Armed guards at Columbine...why "ineffective"?

S

Skadoosh

New member
This morning, I watched the latest "Meet the Press" with David Gregory hosting Wayne LaPierre. Mr. Gregory repeatedly stated that the armed guards at Columbine High School, who exchanged shots the two shooters but were 'ineffective'.

Does anyone know of a factual report which describes what happened or didnt happened which would explain why the armed guards were allegedly ineffective?
 
Right, not armed guards. There were NO guards at Columbine. They were responding officers who did not seriously try to make entry into the school or pursue the shooters.
 
Right, not armed guards. There were NO guards at Columbine.
Click to expand...

:confused:

The deputy was armed the way I read the article:

Jefferson County Sheriff’s Deputy Neil Gardner soon would complete his second year as the uniformed community resource officer assigned to Columbine High School.
Click to expand...

As Gardner stepped out of his patrol car, Eric Harris turned his attention from shooting into the west doors of the high school to the student parking lot and to the deputy. Gardner, particularly visible in the bright yellow shirt of the community resource officer uniform, was the target of Harris’ bullets. Harris fired about 10 shots from his rifle at Gardner before his gun jammed. Although Gardner’s patrol car was not hit by bullets, two vehicles that he was parked behind were hit by Harris’ gunfire. Investigators later found two bullet holes in each of the cars.
Officer Exchanges Gunfire

Gardner, seeing Harris working with his gun, leaned over the top of the car and fired four shots. He was 60 yards from the gunman. Harris spun hard to the right and Gardner momentarily thought he had hit him. Seconds later, Harris began shooting again at the deputy.
Click to expand...

He was on campus looking into the student smoking area. Years ago many schools had these when it was legal for children to smoke.
 
The primary problem for the school resource officer at Columbine was that the response doctrine LEOs were trained to use (contain the aggressors, delay action until LE could negotiate or go in with overwhelming force) were based on the idea that time would be on the side of law enforcement -- as it is in any hostage crisis. Unfortunately, an active killer situation isn't the same thing as a hostage situation, and delay did not favor the survival of innocent people inside the school. The training doctrines have since changed, and a big part of the reason those doctrines have changed was the lessons learned so heartbreakingly at Columbine.

pax
 
At Columbine the police response was slow to go inside the building because they didn't know it was just 2 dumb kids with guns who barely knew how to use them.

There was a report of a school resource officer who did confront the Columbine shooters and some shots were fired either before or shortly after they entered the building if I remember correctly. I could be mistaken, that was several years ago.

The initial reports led them to believe that it may have been a very organized attack by multiple highly trained, well armed terrorist. if that had been the case it would have been suicide for 1-2 street cops armed with handguns to enter that situation.

Policy at that time was to wait for SWAT teams to enter after they arrive. Policy now is much more aggressive and the first officers on the scene enter as quickly as possible.
 
Always keep in mind the liberal media will 99% of the time find any armed guard ineffective unless he/she is guarding the media, watch tv news is much like viewing cartoons.
 
wingman,

That's a good point. The same media people who are saying armed guards would be ineffective, usually have armed guards posted outside the studios where they're saying this. Weird...

pax
 
The tactic should be in my opinion...

That members of the school staff patrol, while the armed security guard or policeman remains at the most effective point (the front door) in reserve.

The armed security should remain indoors to intercept an attacker. Patrolling outside or being outside will place him in the same position that the deputies found themselves in at Columbine.

Perhaps to take advantage of the time policemen can work on their police reports in the main office (near the front door).

There is a particular species of ant called the trapdoor ant. Its workers look like typical ants which scout and forage. The soldiers primary job is to simply sit and block the entrance to its nest with its head. It seems to be a boring and monotonous job but it insures the survivability of the colony.
 
The deputy was armed the way I read the article:
Click to expand...

Faulty memory, but still not armed guards, but one armed guard and one unarmed guard.

On April 20, however, Deputy Gardner and campus supervisor Andy Marton, an unarmed school security officer employed by the school district, were eating lunch in Gardner’s patrol car
Click to expand...
.

A lot has changed since Columbine. At the time, the idea was to do much of what Gardner did, which was hugely criticized. Officers engaged from basically a seige position, helped coordinate efforts of responders, covered retreating students, rendered aid to fallen students outside of the facility.

Because of events like Columbine, our SROs, of which at last count we had 2 in a district of 37 schools, are to respond to the active shooter(s). They don't radio for backup. They don't stop to render aid. They don't coordinate backup. Their job is basically to squash the shooter(s) as quickly as possible.
 
