SRO stood outside Parkland while shooting occurred has resigned

[74devil]

The whole SRO thing is mostly a joke in my opinion.

 

All too often SRO's end up being older guys collecting a second paycheck. Don't get me wrong everyone, most SRO's are absolutely fantastic people that are incredibly talented dealing with all kinds of human conditions but far too many them are NOT suited for active shooter situations.

 

Second, SRO's are Police Officers first but the culture inside most schools I know about really doesn't want the SRO being a Police Officer. The powers that be want the school handling everything. Or put another way, a lot of students are not charged with a lot of crimes they should be charged with for various reasons. Without getting into a long explanation I think the SRO Culture has blurred the lines about what what law enforcement is supposed to be about. The takeaway here for everyone is that a lot of incidents that should land a troubled young man (or woman) in the juvenile court system never see the light of day.

 

To your point about training, SRO's should have the most training and skills dealing with an active shooter but like you I bet they don't and I also bet the opposite is true in many cases just like you pointed out. Again, I don't know any of the details on the Florida incident but if the SRO wasn't trained properly to handle a situation like that then his best bet would be to take up a defensive position and try to access the situation. The takeaway here everyone is more often than not this is another systematic failure by our Government.

 

I remember the training well because the training was different than ALL the other law enforcement training I had. Generally speaking traditional law enforcement training is about the preservation of life. Active shooting training is designed to turn law enforcement officers in to calculated killers.

 

I use this example a lot with people, Police Officers are expected to go from Kitten to Killer in an instant, and then of course back to Kitten.

 

I agree. Working as a bailiff in the judicial center you would think the sheriff would make sure that active shooter training would be first on the list as for training personnel. But it isn't. I hear way too often that "nothing is going to happen there." That's the attitude that gets people killed. Because it hasn't happened doesn't mean that it won't. If the rank and file don't get the training, there won't be any training.

[74devil]

There are some teachers that are very proficient with firearms out there. Why should they not have the option to carry?

 

No one wants to require them to. But if they can prove they're capable, why not give them a fighting chance if one of these cowards comes in their class room with a gun.

 

Proficient shooting a paper target or with someone pointing a weapon at them? LEO's are paid to be that way with a weapon pointing at them. Teachers aren't. Shooting a weapon under stress is a totally different situation. If the teachers a willing to go through stress fire training and they pass,by all means, let them carry. But until then, I'm not for it. They do more than enough.

[74devil]

It’s not much different than the never ending responsibilities cops are asked to do. On any given night a cop can be a bar bouncer, an attorney, a marriage counselor, a medic, mental health professional, etc. and some nights, all of the above.

 

more than some nights.

[Run To State]

Proficient shooting a paper target or with someone pointing a weapon at them? LEO's are paid to be that way with a weapon pointing at them. Teachers aren't. Shooting a weapon under stress is a totally different situation. If the teachers a willing to go through stress fire training and they pass,by all means, let them carry. But until then, I'm not for it. They do more than enough.

I haven't really seen anyone say teachers should be forced to do it. I haven't seen anyone say they shouldn't properly be trained. You're making some assumptions based on people agreeing that armed teachers would help.

[Bengal Maniac]

The whole SRO thing is mostly a joke in my opinion.

 

All too often SRO's end up being older guys collecting a second paycheck. Don't get me wrong everyone, most SRO's are absolutely fantastic people that are incredibly talented dealing with all kinds of human conditions but far too many them are NOT suited for active shooter situations.

 

Second, SRO's are Police Officers first but the culture inside most schools I know about really doesn't want the SRO being a Police Officer. The powers that be want the school handling everything. Or put another way, a lot of students are not charged with a lot of crimes they should be charged with for various reasons. Without getting into a long explanation I think the SRO Culture has blurred the lines about what what law enforcement is supposed to be about. The takeaway here for everyone is that a lot of incidents that should land a troubled young man (or woman) in the juvenile court system never see the light of day.

 

To your point about training, SRO's should have the most training and skills dealing with an active shooter but like you I bet they don't and I also bet the opposite is true in many cases just like you pointed out. Again, I don't know any of the details on the Florida incident but if the SRO wasn't trained properly to handle a situation like that then his best bet would be to take up a defensive position and try to access the situation. The takeaway here everyone is more often than not this is another systematic failure by our Government.

 

I remember the training well because the training was different than ALL the other law enforcement training I had. Generally speaking traditional law enforcement training is about the preservation of life. Active shooting training is designed to turn law enforcement officers in to calculated killers.

