Sheriff Decides The Best Way To Prep Teachers For School Shootings Is To Frighten And Injure Them

from the you-beat-a-dog-if-you-want-it-to-be-mean,-right-Sheriff? dept

Indiana law enforcement has apparently figured out a solution to the school shooting problem: round up the teachers and shoot them. Here’s a jolly little anecdote from the Indiana State Teachers Association, detailing an issue brought up during a recent state Senate education committee meeting.

If you can’t see/read the tweet, it says:

During active shooter drill, four teachers at a time were taken into a room, told to crouch down and were shot execution style with some sort of projectiles – resulting in injuries to the extent that welts appeared, and blood was drawn.

The next tweet in the thread provides more details:

The teachers were terrified, but were told not to tell anyone what happened. Teachers waiting outside that heard the screaming were brought into the room four at a time and the shooting process was repeated.

I guess terrorizing teachers will somehow prep them for an actual shooting. Not sure how that’s supposed to work, but who am I to question the sadism knowledge of law enforcement professionals.

The man behind the training defends the actions of his trainers — trainers who went unsupervised for at least part of the drill.

White County Sheriff Bill Brooks, whose department led the training in question, said it has conducted active-shooter training with schools for several years and has previously used the airsoft gun.

The plastic pellets they used are 4.6 mm in diameter — slightly larger than a standard BB.

“It’s a soft, round projectile,” he said. “The key here is ‘soft.'”

Maybe so, but at close range they can still leave welts and break skin. And “execution style” generally means the gun is only inches from the person being “executed.” Sheriff Brooks defends his officers, but can’t specifically say what happened during the active shooter simulation because he wasn’t there.

He was present for part of the January training, but not the portion in which the airsoft gun was used.

“They all knew they could be [shot],” Brooks said. “It’s a shooting exercise.”

The teachers who had the drill imposed on them beg to differ. While they were given face protection and warned the weapons might be fired, they were not notified they would be rounded up in small groups, taken to another room, lined up against the wall, and shot multiple times in the back.

There are no guidelines or laws regulating these active shooter drills. They’re left up to the discretion of law enforcement agencies. It seems at least one agency has interpreted this lack of guidance to mean it can engage in sadistic but useless pantomimes that involve emptying their faux firearms into the backs of teachers they’re supposed to be instructing.

The problem (well, one of the problems) with this “training” is it does very little to prep teachers for an active shooter scenario. The most likely outcome is a new fear of law enforcement, rather than the polished skill set needed to confront shooters and/or ensure the safety of as many students as possible. It also does not appear to do much to protect kids, as noted in another recent story:

There?s little data to show they do and some evidence that they can make things worse. At Stoneman Douglas, for example, the shooter is said to have used his knowledge of the school?s lockdown procedures to rack up more casualties during his assault. The biggest concern for some experts, though, is that the vast majority of schoolchildren, whose classrooms will never come under attack, are left worse off after they?re made to seriously contemplate their deaths at the hands of a madman.

Active shooter drills ?can be very traumatizing for students,? says James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University and an outspoken critic of the trend. ?Particularly if they are staged in a very realistic manner with fake blood and guns loaded with blanks, running around the school, chasing students. It?s a constant reminder that the bad guys are out to get them.?

The training for law enforcement appears to be at least as free-flowing and scattershot as the downstream byproduct inflicted on educators. There doesn’t appear to be a standard set of active shooter best practices, which has resulted in law enforcement officers abandoning their posts and walking away from the sound of gunfire. Instruction should come from nationally-recognized trainers, not just whoever happens to be available at the local cop shop.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Sheriff Decides The Best Way To Prep Teachers For School Shootings Is To Frighten And Injure Them”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Rex 'Soapy' Carr-Wash says:

Techdirt snowflakes miss point of TRAINING EXERCISE.

Point was that if go along with obvious "terrorists", you end up DED — D-E-D — DED.

But all you get from someone trying to TRAIN to not be obedient idiots is that the people who are trying to TRAIN that out so people survive are sadists.

