USA Today Article 2/19/13 - Teachers Should Confront Intruder

B

Buford_Tannen

New member
So in this mornings edition of USA Today there is a story on Law Enforcement now recommending that teachers confront intruders instead of running or being the victims. In the byline it mentions do so without guns in the school of course. It instructs the teachers to react as violently as possible, including throwing things at the intruder. One LEO states that "We learned from flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11 that sometimes you have to fight for your life"

Maybe its just me but if I am a teacher I am thinking to myself, "Ok, now I have to confront the armed intruder with by bare hands because the politically correct in this world have deemed I get no armed guard for my school or a weapon of my own." Haven't I now been reduced to cannon fodder for the mentally ill?

If fighting for my life or that of my students is now the recommended course of action, quit being an idiot and give me some lead to throw at my attacker at 1000 ft/sec.
 
While I might catch flak for this, what is indeed happening is that these PC people are realizing that gun/violence free zones dont work. By saying that teachers should fight back, they are admitting that the only way to fight evil and violence, is with an equal force. Them moving in this direction can possibly lead to armed teachers, which is the ideal.
 
"We learned from flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11 that sometimes you have to fight for your life"
Click to expand...

Those people still died, and some of them heroes. However, if someone, employed by the airline, would have been armed then it is possible that the outcome would have been totally different for those on that flight.
 
Last edited:
This comes from the latest advice from DHS and the point is this:

If you are confronted with an active shooter and you can't (1) escape or (2) barricade in a safe place, then (3) FIGHT. Why die in the fetal position begging for your life? Stand up and fight. You may still die but you will do so standing on your own two feet and fighting like a free person instead of being a willing victim.
 
The principal and the school psychologist at Sandy Hook Elementary School "confronted" the shooter. Hardly even slowed him down, and they both died. Teacher Victoria Soto didn't "confront" him, she chose to try to shelter her students. Didn't matter -- she was killed, too.

I find myself becoming very angry when I read "advice" such as this being shoveled out to the masses through the media. It really is a conspiracy. And it's shameful that so many people actually pay attention to it. What sane person would see anything to be gained by having an unarmed teacher (many of whom are women, and many of whom are of smaller stature and/or not in peak physical condition) try to "confront" an active shooter?

Yes, we learned a lot from 9/11 and Todd Beamer, but they (USA Today) forgot to mention that Todd and everyone else on that flight died. They prevented the plane from hitting its intended target, but the passengers are just as dead.
 
Last edited:
Why die in the fetal position begging for your life? Stand up and fight. You may still die but you will do so standing on your own two feet and fighting like a free person instead of being a willing victim.
Click to expand...

This was recommended by The Colonel >30-years ago.

DVC
 
Fight.
That is pure comedy. Throw a paper clip at him. Or get real serious and throw an eraser, off the chalk board.
How can humans be so stupid.
Ah ...
dc
 
Fight.
That is pure comedy.
How can humans be so stupid.
Click to expand...
Words fail me.

Know that were I, or any of those who I raised over the last 45 years, faced with the choice of fight,
or run away to not only leave others to die, but to eventually die myself in some cringing corner...

I would simply go absolutely Berserk.
I have already seen it work.
Sometimes it doesn't.
.
.
.
.
And you'd be amazed at what one man's actions can suddenly instill in others.
Suddenly it's not just one man anymore.

Cowards die many times before their death. The valiant taste of death but once.
Julius Caesar (II, ii, 32-37)
 
Last edited:
It's just more "progressive" nonsense, check this out:

Colorado College Advises Vomiting Or Urinating To Stop Rapists After Lawmakers Pass Gun Control Bills
Click to expand...

http://www.ibtimes.com/colorado-col...apists-after-lawmakers-pass-gun-control-bills

And this, from Homeland Security no less!:

WASHINGTON — Is your workplace getting shot up by a crazed gunman?

No problem — just grab a pair of scissors and fight back!

That’s some of the helpful advice in a new instructional video from the Department of Homeland Security that was posted on the agency’s Web site just a month after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/shear_bravery_beats_guns_feds_d9BanDpupuVezePd6trYoM
 
Saw the "Urinate or tell the attacker you have VD" on the news this morning.
Really? How stupid is that? Its been known for years that rapists do not rape people for sex. So how is having VD going to keep a victim from getting maimed or killed?
 
It's like the "lie back and enjoy it" advice of a few years back, anything but the common sense approach of arming yourself so you can fight back.

More and more people are waking up to the fact that self defense is their own responsibility and arming themselves accordingly, some folks seem to find that troubling.
 
