School Staff will be Armed!

[Coach]

Yesterday I was told by law enforcement that it was illegal for teachers to be armed in Indiana. I took some steps today to fix this incorrent statement.

 

[balzack2]

I to am glad that this is finally coming to fruition, I just hope it doesn't stop there. I feel for staff protection, the identity of those trained should NOT be made public in anyway. I agree this one step may not solve the problem, but it is a step in the right direction. Remember the old saying, you have to learn to walk before you can run and hopefully this is just the first step.

 

[KDUBCR250]

Some have been armed for quite sometime

 

[slowG]

A very tiny light at the end of the tunnel

 

[88GT]

Keep in mind that Ohio requires CCW training. The district would not allow anyone to unlawfully carry and looks to be hand selecting the staff that can. Personally I feel in that type of environment, the training standards should be higher... But that is just me.

"Up to four individuals will have a gun on school grounds at any given time. However, none of them will be teachers. Over the next few weeks, the school board will select those individuals, and it will be at their own discretion if they want to take advantage of the new policy.

The school will also be offering training through the Tactical Defense Institute this spring.

"It will definitely not be just hand the gun to somebody and say "here, now walk around the school." There will be a lot of training that goes into this," assured Grime."

Exactly, training standards should be above and beyond if you are carrying in a classroom environment.

Negative, GhostRider.

Are the people at the local restaurant, laundromat, grocery store, bank, or kwik mart any less important than the occupants of a school?

If they want to mandate situation-specific training a la fire drills and the such so that it is known by all those who will be carrying what to do in that environment (to avoid random responses that might actually pit good guy against good guy), have at it. But anything that operates on the premise that the schools are somehow more special than the people at large is lacking in logic.

 

[Ted]

Yesterday I was told by law enforcement that it was illegal for teachers to be armed in Indiana. I took some steps today to fix this incorrent statement.

One would think that law enforcement would actually read the appropriate statutes.

IC 35-47-9
Chapter 9. Possession of Firearms on School Property and School Buses

IC 35-47-9-1
Exemptions from chapter
Sec. 1.........
(2) A person who has been employed or authorized by:
(A) a school......

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If you don't think the armed staff members should have additional training, I don't think you fully grasp the chaos that is an active shooter situation. Why would you NOT expect the people tasked with safe guarding your children to have additional training? Its not about being safe with a gun, or being safe around children, or even having the presence of mind for a one on one encounter. No, its about knowing the tactics, the mindset to deal with the distractions and chaos, etc. Active shooter training should absolutely be a requirement.

I've been lucky enough to attend training with literally hundreds of role players and the first time you go through its simply mind numbing. The screaming, the noise, the sheer number of people moving and trying to track all of that, you need to be conditioned for that if you are going to be responsible for saving the lives of those you are guarding.

Ideally, the staff should be trained alongside the police officers who will respond in that area. Both sides should know each other, should know how to interact with each other, adn should go through scenario training together.

 

[cTEKs]

If you don't think the armed staff members should have additional training, I don't think you fully grasp the chaos that is an active shooter situation. Why would you NOT expect the people tasked with safe guarding your children to have additional training? Its not about being safe with a gun, or being safe around children, or even having the presence of mind for a one on one encounter. No, its about knowing the tactics, the mindset to deal with the distractions and chaos, etc. Active shooter training should absolutely be a requirement.

I've been lucky enough to attend training with literally hundreds of role players and the first time you go through its simply mind numbing. The screaming, the noise, the sheer number of people moving and trying to track all of that, you need to be conditioned for that if you are going to be responsible for saving the lives of those you are guarding.

Ideally, the staff should be trained alongside the police officers who will respond in that area. Both sides should know each other, should know how to interact with each other, adn should go through scenario training together.

Exactly!

