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: active shooter drill, indiana, police, school shootings, teachers


Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Rex 'Soapy' Carr-Wash, 25 Mar 2019 @ 10:54am

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 11:00am

      In this case, the “terrorists” were the police.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 11:32am

      Re: Techdirt snowflakes miss point of TRAINING EXERCISE.

      You seem stable.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 11:49am

      Re: Ignorant motherfucker misses the point

      Hey blue balls from all of us to all of you. Go fuck yourself.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      btr1701 (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 2:53pm

      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?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 3:13pm

        '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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 8:01pm

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

        Yes thats what your supposed to do
        NOT BE A FUCKEN PUSSY AND BE SLAUGHTERED
        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 .

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 9:01pm

          Re: everyone has a brass set behind a keyboard

          Watch out guys we got us a real internet badass on our hands.

          “man up admit your weak
          and vow to be better prepared than to cry like little bitches
          who had their feelings hurt”

          Says the crying little bitch with hurt feelings

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          cattress (profile), 26 Mar 2019 @ 6:31am

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 2:55pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Coyne Tibbets (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 3:24pm

      Re: Techdirt snowflakes miss point of TRAINING EXERCISE.

      ...someone trying to TRAIN to not be obedient idiots...

      I know, right? Here they were trying to teach them to be hopeless subservients, and no one gets that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John85851 (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 11:04am

    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".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Oblate (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 11:34am

    The most likely outcome is a new fear of law enforcement, ...

    With police like that around, at least it was valuable training.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 2:14pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        David, 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:27pm

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Bamboo Harvester (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 11:43am

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 11:52am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:02pm

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

        What if the aggressor is armed with a military-level firearm and the dozen weaponless people are children whose only weapons for fighting back might, at best, be textbooks?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:13pm

          Re:

          Gee, that does seem like an uneven match. Maybe if we train teachers and allow them to carry we can even out those odds a bit...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:22pm

            Yes, arming teachers with guns that might easily fall into the hands of young children, end up causing collateral damage from panicked firing, or cause the police to mistake a teacher for an active shooter (with the violent result that proposition implies) is the exact solution we need to enact~.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:37pm

              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.)

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Stephen T. Stone (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:42pm

                Re: 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.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 2:32pm

                  Re: Re: Re:

                  How do those last two sentences go together? It's like throwing "ban soda" into a discussion on the prevalence of obesity...

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 3:44pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Your point being...?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 8:09pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      just because you don't have the will to protect yourself
                      and willing will get on the train to Auschwitz ........
                      Don't drag the rest of us along to your Dystopian future
                      where only the gov't is allowed to have weapons to protect you

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 9:06pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Why is it that it’s always you keyboard kommandos who Godwin the thread. Be honest bro; you’d hit the deck in fear if your neighbours dog knocked over his watering bowl.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Uriel-238 (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 9:08pm

                        "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.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 26 Mar 2019 @ 1:30am

                Re: 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?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                blademan9999 (profile), 26 Mar 2019 @ 11:06am

                Re: Re:

                That's wrong, there have been many incidents in the past of children accidentally killing themselves or others, that sounds like a problem to me.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Cdaragorn (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:42pm

              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.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Stephen T. Stone (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:48pm

                acting like the most horrible thing you can imagine is even remotely likely is just disingenuous

                Better to imagine the worst possible outcomes and think through how to avoid/prevent them than to imagine the best possible outcomes and suffer for your mistake.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              someoneinnorthms (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 2:45pm

              Re:

              So, better to lie down and take the bullet in the back of the head for real?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:29pm

            Re: Re:

            You really aren’t stupid enough to think that’s actually a good idea are you? Were you homeschooled or just hunt inbred bro?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          btr1701 (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 2:56pm

          Re:

          What if the aggressor is armed with a military-level firearm

          What exactly constitutes a 'military-level firearm'?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 3:03pm

            Re: Re:

            Ask New Zealand. It would be the weapons they just announced they are going to ban.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 3:19pm

              Re: Re: Re: “military grade”

              basically just about anything not Bolt or pump action or fires real fast.

              -usually

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                btr1701 (profile), 27 Mar 2019 @ 10:51am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: “military grade”

                Except I can 'fire real fast' with a revolver just as easily as I can with a semi-auto pistol.

