Another hero the media won't cover - School Resource Officer stopped gunman

If not already existing LEO's, why not trained volunteers from the public?

What's needed in my opinion is a trust worthy, armed person in every school, there to prevent atrocities.

We could look at it as a means to create desperately needed jobs, as well as a means to protect the most vulnerable of citizens.
 
But paid law enforcement officers have no duty to protect anyone from violence...

This is why I feel the teachers or volunteers make better choices as the armed presence... They have "some skin in the game"...

That and the actual desire to stop violence...

Brent
 
I just saw this and wanted to share. It seems back in 2010 a School Resource Officer (cop), confronted an active shooter and did everything right.
Click to expand...

To be an active shooter, you have to be firing shots. You didn't hear about an active shooter being stopped because it wasn't an active shooter. It was a gunman. It would have have been a nasty situation, no doubt, but it wasn't an active shooter situation, yet. The SRO did well.

It didn't make big news, but it certainly did make the news...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Carolyn+Gudger+SRO+news

You don't hear about a lot of good events. Such events really don't hold people's interest very well, including our own.
 
Code:
Code: 
But paid law enforcement officers have no duty to protect anyone from violence...

You're kidding, right?
 
This isn't completely my idea, so I can't take credit for it. I got it from another poster on this or another site. But I happen to agree with them. And that's I would use the National Guard to protect the schools. We are already paying them.

In addition to that, A lot of the opposition to having someone in the schools i.e. law enforcement or military is that some parents feel their kids will be scarred for lack of a better term if the kids feel like they are spending all day in a prison. They think (and at least partly true) that the kids may feel the person is there to control them as opposed to protecting them. I can see that fear, and I can see some kids viewing it that way. So simply don't put them in Uniform. Let them carry concealed. But them in standard teacher attire. In fact, while they are at it, giving them a little training and let them fill in as substitutes. All schools need substitutes. You could even setup programs that allow active duty military personnel that are transitioning out of active duty fill these roles. It might help them transition back to civilian life. Some of them might even decide to use their GI bill to get their teaching degrees, or follow up with jobs in law enforcement.

Bottom line, there are ways to accomplish putting a deterrent in the schools, without costing a ton of new money and without alienating the students.
 
You're kidding, right?
Click to expand...

I don't know if he's kidding but...

There was a case many years ago in which it was ruled that police don't have to protect citizens "before the fact".
Some folks have taken that to mean that police don't have to protect citizens at all.
I just think it means police can't be everywhere and act as personal bodyguards (except for rich folks and banks).
 
Nope not kidding at all... As stated, it was decided in court that they do not have a duty to endanger themselves no more than you or I do...

Some may choose to of their own accord just the same as we may...

Me??? In a heartbeat, I will do what ever i possibly can to prevent harm to any person without the ability to protect them self...

Failure of an adult to arm or protect themselves doesn't count as they failed to do so while having the ability available...

Brent
 
Couple things to consider. It would be necessary to review the referenced court ruling. Federal or state level? In addition, the general assumption that law enforcement are under no obligation to act is less than accurate.
 
Federal... Supreme Court should do???
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
Click to expand...

There are also state cases and D.C. case of same verdict but this'n seems to be THEE final ruling...

Brent
 
I have to agree with you there. If you are standing in a "Mexican standoff," guns pointed at each other, and you and your opponent are both yelling at one another to put the gun down, you aren't doing something right. That seems to be TV stupidity and NOT taking advantage of the fact that the other guy is threatening to kill you and hasn't yet pull the trigger.
 
I have to agree with you there. If you are standing in a "Mexican standoff," guns pointed at each other, and you and your opponent are both yelling at one another to put the gun down, you aren't doing something right. That seems to be TV stupidity and NOT taking advantage of the fact that the other guy is threatening to kill you and hasn't yet pull the trigger.
Click to expand...

This is the perfect Rx for getting shot, . . . bad.

I made the decision a long time ago, . . . if I have to get my weapon out, . . . then the time for discussion and verbal discourse has ended, . . .

RE: USMC rules for gunfight, rule # 20 - The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
The ONLY reason that woman is still alive is that the offender simply didn't want to kill her bad enough to do it.
She did just about everything wrong she could have.

You DO NOT stand & dialogue gun to gun.
You DO NOT alow an armed offender to get close enough to try to disarm you.
And so on.

It is entirely possible, and this is a clear example, to do everything wrong & still survive to look like a hero.
Sheer luck & absolutely nothing else.
Denis
 
JBeechel, . . . I just added another 100 or so viewers, . . .

Took the link, . . . dropped it in facebook.

When I did that, . . . the picture of "him and her" showed up.

I'll get some flak from it, . . . but it's still the truth: The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.

In this case it was a woman, . . . but it was moved, seconded, and unanimously approved to let her into the "Good Guy" club.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
1) LEO's aren't legally compelled to keep people safe from harm
2) Registration, confiscations, laws, bans, etc COST TONS OF MONEY
3) Allowing the arming of teachers with personal and emotional stakes in schools and students is cheap, easy, and voluntary.
4) Multiple mass shootings and attacks have been stopped with CCW holders, retired officers/veterans
5) Why is this not painfully obvious?
 
Dwight, the Taft HS shooter was talked out of his shotgun by two unarmed faculty/staff members. A gun isn't the only solution. It is often a necessary and may be the best solution, but not the only solution and not always the best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top