I begin to think that it’d be great to have waves of new immigrants if we could trade you useless ninny snowflakes for them. You’re hazard even to yourselves.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Techdirt snowflakes miss point of TRAINING EXERCISE.

So if I’m a teacher and they want to make it a realistic exercise to the point of mock executing me and shooting me with projectiles, I’ll reciprocate and make it realistic for them as well and fight back with everything I have to save my own life, like I would in the real world. If they happen to get cracked across the jaw with a textbook or smashed over the head with a chair, well, that’s some good training, isn’t it?

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: 'No no, WE hurt YOU, not the other way around!'

‘Well that doesn’t sound fun at all.’ -The sadists running the ‘exercise’

Strangely enough I suspect that the one defending the ‘lesson’, and the ones doing it, would highly object were it to actually be accurate as you describe, rather than just a fun way to spend an afternoon tormenting and terrifying some teachers.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Techdirt snowflakes miss point of TRAINING EXERCISE.

Yes thats what your supposed to do
Cause If your not going to fight back in a simulation
your just dead meat in a real fight .
So instead of whining like little bitches , man up admit your weak
and vow to be better prepared than to cry like little bitches
who had their feelings hurt .

cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Techdirt snowflakes miss point of TRAINING EXERCISE.

No. Nope. Wrong.

This was just a sadistic game, there was nothing positive or useful for teachers to take from this.

First, teachers are more interested in better training for retreating and escape. They want to maximize their, as well as students, chance of survival, not confront a shooter. If teachers wanted to be prepared to confront a shooter, then they would be demanding to be armed (I think competent and confident teachers should not be restricted from concealed carry). Most teachers don’t want to be armed. Their training should be centered on keeping calm during an emergency so that they can think clearly and act quickly. They may benefit from some exposure, with hearing protection, to the sound of gunfire because it is so jarring and they need to be able to maintain focus.
Getting shot with a pellet gun hurts, but is no comparison to lead bullets. Pellet guns don’t even make any real noise. There is no preparation for being shot with live ammunition. This was a stupid and sadistic act that should be considered assault, especially because cops did it.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: On killing

The term little Eichmanns refers to small bureaucrats who are willing to participate in large engines that engage in atrocity or fuel atrocity, while these bureaucrats think of their own work as harmless, especially if it provides an easy, stable livelihood or advances one’s career. In the United States we can regard anyone in law enforcement (or even the entire DoJ) as Little Eichmanns.

I watched The Man With The Iron Heart recently, a French-produced, English-language version of the book HHhH. I’d already seen Conspiracy and studied the Wannsee Conference a bit, and I can be something of a Third Reich history buff, especially since so much is applicable to the modern era.

I’ve been wondering since, if we should coin the term Little Heydrichs It would refer to people who imagine that being a brutal killer is something that they would gladly do and that anyone can do. I remember a Mississipi(?) elected official (governor? legislator?) who suggested he’d gladly participate in some firing squads so that executions in his state could continue once the lethal-injection drugs were embargoed. It’s a common mistaken belief, we imagine we are hard-hearted and that bringing ourselves to kill someone despicable is easy.

It turns out it isn’t, something well known in military schools worldwide: We can train people to shoot straight, and we can dehumanize the enemy, but only a small portion of them will actually be willing to stare the enemy in the face and blow their heads off. Agatha Christie was right: willing murderers are rare.

Even drone crew have difficulty pulling the trigger knowing that it’s going to murder a bunch of people half-way across the world. Video-gamizing the targets doesn’t help.

We stopped executing soldiers for cowardice after WWI once we realized that soldiers don’t like shooting soldiers, even those designated as enemy, and most soldiers that do learn to kill never quite transition back to a peacetime state where they won’t kill.

John85851 (profile) says:

What did the teachers learn? Nothing good

So what did the teachers learn?
The steps to file a grievance with the local teacher’s union.
How to find a new job where they won’t get shot in the back.
Once they’ve quit, how to spread the word that this school is a dangerous work environment. Oops, they already did that.
How to find a lawyer who will sue over the so-called "training".