 

[88GT]

If you don't think the armed staff members should have additional training, I don't think you fully grasp the chaos that is an active shooter situation. Why would you NOT expect the people tasked with safe guarding your children to have additional training? Its not about being safe with a gun, or being safe around children, or even having the presence of mind for a one on one encounter. No, its about knowing the tactics, the mindset to deal with the distractions and chaos, etc. Active shooter training should absolutely be a requirement.

I've been lucky enough to attend training with literally hundreds of role players and the first time you go through its simply mind numbing. The screaming, the noise, the sheer number of people moving and trying to track all of that, you need to be conditioned for that if you are going to be responsible for saving the lives of those you are guarding.

Ideally, the staff should be trained alongside the police officers who will respond in that area. Both sides should know each other, should know how to interact with each other, adn should go through scenario training together.

So you think all LTCH holders should do the same then? Because any one of us might just encounter an active shooter situation somewhere, and God forbid we aren't prepared with oodles of professional training.

FTR, I don't rely on anybody else to protect my children.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So you think all LTCH holders should do the same then? Because any one of us might just encounter an active shooter situation somewhere, and God forbid we aren't prepared with oodles of professional training.

FTR, I don't rely on anybody else to protect my children.

Not what I said, not what I implied. As a LTCH you are free to freeze up, to screw up, to go the right or wrong thing, to engage or to flee. You have the luxury of not acting.

As an armed professional you do not have that luxury. You should be held to a higher standard and the folks that you are protecting have a right to expect you to be proficient and efficient at what you do.

We train soldiers before we send them to battle, don't we? Why? Why not just let them rise to the occasion?


Anyone may walk by someone who is choking or having a heart attack, yet we don't mandate that you know CPR or the Heimlich manuver to go out into public. We pretty much expect our EMTs to know those basic skills, though. Why?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

BBI-

I think that is EXACTLY the distinction that I want to make. A teacher is, by definition, a TEACHER. I , by definition, am a SOFTWARE DEVELOPER. Either one of us may choose to be armed, for the protection of ourselves and those around us. I DO NOT, nor have I ever suggested, that TEACHERS should be forced to become Security Contractors.

As you say above - I am free to engage or not as I see fit. Teachers have the same right.

When teachers become Security Guards - THAT is when a school becomes a prison.

Let the teachers teach, and if they CHOOSE to arm themselves - suggest, DON'T MANDATE training. Heck, offer the training class if you want to as a School District. It is a GREAT idea! Hell, ENCOURAGE it.

But for the love of heaven, remember that they are no more Security Contractors than I am. And I am under no such delusion. The kind of person that makes a great teacher and the kind that make a great Security Contractor are two different beasts.

Simply allow the teachers the same freedoms that the rest of us have. No need for another freaking Government Program to accomplish that.

 

[Ted]

I've been biting my virtual tongue on the matter of training teaching staff with firearms.

Training with a firearm is a necessity, not only for comprehensive training in conceal and cover, shoot and no shoot scenarios, etc.......in regard to an active shooter..........

..........but also with weapon retention. After all, there is a large percentage of the student body that are perfectly capable of taking a firearm from an adult, and there are a few that will try. Its not a matter of if, but when.

Want to carry a firearm? Fine. So lets spend a weekend training them, once a year. Its not so much to ask.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Ted - I agree that training should happen. For everyone. By virtue of the fact that the training mandate has been abused by those who would deny our right to carry, I have a problem with MANDATING it. That does NOT mean that it should not happen. That is for EVERYONE - and not teachers in specific. THEY ARE NOT A SPECIAL CASE.

Re weapon retention - a) if they know that you are carrying - YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG. Especially in a school environment. b) if for whatever crazy reason, you choose to OC as a teacher (OR someone frequently in other crowded places), then you should be trained in retention. In the computer trade we have "security by obscurity" - if they don't know it's there - they can't come after it.
CC in an environment like that is important. As a security measure. I would defy you or anyone else on INGO to pick me out of a crowd of 100 geeks and get the Kahr CM9 out of my right front pocket of my levi's or Dockers. And I'm telling you where it is. That is what you are suggesting that kids are going to do, right? You REALLY think you can do that without a fight? REALLY? How are you suggesting that a teacher carry, that will expose them to such a danger? Grabbing my Kahr would be only slightly easier than reaching in my pocket and grabbing my Johnson. Just sayin'.... and that ain't gonna happen.

