Do schools need armed guards?

[SpecialAgentKC]

Guards perhaps and the obvious police, yes. However as for school personnel, I don't think the majority of staff in schools have the psyche to shoot an assailant no matter the training they receive. Though there might a few exceptions most I think would ether freeze, reconsider what they are about to do or run away. Unless the training, experience and a person's resolve is firm in what they need to do they should not be armed in our schools.

Many reserve police officers are teachers, maintenance mechanics, salesmen and the like. Similarly, many of these could also be military veterans and/or reservists/guardsmen. Why not might a janitor (or perhaps a school administrator)--who was properly screened and thoroughly trained--not be able to appropriately provide this service in addition to or in lieu of others solely responsible for security? I'm just curious. --K.

[msovfin]

Not so much. A proper, duty, psychological assessment will screen for what is "normal" and "mentally healthy". Individuals with a proper warrior mindset do not relish pulling a trigger. However, such have a strong sense of duty, keen perception of outcome and a strong drive for survival. In a deadly force situation with a known firearm threat, one must possess the requisite mindset to stop the threat.

Aside from range firearms training and what we received at our home law enforcement agencies, we were required (at least annually) to participate in an interactive, multimedia, firearms simulator. Realistic and operator-variable scenarios would ensue and incumbents were charged with engaging the on-screen surrogates with verbal commands, less-lethal defensive equipment (OC, baton, TASER) and/or firearms. Active shooter training which emphasized group movement to identify and engage a target(s) in such a worst case scenario. --K.

To clarify, you are saying for a normal mentally healthy individual; it would not be hard for them to kill an active shooter? You don't believe it would be harder for a teacher to pull the trigger on a student whom they have personal connection with?

[DCPSPDcop]

The Clery (not "Cleary") Act has nothing to do with this. The Clery Act simply requires campuses to prepare certain annual reports regarding crime on campus, making these available to the public, parents, students, etc., to maintain certain records about crimes on campus, and to provide the campus community with "timely" information about ongoing criminal activity. Hence the articles in the student newspaper: "Dorm Thefts On The Rise", etc.

Thank you for the spelling lesson. I know it is Clery Act, but again thank you for pointing out the OBVIOUS spelling error. And the Clery Act requires that you document who your Campus Security Officials are. It's the same thing I said, just using different words.

At the end of the day, it is still what the Dean was talking about when he was telling the OP about "federal regulations" that require them to have security.

[macguard]

One school already has armed guards on patrol at schools.

http://www.kptv.com/story/20618661/r...s-armed-guards

[DCPSPDcop]

One school already has armed guards on patrol at schools.

http://www.kptv.com/story/20618661/r...s-armed-guards

MANY schools already have guards or police on patrol at schools.

[SpecialAgentKC]

To clarify, you are saying for a normal mentally healthy individual; it would not be hard for them to kill an active shooter? You don't believe it would be harder for a teacher to pull the trigger on a student whom they have personal connection with?

The appropriate rational calculus to employ deadly force is not a easily borne by all. This is for sure. In your hypothetical, the teacher has a connection with the student. So do security personnel. One doesn't mindlessly roam the hallowed halls shaking doors. There's a community oriented public safety model employed. I, for one, would not value my "connection" over one student while he or she is bent on harming others. I have had to use force within the school system and, unfortunately, deadly force without.

When the choice is to protect my life or the life of another, the option (at least for me) is a brightline choice. This is particularly true if a firearm is at play. I have resolved other deadly force scenarios with less-lethal force options, where appropriate. The psychologist has rated me capable and has recommended me for duty. Even after a combat tour. Your definition of "normal" may perhaps differ from that of a licensed clinician. --K.

[SpecialAgentKC]

When deadly force is justified, police and appropriately trained security personnel are trained to stop a threat (as opposed to "killing"). A mentally heathly person cleared to carry a firearm should be able to make the choice to stop such a threat. Or, they should be disallowed from the carrying of a firearm--true for a teacher as it would be true for a "badge". No difference, no distinction. --K.

[SpecialAgentKC]

An update on the situation South of Seattle:

http://www.highlinetimes.com/2013/01...uperintendent-