                Does that make the old 1850's six-shooter mounted on my wall a 'military-level firearm'?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 3:35pm

              Re: Re: Re:

              Except they got it wrong. For example, an AR-15 is not a military weapon. Most hunting rifles are far more dangerous than the AR-15. It just looks like a military rifle so the uneducated use that as the poster child for gun control.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:34pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re:

                According to the NRA an AR-15 is a hunting rifle. And the ban is on military STYLE rifles which the AR-15 is a poster child for. So thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Uriel-238 (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 9:15pm

                  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.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                JMT (profile), 26 Mar 2019 @ 12:33pm

                Re: Re: Re: 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?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Uriel-238 (profile), 26 Mar 2019 @ 1:50pm

                  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.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              btr1701 (profile), 27 Mar 2019 @ 10:50am

              Re: Re: Re:

              New Zealand didn't ban 'military-level firearms'. They had a whole different set of criteria.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Uriel-238 (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 7:56pm

            "Military level firearms"

            Shoot bullets.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:27pm

        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?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:04pm

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

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

      Wikipedia and Dictionary.com 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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 9:26pm

        "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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 10:35pm

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 11:45am

    If the object is desensitization, then it is working.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 11:51am

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:33pm

      Re:

      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.

      Sounds like it would be more effective to send the mental health help to the police stations.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:04pm

    Someday, America will be able to divorce itself from its gun lobbyists and grotesque ties to commercial gun interests for the sake of the well-being of its citizens. Maybe.

    Then next it can figure out (like other developed countries) that healthcare should not be a for-profit thing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Cdaragorn (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:46pm

      Re:

      Someday people will stop being so dang selfish throwing around these stupid assumptions and care about what's actually going on in places that have done the things you scream we're all too stupid to do.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 8:26pm

      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................

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 9:08pm

        Re: Re:Once you go Godwin you don’t uhhh...

        Way to commit to fully shitting the thread bro.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 9:34pm

        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?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:11pm

    "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?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:24pm

      How the hell does anyone get “mental toughness” from being led into a room and faux-executed by the very people who are supposed to protect them from harm? Going through that kind of shit does not make people brave — it gives them PTSD.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:33pm

      Re:

      Talk to any army tactical trainer about how hard it is to get normal people to actually shoot to kill, even when they are accurate shooters on the range. Pulling a gun and hesitating is a suicidal move against an active shooter.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Rocky, 25 Mar 2019 @ 2:07pm

        Re: Re:

        That's why soldiers are first trained to obey orders without thinking, then they build on that reflex until you have someone that will pull the trigger without hesitating. Even with that training many soldiers freeze the first time they have to shoot at a real person.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:34pm

      Re: looks like we got a real internet badass here.

      Teachers aren’t soldiers you fuckwit.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:39pm

        Re: Re: looks like we got a real internet badass here.

        seconded

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 9:42pm

        "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.)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gary (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:35pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:41pm

        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

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:43pm

          I cannot believe I have to say this, yet here we are: Teachers should not have to be soldiers while they are in a classroom.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:48pm

            Re:

            Like the fuckwit he is. He doesn’t realise this applies to the shooters as well and will ceretainly make them much, much more effective.

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

            That’s what we really need bro. /s

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Cdaragorn (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:49pm

            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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:54pm

              Pretending there's a third option is just living in denial.

              There is a third option: Society can address the reasons for gun violence and find ways to prevent it from happening (as much). Teachers should not have to train in the art of war to do their jobs.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Gary (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 1:11pm

                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.

                https://www.google.com/search?q=teacher+discharges+firearm&rlz=1C1CHBD_en&oq=teach er+discharges+firearm&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2.6599j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 3:39pm

                  Re: 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?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:05pm

                    We can talk about the underlying issues in society and have competent gun control. The two propositions are not mutually exclusive.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Thad (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:33pm

                    Re: Re: Re:

                    Yeah, I hate how every week there's a story about somebody killing a bunch of people with a broom.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 26 Mar 2019 @ 1:43am

                    Re: Re: 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?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 3:41pm

                  Re: Re:

                  Follow-up:

                  I also think it's retarded to train and arm teachers. Intentionally putting firearms within the reach of hormonal teenagers will easily trump any amount of training the teachers receive. This would have the opposite of the intended effect.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 8:29pm

                Re:

                yea I guess you never road the D train back in the late 80s
                Bernie had the right idea

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 9:11pm

              Re: I’ll have the third option thanks

              Or live in a society where gun violence is vanishing rare and not the depressig norm. Just because you can’t imagine it, dosent mean it dosent exist bro.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:46pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Or ... how about we control the movement of people in and out of the school building(s)? You do not see this type of thing happening at a court house very often, they have metal detectors. I'm not suggesting that we install those porno scannerz either.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Cdaragorn (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:51pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I'd bet the fact that there are other places that have no guns and are therefore far far easier targets is a far more likely explanation for why this doesn't happen in places like courthouses than the fact that they have metal detectors.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 1:09pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Those other countries do not allow the carrying of loaded weapons in public places either, and require them to be unloaded and in a bag or case for transport to and from ranges, gun shops etc. That is to sayt hey do not believe that carrying a gun is the solution to any problem.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          stderric (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:16pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yes, exactly. Mandatory basic training and a couple years service for everyone.

          Service guarantees citizenship? Read better books, you bowb.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 11:58pm

          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...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2019 @ 5:42am

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Thad (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 2:06pm

      Re:

      Ah, another Internet tough guy who knows exactly what he'd do in a shooting situation.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Gary (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:12pm

    Next Drill

    Next up - The trigger happy peace officers will be setting people in fire to make sure the move fast enough in a fire drill.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Donald "Bone Spurs" Trump, 25 Mar 2019 @ 12:42pm

    “I really believe I’d run in, even if I didn’t have a weapon"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      bob, 25 Mar 2019 @ 2:27pm

      Re:

      And if the golf cart fit through the doors!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      stderric (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 4:39pm

      Re:

      “I really believe I’d run in, even if I didn’t have a weapon"

      Wait Mr. President! Think about it! I mean, there's a very slim chance you might miraculously save a lot of lives, but there's a very good chance you'll just get your head blown o...

      On second thought, go for it. Win/win for the rest of us.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 1:33pm

    Not Funny, nor useful

    i would have lined 1-2 up and show them how to DUCK a shot..
    How To avoid the Bullets..
    HOW to Rush the DESKS and Shove them into the shooter..

    THEN,
    Classes on Psychology, and dispersing Hate and depression..How to lower the situation.. HOW to read the situation..

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 2:25pm

    You kept saying cops and drill in your article but it all sounded like sadists having fun with helpless victims.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Daydream, 25 Mar 2019 @ 2:44pm

    As I recall, didn't (the self-proclaimed) Islamic State make a habit of mock-executing prisoners, so that they'd be calm and not resist when their actual execution came around?

    Why is a sheriff in Indiana doing the same thing to ordinary teachers?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 3:01pm

    Keep Fear Alive

    Really these drills have always been about justofying "security" and a culture of fear instead of actual protection. You sure as hell don't see congresscritters doing that shit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Mar 2019 @ 3:09pm

    Huh, it occurs to me that the teachers in Indiana were thinking about a walk out over their lack of pay...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2019 @ 3:13pm

    Officer: what did you learn?
    Teacher: bullets hurt you are a moron and Run away.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2019 @ 2:10am

    Humorous Subtitle Irony

    "you-beat-a-dog-if-you-want-it-to-be-mean,-right-Sheriff?"

    No, you beat a dog, if you want to teach it to hate you and eventually turn on you and kill you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    John, 26 Mar 2019 @ 4:57am

    Assault?

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2019 @ 11:35am

    I've attended similar training

    I've attended similar training. Using the pellets adds a bit of realism to the training. After the first experience, you won't get shot again if you are doing the training correctly.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Lilly Lothian (profile), 10 Apr 2019 @ 5:45am

    It should not exist in the learning process. Children do not deserve such treatment. They must study, not be abused. If students need examples of essays, they can find them here https://tooly.io/. This has a lot of examples on any topic. I use it all school life. If you have any questions, you can write me a private message.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.