Last edited:
Well they were following their protocols and set up a perimeter to wait. Too bad that in that time Harris and Klebold were able to kill most of their victims. I wonder if training has improved any since then? If not then the school system needs an armed internal contingency plan to include arming willing teachers.
 
"Ineffective" unfortunately is a word that usually describes the aftermath of an event, . . . when surprize events and superior tactics/equipment prevail.

Columbine is a perfect example: resource officer out of the building, . . . engaging with a hadgun against a rifle, . . . had no clue it would happen.

OTOH: armed resource officer, just inside a 3/6 7/0 door made of 1 inch lexan with no bars or grill to limit vision, . . . making it the ONLY entrance during regular school hours, . . . multiple cameras capturing the events, . . . that would be much more effective.

That could easily be installed for less than 5K per school, . . . which translates to probably something like $5 per kid, . . . if I had kids, . . . it would be a small price to pay for much better security.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
"OTOH: armed resource officer, just inside a 3/6 7/0 door made of 1 inch lexan with no bars or grill to limit vision, . . . making it the ONLY entrance during regular school hours, . . . multiple cameras capturing the events, . . . that would be much more effective."

Any unarmored window is an entrance.

Individuals who plan on killing themselves at the end of the event are also unlikely to care about cameras. I am sure there is video covering at least part of what happened in CT.
 
On April 20, however, Deputy Gardner and campus supervisor Andy Marton, an unarmed school security officer employed by the school district, were eating lunch in Gardner’s patrol car
Click to expand...
An armed officer sitting in a patrol car somewhere on campus is NOT a "guard." He's a guy with a gun, sitting in a car somewhere on campus.

Anyone who has been in the military knows that "guards" are assigned to specific posts or sectors, and that they do NOT leave their post or sector until relieved. If the goal is to prevent unauthorized entry at the front entrance, then the guard MUST be at the front entrance.

And if the idea of armed guards is so troublesome to the administration and the gun grabbers, why is there an ARMED guard at the entrance to every Social Security office? And why do Veterans hospitals all have their own ARMED campus police forces?
 
And if the idea of armed guards is so troublesome to the administration and the gun grabbers, why is there an ARMED guard at the entrance to every Social Security office? And why do Veterans hospitals all have their own ARMED campus police forces?
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention the guards around the most visible 'anti's' like Biden, bamie, Rosie, Piers, etc.... Seems that only the elite count around here as far as they're concerned.
 
An armed officer sitting in a patrol car somewhere on campus is NOT a "guard." He's a guy with a gun, sitting in a car somewhere on campus.
Click to expand...

I think you are splitting hairs here; confusing title with function. He was a police deputy assigned to the school, which was his place of duty. There is no way one (or two) person/s can effectively secure or guard a large campus of 2000 students from all intruders.

As PAX pointed out training of the day was to wait for more help when faced with crazed, bomb throwing gun men. This would likely be sensible even today as most other actions of direct confrontation would be suicidal. The resident officer was clearly outmatched and was following his training.

We have police deputies at every school in our county. The County pays for this. I have never heard a single compliant about this either. They hire extra deputies to work large ball games and events. This is no guarantee against a shooter coming in and trying to shoot up a school. This just means reduced response time in a rural county which can be significant.
 
Alabama Shooter said:
I think you are splitting hairs here; confusing title with function. He was a police deputy assigned to the school, which was his place of duty. There is no way one (or two) person/s can effectively secure or guard a large campus of 2000 students from all intruders.
Click to expand...
You are probably correct.

Sort of proves that one or two armed cops in every school isn't a complete answer to the problem, doesn't it?

However, in today's world school doors are locked and the front entrance is the only (legitimate) entrance during most of the school day. Basic principles of security include hardening secondary points of access (that's the fire exits, in a school) to funnel any attacks toward the points you can best defend. So if we can't post an armed guard at every fire exit, we need to "harden" the fire exits against outside intrusion so that attackers will be forced to hit the point or points we have covered.

At Sandy Hook, the shooter ignored the fire exits and came through the main entrance all on his own. But the main entrance was unprotected. Yes, the door was locked. And, as I keep mentioning, the door and/or the sidelights were GLASS. They might as well have hung the key on a nail and laid out a welcome mat. "Locks are made for honest people." Locking the doors, with nothing in place to counteract someone who would blast through the locks, was a plan guaranteed to fail.

And it did fail.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top