Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
seeder

BREAKING: Active shooter at high school

1,283 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Tatetopa
4 hours ago, Gromdor said:

I don't begrudge him.  Police won't charge in to save people.  They are trained to prioritize their own safety first and wait for SWAT. 

It does put a "damper on the armed guards will stop this" argument.  Most people will choose the "flee" option in Fight/Flee unless cornered.  I certainly don't expect teachers to be braver than the cops, either.

I have a friend that is an ICE captain.  Their latest instructions are first officer on the scene goes in, doesn't wait for backup.   That policy was designed for containment of a hostage situation.  They have moved on with the world.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa

To clarify, the old policy of waiting for backup  was for the era of hostage taking.  As much as we like to criticize, law enforcement agencies are smart about strategy and tactics.  Our best are brave, skilled, and still human.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
4 hours ago, Gromdor said:

I mean think about it.  Are you really expecting police/security guards/teachers to run like lemmings into an unknown shooting situation without knowing the number of attackers or weapons/bombs to play hero and end it?  The logical thing to do is to secure the perimeter, help people escaping and wait till you have enough people/equipment to control/end the situation.

Aaron Feis didn't wait on SWAT... and he wasn't even armed.  Teachers tend to be protective of their charges and I can imagine the decision to try to take down a shooter to be an easy one for most who were trained with a weapon.  

16 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

C'mon Aztez there has got to be a better way,

There absolutely is a better way.  Leave the second amendment alone and secure the schools, then put in the time and effort to find lasting solutions to the messed-up culture we've made for ourselves today.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
23 minutes ago, Uncle Sam said:

It took turning Britain into a literal police state to get homicide and other violent crimes under control, meaning taking away the power of the citizens and placing it into the hands of the state. The same didn't happen for Ireland, they didn't flood their state with police, the homicidal crime rate drop at 1975 and has been trending upwards ever since. The only nation that managed to make it work was Australia, a nation where the citizens are already spread thin and has very little major population centers at all which makes it easier to police the state. Plain and simple. Gun control has no significant impact on murder rates. Removing firearms does not typically create massive lawlessness. It is a moot point. Poverty has a greater correlation to violent crime than access to firearms. Education and poverty are directly linked as well.

Next time you hear a left or right politician talking about enacting Gun Control, you should take lessons from history and look at the facts, it usually leads to nations being subject to dictatorship or taken over by invading nations. Our founding fathers understood this, that is way the rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. Russia has been a recent prime example of this, they took away the citizens right to own rifles because they see rifles as a way for citizens to overthrow their government. An arm population is a dangerous population to the government if they decide to infringe upon the rights of the citizens.

Check out the US rate: 4.8 per 100,00. Britain is .92 per 100,000.  You can google all of that.  US is not the worst by far, but neither is it close to safest.  This is individuals murder by firearm, many time of someone known to the perpetrator  This is not shooting up a school.  These are just facts,they do nothing to support or refute your opinion.  Protecting citizen's freedom against an oppressive murder rate is not tied to individuals murder rate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not A Rockstar
10 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

To clarify, the old policy of waiting for backup  was for the era of hostage taking.  As much as we like to criticize, law enforcement agencies are smart about strategy and tactics.  Our best are brave, skilled, and still human.

Yeah, I'm a retired cop and when I heard their SRO stayed outside I was just stunned. I cannot even imagine my kids at risk inside and not going in after them. Especially if I was alone, and basically all they had. I went in on arrival to domestics and everything else on the road hoping back up got there fast enough or it worked out. That just went with the territory. You go in and be as smart as you can and don't risk yourself due to stooped but, you go in. Mind you I was on a far flung sheriff department. Maybe there are different rules for city cops with a lot around and 3 min response times.  I was happy if my guy was 15 minutes or less away many nights. Sometimes you hop on the CB and ask the next county over but you got it done. If no one, you still got it done. I'm sorry, I could not have stayed outside. Even if that was the rule. Those are MY kids as an SRO.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
9 minutes ago, and then said:

There absolutely is a better way.  Leave the second amendment alone and secure the schools, then put in the time and effort to find lasting solutions to the messed-up culture we've made for ourselves today.

I can get behind that.  But you leave a loose end.  Age for purchasing a firearm?  Should we protect against poor judgement and  testosterone by setting an age limit?  If not, should a 16 year old be able to buy a fire arm when his dad grounds him and takes the car keys and cell phone?  Parents approval under 21 or while still a dependent?

 

6 minutes ago, Not A Rockstar said:

Yeah, I'm a retired cop and when I heard their SRO stayed outside I was just stunned. I cannot even imagine my kids at risk inside and not going in after them. Especially if I was alone, and basically all they had. I went in on arrival to domestics and everything else on the road hoping back up got there fast enough or it worked out. That just went with the territory. You go in and be as smart as you can and don't risk yourself due to stooped but, you go in. Mind you I was on a far flung sheriff department. Maybe there are different rules for city cops with a lot around and 3 min response times.  I was happy if my guy was 15 minutes or less away many nights. Sometimes you hop on the CB and ask the next county over but you got it done. If no one, you still got it done. I'm sorry, I could not have stayed outside. Even if that was the rule. Those are MY kids as an SRO.