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

We hardly needed yet another example as reason to fear law enforcement.

My last interaction with law enforcement was getting pulled over because the cop thought I ran a stop sign (I didn’t, no citation was issued, he just wasn’t paying attention). That was over 15 years ago. Still, with everything going on every time I see a cop with or without a car I do everything I can to blend into the environment. Those assholes are dangerous and unpredictable.

David says:

Re: Re: Re:

We hardly needed yet another example as reason to fear law enforcement.

I have little problem with law enforcement. But this kind of bullshit seems rather remote from enforcing the law. If this kind of shit is supposed to be necessary for preserving bodily integrity of the pupils, it would appear that law enforcement cannot hope to do its job.

If law enforcement cannot hope to do the job of giving the citizen a reasonable assurance of having their life preserved, there does not seem to be a reasonable option other than curbing general access to guns.

Yes, I know, Second Amendment and all that. To enjoy your right to bear arms, you first have to live.

Bamboo Harvester (profile) says:

There isn't an answer....

…Do this type of "training" and you teach them to fear, nothing else. OTOH, teach them to fight back and you’ve just created yet more corpses, because they won’t do it correctly when faced with a real situation.

And they’d never teach what actually works – rat-packing. It lessens the "authority" of those in charge.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: There isn't an answer....

Bull. Anyone fighting back makes the job of the terrorist harder and leads directly to their being stopped. No one ever gets to train for specific situations like this, but not acting like a dumb victim makes the aggressor spend more time and effort to clear each room. If all I have are chairs, he is getting chairs to the face before I am taken out.
If everyone acts like a scared target, you have made the terrorist job that much easier.
A dozen weaponless people in close quarters can often inflict enough damage to take down an armed aggressor.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

We had guns in homes and schools with no problems in the past. We also didn’t have school shootings. A lack of training is what makes firearms dangerous. Otherwise we need to ban police from schools because a gun could easily fall into the hands of young children.

(Note that removing police from schools for other reasons is another issue.)

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

We had guns in homes and schools with no problems in the past.

“We’ve always done it this way” is one of the most dangerous phrases in the English language.

We also didn’t have school shootings.

Then instead of training teachers to become soldiers, maybe society should address the root causes of gun violence in general and school shootings in particular. Also gun control would be nice.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 "The will to protect yourself"

Three Arrows did such a marvelous job of debunking the notion that an armed Jewish people in Germany would stand a chance in an armed insurrection circa 1923-1945 that I’m just going to leave it here.

It’s 23 minutes, and gets into the timeline of the Third Reich and Jewish Holocaust, but definitely worth it if you’re using these (or insurrection against tyranny) as an argument that we should have guns access.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

"We also didn’t have school shootings."

So, perhaps work out what has caused them to keep happening and address those issues rather than stocking schools with deadly weapons to be wielded by barely trained civilians in a stressful situation surrounded by defenseless targets? Just a thought.

"A lack of training is what makes firearms dangerous."

No, I think it’s the fact that they’re designed to blow holes in people that make them dangerous. The fact that there’s so many of them that they keep ending up in the hands of psychopaths, and that people keep opposing reasonable measures to prevent this, are mitigating factors.

"(Note that removing police from schools for other reasons is another issue.)"

Why would a civilised country need armed police in schools to begin with?

Cdaragorn (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

That’s a nice scare scenario. Too bad we have plenty of examples that prove how wrong it is.

The state of Utah has had zero problems like what you describe despite allowing both teachers and parents to carry concealed on campuses. Allowing people to have the power to defend themselves is not the one sided scenario you present. Yes it has positive and negative things we need to weigh, but acting like the most horrible thing you can imagine is even remotely likely is just disingenuous and doesn’t help the conversation at all.

Uriel-238 says:

Re: Re: Re:5 AR-15 isn't really a "military" weapon

I would review the AR-15 as a field rifle. That is to say it’s a rifle that a hobbyist takes to the shooting range. It has a nice feel, doesn’t kick too much, is easy to aim and hits what you point it at with good accuracy.

