametag put us at ease? If a middle-aged lady is smiling,
carrying a clipboard and strolling down the hallway in her pumps,
reminding Johnny to stop pinching Susie, should her absence of
a nametag raise suspicion?
Perhaps public knowledge of nametag requirements
provide some preventative benefit, but when a mentally ill person
gathers his guns, knives and bombs and heads to the school to
reek havoc, nametags are worthless.
Suggested SOP:
Keep the name badges, but clarify in everyone’s
mind that they are simply there to help each other remember
names.
Lockdown:
The lockdown is a good tactic. It is wise to put
artificial barriers between attackers and as many kids as possible.
A well-practiced lockdown strategy is an excellent part of many
school safety programs. When all goes well, an attacker only has
access to the group of people he is with when he first displays
violence, and in most cases, this will be 25 or fewer people.
If he wants to go from locked room to locked room, he will have
to gain entry by force, which will likely take at least 30 seconds
per door. Within a few doors, law enforcement is likely to arrive
and take action.
Most schools already have a lockdown policy.
Counterattacks:
Many professional that are familiar with violence
and are students of tactical response are suggesting that children
should fight attackers rather than hiding under a desk and begging
and praying. Response
Options is the leading proponent and training firm specializing
in this type of response.
Video cameras – CCTV:
Cameras are a good part of a school safety
program. We will not discuss the obvious benefits of recorded
visual documentation for prosecution and training purposes. What
we are interested in is how cameras can be part of the safety
plan. They are of the most benefit when used to assist responding
protectors that need to locate and identify the attacker.
Suggested SOP:
- Camera monitors should be located in a place that is accessible
from outside the building and in an area with many staff
members.
- School staff should always be near the monitors &
should be formally trained to take posts in the event of
a violent occurrence and observe the events taking place,
wait for law enforcement, clearly direct (or if necessary
personally lead) law enforcement to the area of the school
where the bad-guy(s) are. Additional staff members should
remain at the monitor to direct additional responding law
enforcement to the front line.
- All law enforcement should be familiar with the monitor
location and should be trained to meet a school staff member
there in the event of a crisis.
- A second feed should be sent to the local law enforcement
headquarters if the expense is deemed worthwhile by the
community..
- A third feed should be hard-wired to a “safe place”
away from the actual school building where officers can
monitor.
The psychology of Fight –v- Flight –v-
Freeze:
When folks are faced with a violent crisis their
animal brain often takes over. Fine motor skills disappear as
does bladder control. For many years we have heard of the two
paths one can take in an event of this nature, one being fight
and the other being flight. David Grossman has correctly suggested
that a third response is possible and probable, “Freeze.”
When someone throws a paper wad at you, you can
duck (flight) or swat it away from you (fight). If you do neither
and simply stand there (freeze), you will be hit. If you practice
ducking & swatting for an hour a day, after a few months it
will be nearly impossible to hit your face with the paper wad.
If you print this page off, crumple it up, walk out to the street
and suddenly throw it at the face of someone walking by, it is
likely you will hit them (unless thy are a well-practiced paper-swatter).
If you try it again tomorrow, they will probably be much harder
to hit. This is called operative conditioning.
You know how some folks can lick their fingers and
pinch out a candle flame? I am afraid to! My life experience has
taught me that when my skin comes into contact with a flame; I
get burned! I have seen small children put out flames with wet
fingers, but I am still afraid to try it for the first time. (Notice
my insecure choice of the word “try” rather than “do”)
When I finally put out my first flame, I will no longer have a
fear of confronting candle flames with my wet fingers.
Correctly responding to a situation and performing
optimally takes more than luck and intellectual understanding
of the concept. You can tell me to lick my fingers and pinch the
flame and I can intellectually how to do so, but I am not yet
ready to represent you in a flame pinching contest. I need to
overcome my fear and practice my skill first. It will then enter
into my norm.
The same theory holds true with serious violence.
When a gunshot is fired in a classroom and the report rings out
loudly, the smell of fear and released bowels fills the air as
do the shrieks of frightened people. Friend’s faces explode
and blood splatters on our faces. Do we “shut down”
and fall to the ground, a quivering lump of fear? If this is our
first “paper wad” we probably wont respond as well as
we could.
Fortunately, real experience is not possible, but
we should prepare ourselves with simulations. How ‘scary’
should we make the training of an eight-year-old girl? If we only
give gentle verbal instruction, “If the bad man shoots people,
jump on him and hold his gun in a safe direction” she will
not be any better prepared. If we traumatize her with flash bangs,
machine gun fire, screams, simulated blood splashes, simulated
exploding faces; she has a high probability of being psychologically
traumatized (Unless her family norm includes watching TV News).
A child or adult can be told to “kick the mean
man in his privates if he messes with you” but when he is
faced with the universal human phobia; interpersonal human violence,
he is likely to resort to the animal brain. What are his norms?
|