I won't make assumptions about the guy who didn't go in, I only hope that I could be as brave and resourceful as you might have been.  At least I like to think I would have tried.  Salute.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not A Rockstar

Secondary thoughts and then I am gone, do not wish to derail an important debate. 

It was chaos in those 6 minutes of the shooting. I have heard the rumors were flying during those moments that there were three shooters, different locations, and that is common during panic. But, you go in and follow the shots and keep your eyes open. It isn't rocket science. Just saying, and not trying to do the armchair quarterback thing. Maybe the SRO was scared too, but one would hope he got that under control during his rookie years or left to sell shoes or something instead before this. I HAVE gone in on active violence alone so I know what ran through his mind, perhaps. I am not just talking.

Now I am gone. Great debate y'all.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
3 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Age for purchasing a firearm? 

Whatever the legal age is for enlistment in the U.S. military, seems appropriate.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
18 minutes ago, and then said:

Aaron Feis didn't wait on SWAT... and he wasn't even armed.  Teachers tend to be protective of their charges and I can imagine the decision to try to take down a shooter to be an easy one for most who were trained with a weapon.  

I am gonna say, many of those would be brave and some would be successful.  I am not opposed to arming teachers but I do not think it is a good solution.  I share an office with a former Marine combat engineer.  They fixed bridges and all kinds of stuff in enemy held territory.  Somebody  worked and somebody stood watch.   A teacher can't be focused on both teaching and guarding all of the time.  A student can't be focused on learning and  instantaneous response all the time either.  If it takes armed guards to keep schools safe now, so be it, but let students and teachers be safe to transfer knowledge.  Harden schools, OK but solve the problems that cause this stuff.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
4 hours ago, Uncle Sam said:

Here is some information regarding before and after gun bans that have taken effect in United Kingdom, Ireland, and Australia.

It took turning Britain into a literal police state to get homicide and other violent crimes under control, meaning taking away the power of the citizens and placing it into the hands of the state. The same didn't happen for Ireland, they didn't flood their state with police, the homicidal crime rate drop at 1975 and has been trending upwards ever since. The only nation that managed to make it work was Australia, a nation where the citizens are already spread thin and has very little major population centers at all which makes it easier to police the state. Plain and simple. Gun control has no significant impact on murder rates. Removing firearms does not typically create massive lawlessness. It is a moot point. Poverty has a greater correlation to violent crime than access to firearms. Education and poverty are directly linked as well.

Next time you hear a left or right politician talking about enacting Gun Control, you should take lessons from history and look at the facts, it usually leads to nations being subject to dictatorship or taken over by invading nations. Our founding fathers understood this, that is way the rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. Russia has been a recent prime example of this, they took away the citizens right to own rifles because they see rifles as a way for citizens to overthrow their government. An arm population is a dangerous population to the government if they decide to infringe upon the rights of the citizens.

Re. The bold - if you're going to make such ridiculous statements, no one is going to take anything else you say seriously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam

So the school had an armed officer on site...what happened to his training?

Quote

He said video footage showed Mr Peterson arriving at the building where the shooting broke out about 90 seconds after the first shots were fired, and that he remained outside for about four minutes. The attack lasted six minutes, Sheriff Israel said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43164634

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice

We have so many unemployed veterans who are well trained and would be happy to secure our schools and our children. If we need armed security on campuses, I think they would be our best bet. Let teachers concentrate on teaching kids. Hopefully more on the social side than they do now.

Edited by susieice
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
5 hours ago, Uncle Sam said:

 

It took turning Britain into a literal police state to get homicide and other violent crimes under control,

 

Yes, but that was back in the 17th century.  And we soon got rid of Cromwell and his puritan ideals ;) 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
5 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Check out the US rate: 4.8 per 100,00. Britain is .92 per 100,000.  You can google all of that.  US is not the worst by far, but neither is it close to safest.  This is individuals murder by firearm, many time of someone known to the perpetrator  This is not shooting up a school.  These are just facts,they do nothing to support or refute your opinion.  Protecting citizen's freedom against an oppressive murder rate is not tied to individuals murder rate.

From what I’ve seen those stats include everything though, including the horrific rise in suicides by gun shot. It’s literally a epidemic that should be getting way more attention than it is.  

Also I know this isn’t the PC thing to say, but I’m all for gangs killing each other. Most of those people have no place in a civilized society. Those two things alone cover a large % of gun violence in this country.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
1 hour ago, susieice said:

We have so many unemployed veterans who are well trained and would be happy to secure our schools and our children. If we need armed security on campuses, I think they would be our best bet. Let teachers concentrate on teaching kids. Hopefully more on the social side than they do now.

I agree. Though I wouldn’t deny a teacher who was willing and able to carry as well. 