I use this example a lot with people, Police Officers are expected to go from Kitten to Killer in an instant, and then of course back to Kitten.

 

This is the main reason, but not the only teachers and educators should not carry or have access in a school. Law Enforcement I work with tell me that they more than likely won't know who is a teacher or who isn't. So teacher "A" goes out in the hall with a gun, there is a strong possibility they will be getting shot by law enforcement.

 

Again, that is what LE told me.

[Bluegrasscard]

This guy (I believe you are talking about the SRO) failed to do HIS job. There is more than enough blame to go around. Maybe some others should lose jobs or

positions, but at the end of it all; he signed up to be the guy to go toward the trouble when it hit the fan and he did not. It doesn't matter who dropped the ball prior to the first shot being fired. When the shooting began, he could have attempted to stop or at the least minimize the carnage, but he failed to act.

 

It was over in 6 minutes supposedly.

 

What I never get is why all victirms - regardless of condition are not transported to medical facilities immediately. Like other mass shooting protocol was not followed - again.

 

But while victims were still in the building the police were apparently done pretty quick according to this video.

 

[74devil]

I haven't really seen anyone say teachers should be forced to do it. I haven't seen anyone say they shouldn't properly be trained. You're making some assumptions based on people agreeing that armed teachers would help.

 

If the teachers are willing to go through stress fire training and they pass,by all means, let them carry. But until then, I'm not for it. They do more than enough.

 

Where is the assumption in this statement? I said, If they are properly trained let them carry if they choose to. I said nothing about forcing them to carry, I said nothing about people not being trained. I said: "Properly trained trained teachers should be allowed to carry." Where's the assumption?

[Run To State]

If the teachers are willing to go through stress fire training and they pass,by all means, let them carry. But until then, I'm not for it. They do more than enough.

 

Where is the assumption in this statement? I said, If they are properly trained let them carry if they choose to. I said nothing about forcing them to carry, I said nothing about people not being trained. I said: "Properly trained trained teachers should be allowed to carry." Where's the assumption?

 

Then I guess I'm trying to figure out why you quoted halfback20. He never said they shouldn't go through stress fire training and pass. All he said was "There are some teachers that are very proficient with firearms out there. Why should they not have the option to carry?" It never got to the training part, so therefore, it seemed like an assumption. Just pointing out how it looked to me, I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything.

[75center]

Jobs are similar for sure. Clientele and objective are very different.

 

As are the expectations when you're deciding what profession to go into.

[Hellcats]

As are the expectations when you're deciding what profession to go into.

 

Agreed. Being an officer of the law, you signed up for this. Being a teacher, you did not. It may begin to change, and I think you will see an exodus of teachers.

[CBDV]

There are a myriad of problems. The last one you mentioned would get this thread shut down, so I’m staying away.

 

I edited but as I typed I was watching CNN and the interview with Israel......that guy is incompetent

[True blue (and gold)]

We either keep the political comments out of this thread or it gets shut down.

 

Oh...and it's not up for debate.

[theguru]

This is the main reason, but not the only teachers and educators should not carry or have access in a school. Law Enforcement I work with tell me that they more than likely won't know who is a teacher or who isn't. So teacher "A" goes out in the hall with a gun, there is a strong possibility they will be getting shot by law enforcement.

 

Again, that is what LE told me.

 

That is an excellent point BM but there is an assumption in there.

 

If we are going to allow Teachers to arm themselves, and I think of this as a right for teachers, not something any teacher should ever be leaned on/forced to do, then we have to decide what role the Teachers are going to play. If we only expect teachers to lock their door, stay inside and only act as a last line of defense then the scenario you suggested really isn't a concern. However, if we are going to expect teachers to run towards the threat on a kill mission then the scenario you suggested may be a concern but I doubt it and here is why. If the Teachers are skilled enough and trained well enough they will have hunted down and killed the threat long before most police officers can reach the scene.

[Bluegrasscard]

I edited but as I typed I was watching CNN and the interview with Israel......that guy is incompetent

 

Maybe so. But he drives a Lamborghini. He has done well for himself.

[neilman1234]

Maybe I'm in the minority but I'm not a fan of arming teachers. First, I don't feel that it solves anything because it's purely a reactionary attempt to "solve" this problem. Secondly, how many teachers would volunteer to carry if they truly thought about the liability that comes with it? There's a great responsibility in carrying a firearm in your classroom and with that comes great consequences if the wrong choices are made. It seems like the risk outweighs the reward on this proposal.