To reiterate - I AGREE with the training. Not with the mandate. Unless the training is for all LTCH holders. Teachers are not a special class. If they need special training for the school, then I sure as heck need it for the mall or other crowded place. To imply otherwise is to impose an artificial restriction with no basis in rational thought. With Guy's offer on the table of free training - there is NO REASON for any school district in Indiana to go unprotected.

 

[Ted]

Ted - I agree that training should happen. For everyone. By virtue of the fact that the training mandate has been abused by those who would deny our right to carry, I have a problem with MANDATING it. That does NOT mean that it should not happen. That is for EVERYONE - and not teachers in specific. THEY ARE NOT A SPECIAL CASE.

Re weapon retention - a) if they know that you are carrying - YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG. Especially in a school environment. b) if for whatever crazy reason, you choose to OC as a teacher, then you should be trained in retention. In the computer trade we have "security by obscurity" - if they don't know it's there - they can't come after it.
CC in an environment like that is important. As a security measure. I would defy you or anyone else on INGO to pick me out of a crowd of 100 geeks and get the Kahr CM9 out of my right front pocket of my levi's or Dockers. And I'm telling you where it is. That is what you are suggesting that kids are going to do, right? You REALLY think you can do that without a fight? REALLY? How are you suggesting that a teacher carry, that will expose them to such a danger?

To reiterate - I AGREE with the training. Not with the mandate. Unless the training is for all LTCH holders. Teachers are not a special class. If they need special training for the school, then I sure as heck need it for the mall or other crowded place. To imply otherwise is to impose an artificial restriction with no basis in rational thought. With Guy's offer on the table of free training - there is NO REASON for any school district in Indiana to go unprotected.

On principle, I agree with you that requisite training for those that carry merely for themselves, their home, and their family........that such is inappropriate. However, I'm sure that you will agree that teaching staff don't act merely for themselves when engaged in their employment.

Teachers do in fact break up physical altercations in school. Clothing becomes disheveled, torn, broken.......etc......and the potential for exposure of a weapon does in fact exist.

 

[jamil]

You know, I have mixed feelings about the "must take special training". I carry a gun - and have for many years, I have 3 son's that carry pretty constantly and their wife's also carry. I have several friends that carry. I trust all of them with my Grandchildren and Great Grandchildren. In fact I don't know of ANY LEGAL persons with LTCH that I don't trust around any of my family members. We as a group get angry when we go to a mall or restaurant that doesn't allow us to carry our guns. These are often crowded with children. Then comes the suggestion these same people, including me, shouldn't be allowed to be in Schools with a GUN - like Oh my God they need special training -HUH? I would add this - if the school district want people that do not currently hold LTCH and that are uneducated in good gun safety and use to carry. THEN, I would agree that they should be trained - in safety, tactical training, and targeting until they are proficient with the guns they carry.

While I agree and I think the only ban legislators should be talking about is "gun free zones" everywhere, there's a practical limit to that. Even constitutional arguments notwithstanding, public opinion still drives what is practical. Constitutionally, I don't need a license to talk, yet I need one to carry a firearm.

Removing "gun free zone" from schools is more practical in a state like Utah than Ohio because of public opinion. So what this district is doing is "appointing" people who will carry, essentially creating a deliberate role. For liability reasons, they will want to take all due diligence to minimize the risk that this could cause more harm than good. And you have to admit, it negates skeptics' arguments more by selecting qualified people and requiring targeted training for active shooter scenarios in a school setting.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

BBI-

I think that is EXACTLY the distinction that I want to make. A teacher is, by definition, a TEACHER. I , by definition, am a SOFTWARE DEVELOPER. Either one of us may choose to be armed, for the protection of ourselves and those around us. I DO NOT, nor have I ever suggested, that TEACHERS should be forced to become Security Contractors.