But out in the bush, the AR-15 (and its derivatives) don’t take much dirt to jam. And they have a lot of parts to manage when breaking it down out in the field. It’s not really all that great for either hunting or military situations. I suspect the NRA calls it a hunting rifle because it might be too tempting to ban a fun rifle, even though that’s what the AR-15 is.

The US Army and Marine Corps adopted the M16 in 1964, but not because they took it, or assault rifles seriously. In fact, almost everyone but the generals didn’t want the M16. More importantly they didn’t want to supply and distribute a third type of small-arm round.

Before ’64, US troops were using the M14, a full-powered rifle that is an improvement on the M1 Garand. We still use M14s (This one) for troopers in a designated marksman role.

The troops on the field were not impressed with the M16. The bigger M14 had an oak stock to the M16’s plastic, and it did a good job of killing the enemy dead, where the M16 might wound them. And the M14 broke down into four pieces. And came back together easily.

The brass didn’t care. Loading a squad with M16s meant that it could carry three M2 Browning Emplacements rather than only one emplacement. Statistically machine gun emplacements were killing way more than rifles. The .50 caliber bullets also ignored personal armor and could chew up mobilized armor pretty well. This is the reason why we subjected our troops to the M16 and to assault rifle bullets. Not because we thought the M16 or ARs were the bees knees.

Long before the switch, our troopers were already lifting AK-47s off dead enemy. The AK-47 is a military weapon. It’ll keep shooting in war conditions, and is plenty accurate at thirty meters which is where most rifle-fights take place. It became common practice when fighting Warsaw-pact-supplied enemy just to switch to an AK as soon as one became available. During the cold war, troops going into CQC situations sometimes were issued MP5s, but that’s an SMG, not an AR. Today the US Army commonly issues the Colt M4 Carbine, what is a compact AR-15 derivative. And AK and its derivatives are ubiquitous, worldwide.

Curiously, weapons chosen as standard issue by a military are not necessarily the most deadly, the most accurate or the best suited to the wilds. They’re chosen because they’re cheap, easy to service, and typically good enough for a soldier. Here in the US, hunting rifles are commonly semi-automatic, and have better range and accuracy than their military counterparts. To a soldier, larger shells mean carrying fewer of them. But to a hunter it means the bear / moose / caribou / whatever is less likely to just get pissed off and tear you in half.

JMT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Couple of questions for you then. (1) What, aside from the lack of burst or auto fire, makes the AR-15 not a military weapon considering it’s developed directly from a military weapon, and (2) in the context of using one for a mass shooting what exactly makes "most hunting rifles" more dangerous than an AR-15?

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Why is my treatise on guns not showing?

Actually it’s the reverse. The M16 was a militarized version of the AR-15. (I wrote a post last night explaining some of the history and used too many Wikipedia links so it’s taking its time).

As I said then, the AR-15 is really a field weapon, which is to say it’s great at the targeting range. What’s the difference between the AR15 and the 1964 M16? Dunno, except the latter suits military specifications it may have been full-auto but the M16A3 was the (a) designation for a full-auto variant (the M16A1 was semi-auto).

As for hunting rifles being better for a mass shooting, assault rifles use a truncated round (smaller and lighter means carrying more), where hunting rifles use full power rounds. Typically a .30 caliber which commonly put someone into shock (and anyone eleven miles behind them) with a grazing hit. Assault rifle rounds are notorious for not killing the enemy dead enough.

Also hunting rifles can be more stable, more accurate, etc. etc. The military doesn’t always choose the rifle with the best characteristics for general issue, rather tries to find the perfect blend of cheap, easy to use, reliable and accurate enough at thirty yards.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: There isn't an answer....

A dozen weaponless people in close quarters can often inflict enough damage to take down an armed aggressor.