People need to be hired. People willing to die to protect. They should be paid well to do it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
1 hour ago, susieice said:

We have so many unemployed veterans who are well trained and would be happy to secure our schools and our children. If we need armed security on campuses, I think they would be our best bet. Let teachers concentrate on teaching kids. Hopefully more on the social side than they do now.

Money.  We can't pay (don't want to pay) for schools now.  Not to say the idea lacks merit.  My suggestion, channel defense dollars toward that cause.  It would take a minuscule fraction of the defense budget.  it might make us safer and take better care of veterans than any other use of the money.  If we can't make our own country safe for our children, we are wasting our time trying to make the rest of the world safe, we have already lost the battle.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
14 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

From what I’ve seen those stats include everything though, including the horrific rise in suicides by gun shot. It’s literally a epidemic that should be getting way more attention than it is.  

Also I know this isn’t the PC thing to say, but I’m all for gangs killing each other. Most of those people have no place in a civilized society. Those two things alone cover a large % of gun violence in this country.

A lot of folks would not be sorry if gangs exterminated each other, but mostly they go after softer targets; civilians trying to work and feed their families. A lot of fights between gangs are for control of territory, and resources  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
1 hour ago, susieice said:

We have so many unemployed veterans who are well trained and would be happy to secure our schools and our children. If we need armed security on campuses, I think they would be our best bet. Let teachers concentrate on teaching kids. Hopefully more on the social side than they do now.

I'm not so sure.  Many of the veterans I know have difficulty finding employment because of physical/mental disabilities or substance/alcohol abuse problems resulting from their contribution to America.  They also suffer from really high suicide rates.  If anything, I would like to see more jobs where they didn't have to relive that kind of stress and trauma.

The stable ones usually have no problem already getting employment as police officers or security guards. (Haven't met many that weren't veterans, in fact.)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
6 hours ago, and then said:

Whatever the legal age is for enlistment in the U.S. military, seems appropriate.

Remember how rigidly firearms are controlled in the military?  Kids going home on Christmas leave don't get to take their weapons home to show their parents and friends.  The weapons you  use in the military do not belong to you. The military does not take chances with the good judgement of 18 year olds or anybody else for that matter.  What is the legal age for buying alcohol or drugs in states where that is legal?

That may not be a good argument.  My friend and I used to tie our .22s to our bike handlebars and ride out of town to a friend's ranch to shoot.  We were 13-14 years old.  Nobody looked at us twice or ever stopped us to see where we were going.  I felt pretty careful and responsible, but that wouldn't fly in these times. 

I think kids today are as responsible as I was.  Owning a .22, shotgun or hunting rifle seems different to me than owning an assault weapon.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
9 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I would like to see more jobs where they didn't have to relive that kind of stress and trauma.

That is a very good point.  Thanks, I hadn't thought of that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Just now, Tatetopa said:

Well now thats something to look forward to, US joins the ranks of Iraq and Afghanistan.  C'mon Aztez there has got to be a better way,

there prbly is Tatpopa, there prbly is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
3 hours ago, susieice said:

We have so many unemployed veterans who are well trained and would be happy to secure our schools and our children. If we need armed security on campuses, I think they would be our best bet. Let teachers concentrate on teaching kids. Hopefully more on the social side than they do now.

Absolutely....can not understand this arming teachers thing. So a teacher is in the classroom teaching the students and also have to have their gun ready...just in case? Whats all that about? And where do they store their guns, in the desk...on themselves. How reasuring is that for the students to see..  teacher is armed and ready to go shoot a shooter...once they have found them, cos do not forget the teacher is not watching who is walking into the school when they are in the classroom doing what they do best - teach.

Why should teachers get gun training when the schools have officers on site who had this and are position to watch who enters the school...allegedly. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

  If anything, I would like to see more jobs where they didn't have to relive that kind of stress and trauma.

I understand what you are saying, but would they not see protecting the American children on their home land a better cause than fighting  other people in their own countries with the result of utter carnage, more wars and soldiers losing their lives or their sanity for what? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Just now, freetoroam said:

 

Why should teachers get gun training when the schools have officers on site who had this and are position to watch who enters the school...allegedly. 

bacuse officer will not be in a class room when a kid pulls out a pistol and starts shooting, teacher will, so it his\her choice, either die for sure, or fight back and survive\ave kids. no one says every single teacher much train and carry, but those who feel they can be useful during emergency like that, and have training\own guns, should absolutely carry it. after all they have as much chance to be killed as students.

btw Florida school had armed guards, one turned out to be a coward, and hid outside,others were useless as well,  but a football coach did not, and shielded kids, now tell me what would happen if he was armed

 

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
8 minutes ago, aztek said:

bacuse officer will not be in a class room when a kid pulls out a pistol and starts shooting, teacher will, so it his\her choice, either die for sure, or fight back and survive\ave kids. 

 

The shooter has to get to the classrooms first. If the shooter is even heading that way. A lot of the shootings did not start in the classrooms.

Surely the job of the officer or security guard is to stop the shooter  opening fire, let alone reaching the classrooms? why are they not stopped entering a school with guns?

 

Edited by freetoroam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.