As you say above - I am free to engage or not as I see fit. Teachers have the same right.

When teachers become Security Guards - THAT is when a school becomes a prison.

Let the teachers teach, and if they CHOOSE to arm themselves - suggest, DON'T MANDATE training. Heck, offer the training class if you want to as a School District. It is a GREAT idea! Hell, ENCOURAGE it.

But for the love of heaven, remember that they are no more Security Contractors than I am. And I am under no such delusion. The kind of person that makes a great teacher and the kind that make a great Security Contractor are two different beasts.

Simply allow the teachers the same freedoms that the rest of us have. No need for another freaking Government Program to accomplish that.

I don't think anyone is forcing teachers to do anything. Like with pilots, the programs are all voluntary. Did requiring pilots to attend training turn airplanes into flying prisons?

Please tell me what kind of person a teacher is and what kind of person a security contractor is.

 

[jamil]

I don't think anyone is forcing teachers to do anything. Like with pilots, the programs are all voluntary. Did requiring pilots to attend training turn airplanes into flying prisons?

Please tell me what kind of person a teacher is and what kind of person a security contractor is.

Heh, I could bring Yeager into the conversation!

Sorry, couldn't help it.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

First (Ted)- I respect your point of view in this discussion - and your willingness to engage the topic reasonably.

I think you may have come to the crux of the issue. In fact - I DO think that teachers are no different than anyone else. I think that they, like me, should NOT be carrying as an agent of the school. But rather, they should be ALLOWED to carry IF THEY WISH at their place of business just like I can. (edit: I think ANY free citizen should be allowed to carry at a school... ) I have an office in a small strip mall-ish office complex sort of area. They are at a school. I have people around me - they have people around them. If I worked retail, it would be even more the case.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The difference in our approach to the issue seems to be tied to what we see the teacher/janitor/office employee's duty is. It sounds like you are looking at them as minor league sworn deputies with a duty to jump in in the case of an attack, and I am looking at them as simply free citizens who might be in the wrong place at the wrong time - like any one of the rest of us. If they can, and choose to, stop something - bully for them. If they choose not to - that's their choice. Period.

Re: retention... While I will agree that it happens, Ted - why don't we try an experiment? (ok this is a little smart-aleck, but bear with me...)

You can beat the crap out of ... say Princraft maybe (grin).... (INGO'er chosen at random, and only because of his avatar). I'll break up the fight. Repeat this process 100 times. Even TRYING - you aren't going to get the CM9 out of its location. For the record, I DO see your point on this. And I'm trying to be a little funny with it. I still don't think anyone's getting the Kahr from me...

Edit: BBI - that's a fair point about the pilots. I didn't see the need for the training in that case. And I'm not sure that arming the pilots is what made the difference in stopping hijackings - but hey... For both you and Ted: I think that we agree a lot more than we disagree. And the key difference is that I don't think that the teachers should be carrying as agents/deputies/whatever you wish to call it of the school. And I think we do all agree that having SOMEONE armed on the scene is better than not, so long as it can be done reasonably and safely. Thanks for the respectful discussion to both of you.

 

[88GT]

Not what I said, not what I implied. As a LTCH you are free to freeze up, to screw up, to go the right or wrong thing, to engage or to flee. You have the luxury of not acting.

As an armed professional you do not have that luxury. You should be held to a higher standard and the folks that you are protecting have a right to expect you to be proficient and efficient at what you do.

We train soldiers before we send them to battle, don't we? Why? Why not just let them rise to the occasion?


Anyone may walk by someone who is choking or having a heart attack, yet we don't mandate that you know CPR or the Heimlich manuver to go out into public. We pretty much expect our EMTs to know those basic skills, though. Why?