A dozen people trying to attack will most likely get in each others way, and identify themselves as priority targets. That is a trick that is easy for Hollywood to accomplish, but then every action is scripted to arrive at the desired outcome, but extremely difficult as an unplanned and unrehearsed action by whoever happens to be on the scene.

Also, in a school, how often are a dozen adults available in one spot?

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: There isn't an answer....

And they’d never teach what actually works – rat-packing.

Wikipedia and both came up blank on this, what’s ‘rat-packing’?

As for effective ‘solutions'(for the immediate problem of a shooter at least) probably the best I’ve seen so far was from a screencap of what I’m guessing was a FB post: Fire extinguishers. Nail someone with one of those and while they can still fire blindly they aren’t going to be aiming worth squat given they’re both blinded and gasping for air. Add in how they’re cheap, can be used as a bludgeoning weapon if need be, have much less of a ‘friendly fire’ problem than guns do, and can be used for an actual fire and offhand at least the idea seems pretty sound.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: "Fire extinquishers"

True, if you’re using kitchen-style CO2 extinguishers. The later ones instead blast a dust of flame retardant solids which is not as impressive or opaque as the CO2 smokescreen. (The solids are also inedible, hence why we still use CO2 extinguishers in the kitchen which can salvage food.)

A system that makes an impenetrable fog that doesn’t impede breathing (too much) might actually serve as a defense against shooters, especially if the security is issued goggles that see through that fog.

I still think pumping money into improving mental health across the US would give the best returns in reducing rampages and suicides. It might also have some other positive side effects as well.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: "Fire extinquishers"

I still think pumping money into improving mental health across the US would give the best returns in reducing rampages and suicides. It might also have some other positive side effects as well.

Agreed, which is why I clarified by saying that the goal was dealing with ‘the immediate problem of a shooter’, with the extinguishers intended as being a relatively cheap way of addressing that while work is done on dealing with the more wide ranging, underlying issues which can lead to the rise of shooters, something better mental health treatment/perception would probably do a lot to help.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

And I am SURE (/s) that there is no truth to the statement floating around attributed to the cops on scene saying, as teachers were shot, that this is what happens when you don’t fight back.

Yep no way the cops decided to flex their muscle & punish the teachers for not going crazy commando and overthrowing the armed invading force to save the kids.

We managed to hand out hundreds of millions in gear that we didn’t have a need for to cops, but we can’t pay to make sure there is mental health help & training in the schools.

I guess if school shooting counted for anything but props to use to get soundbites to get reelected & the support of lobbyists, we’d consider that we don’t need 100 more MCATs than we have people to drive.. and that money might be spent to deal with the real problems with mental health issues. But that doesn’t get them donations to keep protecting the guns & stop people from murdering the unborn… of course once your born, you are on your own…. so get a gun & solve your problems that way.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Yes like Pol Pot , Stalin , Hitler ,Mussolini ,Robert Mugabe
Kim Jong-Il , Vladimir Lenin , Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev
Ho Chi Minh , Mengistu Haile Mariam
Nicholas II ,Mao Zedong

So Yes lets just divorce America from its only means
of protection from the who knows who would be next
added to list of mass murderers above because
having a means of protecting yourself from the likes
above should not be decided by you but like said Government
leaders who are only looking out
for your own dead interests…………….

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Tyrants who instated gun control

You are aware that Hitler only instated gun control for untermenschen, the folk he would later have processed to work camps and then death centers. Everyone else was not only free to keep guns but strongly encouraged to do so.

If you want to make an argument against gun control, why not note that Russia (where guns are inaccessible to common citizens) has a higher homicide rate and suicide rate than the US. By more than twice as much, even.

It would help make a case if our gun nuts weren’t so nuts.

Russia used to have 3x but our homicides are rising. Maybe tyrannical hate-based regimes kill people?

Anonymous Coward says:

"the polished skill set needed to confront shooters"

What a load of hogwash. All you need to confront a shooter is courage. All you need to win is several people with courage, or a couple people with courage and their own damned weapons. School shooters aren’t some tactical masterminds fresh from a special forces training refresher. They’re just angry kids with murder in their hearts and a gun in their hands.