So in this mornings edition of USA Today there is a story on Law Enforcement now recommending that teachers confront intruders instead of running or being the victims. In the byline it mentions do so without guns in the school of course. It instructs the teachers to react as violently as possible, including throwing things at the intruder. One LEO states that "We learned from flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11 that sometimes you have to fight for your life"
Click to expand...

You diidn't post a link to the story and after a brief search, I could not find the particular story to which you were referring (internet force not strong with me this morning). The only story from the 19th I could find was on teachers carrying guns in AZ. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/19/arizona-teachers-guns-schools/1931429/

However, confronting an intruder is NOT exclusive from being a victim. Having a gun is not exclusive from being a victim. Lots of

Maybe its just me but if I am a teacher I am thinking to myself, "Ok, now I have to confront the armed intruder with by bare hands because the politically correct in this world have deemed I get no armed guard for my school or a weapon of my own." Haven't I now been reduced to cannon fodder for the mentally ill?
Click to expand...

You apparently didn't pay attention to the article or what you wrote to summarize it. Why would you necessarily use your bare hands when you can use various weapons of opportunity in the classroom? Also, nobody says you HAVE TO confront the intruder. It is just a suggested course of action, one of which is your call to implement given the situation.

It's like the "lie back and enjoy it" advice of a few years back, anything but the common sense approach of arming yourself so you can fight back.
Click to expand...

That comment was made by pro-gun Republican Texas gubernatorial candidate Clayton Williams back around 1980 (more than just a few years ago). It was made in the context of a joke about the weather, not actually meant as true self defense advice. The statement was so outrageous and offensive that it became a signifificant factor in Willimams' loss of the election...to Democrat Ann Richards, the first elected female governor of Texas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Williams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Richards
 
Link to the USA Today article dated 2/18/2013:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/18/schools-advice-confront-shooters/1920601/

Yep, some teachers in CT confronted Adam Lanza.

BTW: There was an altercation between Adam Lanza and teachers at the school a day or two before the massacre.

Allow teachers who hold concealed carry permits to pack at school. Silly me, the anti-self defense, anti-gun blissninnies won't allow that. :mad:

From the article:

Police officials said they were not advocating arming teachers, students, office workers or others to prepare for such attacks; they also emphasized that confronting the attacker should always be the last option.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Thanks for finding the correct story.

Right, so fighting back means you have a chance to forcefully help determine your fate, but does not preclude you from being a victim. With that said, this notion of fighting back is not a new idea. There have been instructional videos on this distributed or shown to various districts for several years. Maybe fighting back is gaining steam.

BTW: There was an altercation between Adam Lanza and teachers at the school a day or two before the massacre.
Click to expand...

So not completely random and he apparently killed three of the four with whom he had the confrontation.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/connecticut-school-shooting-adam-lanza-1493709
 
Double Naught

Yes, I summarized because I think spending time to look for a weapon is pretty close to a no win scenario. Perhaps a teacher could quickly search the classroom for things to throw at the intruder. The reality is in pre-school or grade school classroom, someone with a gun comes into the room the teacher is going to be immediately surrounded by 28+ scared children. What teacher would leave them unprotected by going to get something to throw? (Oh and things dangerous to adults are usually more so to young children.)

Sorry but your, think fast, look for a weapon approach is flawed. There is no time to do so. Not an expert but it would seem 3-5 seconds at most before bad things start to happen. Only thing I have to throw at the intruder is me. That's what some teachers in Newton did. Not a very successful strategy.
 
I just ran through the "Active Shooter Preparedness" online course on the DHS website. It goes into much more depth about before/after stuff, but the basic advice for "during" is still (1) evacuate if you can, (2) hide if you can't, (3) fight back as a last resort if your life is in imminent danger.

Despite a great deal of attention paid to how to prepare for the possibility of such an event: know where the exits are even if you're a visitor, etc. -- NO mention was made of considering, ahead of time, what objects in the immediate area might serve as weapons of opportunity.

I'd conclude from this that the folks who put this together don't really see fighting back as a real possibility, nor do they want to encourage it.
 
It seems the term "active shooter" has become vogue. Are there any "inactive shooters." :D

Never mind, i looked it up. Looks like the term originated with the Dep't of Homeland Security.
 
Last edited:
What's significant here is what may be essentially the beginnings of a paradigm shift.

It's very important and hopeful that the notion of fighting back is, perhaps, starting to gain some traction. We've been becoming too inclined to passivity.

The first step is coming to the understanding that there are times and circumstances when the right thing is for the good guy to fight back against the bad guy. That realization needs to begin to take root. From there we can start talking about the right ways, the right tools, when and how.

But first we need to break through that "violence is always bad, even by good guys" conceptual barrier that seems to have become pervasive in our modern, urbanized world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top