So what is your point then? In one post you create a separate class of armed citizen by holding teachers to a higher standard than the average LTCH holder. Even in the above post you seem to insinuate that they are "armed professionals" who do not have the luxury of "screwing up" or not taking action.

If you believe teachers who choose to arm themselves in school should be required to undergo extra-legal training, on what grounds do you not require the same training for all LTCH holders? Teachers are NOT armed security professionals.

As I said before, if the school/district want to mandate school/district specific training for how an armed teacher is to respond to an active shooter, fine. But it's in the vein of a fire drill or a severe weather drill, not a proficiency/skills training with the firearm. If the state deems the individual responsible enough to issue the LTCH, why isn't that good enough for the school? If it's not, why is it good enough for the average citizen?

The problem is that you have to make teachers something they are not in order to justify separating them out from the rest of us average LTCH holders.

Please tell me what kind of person a teacher is and what kind of person a security contractor is.

The former is hired to TEACH; the latter is hired to protect. Just because teachers voluntarily shoulder some protection responsibilities does not mean they are charged with doing so. Like your average citizen example above, they are free to "freeze up, to screw up, to go the right or wrong thing, to engage or to flee." And while society may view someone who abandons his students to save his own skin, he is not--unless the school policy dictates otherwise--derelict in his duties.

 

[Ted]

First (Ted)- I respect your point of view in this discussion - and your willingness to engage the topic reasonably.

I usually do......until some moron gets ridiculously stupid, then game on.

I think you may have come to the crux of the issue. In fact - I DO think that teachers are no different than anyone else. I think that they, like me, should NOT be carrying as an agent of the school. But rather, they should be ALLOWED to carry IF THEY WISH at their place of business just like I can. (edit: I think ANY free citizen should be allowed to carry at a school... ) I have an office in a small strip mall-ish office complex sort of area. They are at a school. I have people around me - they have people around them. If I worked retail, it would be even more the case.

My point to counter, that it is well established law that an employee is an agent of his or her employer.....respondeat superior. The employer will still be called to respond, even with the bad faith acts of the employer.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The difference in our approach to the issue seems to be tied to what we see the teacher/janitor/office employee's duty is. It sounds like you are looking at them as minor league sworn deputies with a duty to jump in in the case of an attack, and I am looking at them as simply free citizens who might be in the wrong place at the wrong time - like any one of the rest of us. If they can, and choose to, stop something - bully for them. If they choose not to - that's their choice. Period.

Schools are also places where the employees are charged with the welfare of the student.......in loco parentis. This, to the point that schools may prohibit protected behavior, if reasonably in the interest of maintaining order within the school.

In both cases, the law would have to radically change, in order to avoid the liability issues with the legal precedents associated with both.

Re: retention... While I will agree that it happens, Ted - why don't we try an experiment? (ok this is a little smart-aleck, but bear with me...)

You can beat the crap out of ... say Princraft maybe (grin).... (INGO'er chosen at random, and only because of his avatar). I'll break up the fight. Repeat this process 100 times. Even TRYING - you aren't going to get the CM9 out of its location. For the record, I DO see your point on this. And I'm trying to be a little funny with it. I still don't think anyone's getting the Kahr from me...

I feel the same way about anyone else's ability to take my Glock from me. However, until I was trained to do so, I had no effective knowledge in approaching such.

I would prefer to not have to beat up Printcraft, as I'm not sure if I would want to touch THAT . Why don't you make it gungirl instead, so that I at least get to have some naughty fun.

Edit: BBI - that's a fair point about the pilots. I didn't see the need for the training in that case. And I'm not sure that arming the pilots is what made the difference in stopping hijackings - but hey... For both you and Ted: I think that we agree a lot more than we disagree. And the key difference is that I don't think that the teachers should be carrying as agents/deputies/whatever you wish to call it of the school. And I think we do all agree that having SOMEONE armed on the scene is better than not, so long as it can be done reasonably and safely. Thanks for the respectful discussion to both of you.

Right back atcha.