And guess what, people will still get hurt, you can never stop that. But you can make sure a lot less people get hurt via training. Said training includes mental toughness such as that instilled through acting out scenarios and experiencing some pain.

How the f–k do you think militaries have toughened up soldiers for the past 3 thousand years?

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: "Teachers aren't soldiers"

To clarify, soldiers aren’t soldiers.

Really, it’s a small percentage of the front line infantry that do all the killing. Everyone else hides and shoots wildly or otherwise contemplates the mortal combat situation they’ve been thrust into.

I wrote a thing about Scot Peterson, the officer-on-scene at Stoneman Douglas High, the School Resource Officer who was branded a coward by every talking head after the incident. He’s a good guy with a gun. And he did as most good guys do, and chose to live.

Some soldiers can kill, but most can’t and don’t.

(apologies for linking to the same article twice in a forum.)

Gary (profile) says:

Re: Re:

All you need to confront a shooter is courage.

Hey, you first! Step right up and show those teachers how to take one for the team.

Based on what you are saying, the teachers shouldn’t be engaging in police drills, they should go thru basic training in the armed forces, and undergo livefire exercises. That kind of training under fire isn’t going to be learned in an afternoon.

But go ahead – complain about how cowardly they are. Makes you look tough.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

"Based on what you are saying, the teachers shouldn’t be engaging in police drills, they should go thru basic training in the armed forces, and undergo livefire exercises. That kind of training under fire isn’t going to be learned in an afternoon."

Yes, exactly. Mandatory basic training and a couple years service for everyone. It works in other countries just fine

Cdaragorn (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

No, they shouldn’t. But then the world doesn’t care a crap about what should or shouldn’t be. You can either accept that you need to know how to defend yourself against someone with a gun or you can take the chance that you won’t be the one they shoot. Pretending there’s a third option is just living in denial.

Gary (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

I think it’s pretty silly to claim that it’s absolutely no problem to give all the teachers guns. We know based that households with guns have an increased likelihood of a shooting.

And it’s such an absolute statement – no problem. Zero problems.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

We know based that households with guns have an increased likelihood of a shooting.

We know that households with kitchen knives have an increased likelihood of knife violence.
We know that households with brooms have an increased likelihood of broomstick violence.

The availability of a potential weapon isn’t the problem. The problem is a society largely incapable of rational behavior in adversity. Let’s address the real problem, shall we?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

There was a story about a knife attack at a school in China which occurred at roughly the same time as the Sandy Hook massacre. The difference? The China one had 24 injuries and 0 deaths. Sandy Hook has 28 deaths (if you count the killer’s mother who was murdered beforehand) and 2 non-fatal injuries.

Even if you’re going to wave away the increase of violence depending on whether there’s a weapon available, the type of weapon makes a big difference.

"Let’s address the real problem, shall we?"

There are multiple problems, why not address them all?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I live in a country with mandatory military conscription and you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Two years of military service does jack. Under your model of no follow-up after two years in the army, people go back to being civilians. Guess what happens to their ability with firearms and managing warfare technology? It goes to shit.

You want to know why countries with conscription have little gun violence? Having actual limitations on firearm ownership, for one…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yes, exactly. Mandatory basic training and a couple years service for everyone. It works in other countries just fine

Exactly! And while we’re at it, no deferrals for horse shit like sore feet or college. And in terms of rotations for deployment, the newbies get put in the front of the line, so those who’ve been there for years finally get a break.

My experience with dickehads like you is that it’s a great idea, except when it comes to your fucking chud of a kid being drafted and being used as cannon fodder.

John says:


At what point is that considered an assault… actually, assault and battery.

If I was injured during a training at work, you can bet I’d sue. I’m surprised the Teachers’ Union isn’t up in arms.

Lining people up and shooting them in the back teaches you ZERO. Now, if they were teaching disarm techniques, showing how to barricade doors or use every day items as weapons… that’s one thing… shooting someone in the back teaches them nothing.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...