Study after study shows that law enforcement will not arrive in time…
The discussions about arming school staff have been in the forefront of the public discourse since the most recent shooting at the high school in Parkland, Florida. This time there seems to be a much greater awareness of the problem. Hopefully, the political sides can move away from the expected gun control/anti-gun control debate. With the roundtable held by the president to get ideas, to listen to those involved, and to float a few of his own notions, the press has been in full-hysterical mode on the issue. What is that issue? The issue is whether to arm school staff.
The president talked about arming 10 or 20 percent of school staff. He stressed former military or law enforcement could be tapped for added protection in our schools. The thinking is these individuals would be better prepared, better accustomed to weapons, and more willing. The program, as he put it, would be voluntary, and school staff would not be required to participate, but those who did would be compensated.
On the surface, this seems to make sense, but one must realize that many in the military do not carry weapons regularly. They are not accustomed to having a sidearm in a civilian setting.
Indeed retired or former military police and security services are a good choice, as many are now teachers in the public system.
School Shootings: The Facts
Study after study shows that law enforcement will not arrive in time. School shootings last only minutes. The average school shooting from start to finish is 3 to 5 minutes. That is less time than it takes for law enforcement to arrive on the scene the majority of the time. Studies also show that immediate response is the best way to confront the school “active shooter” scenario.
Direct engagement by law enforcement challenging the shooter has been proven time and time again to be the correct course of action. Unfortunately, even when law enforcement has arrived in time, they have often failed to act immediately, allowing the shooter to continue their deadly mission unabated.
In the Florida shooting, we have learned that not only was the school resource officer on the scene, but also as many as three or four other law enforcement personnel were in a position to confront the shooter. They chose, for whatever reason, to wait outside. The gunman continued to rain death onto the students and escaped. He was apprehended sometime later and some distance from the school.
Modern Doctrine
The FBI, as well as other law enforcement agencies, have updated the doctrine when it comes to these situations after extensive study of the Sandy Hook shooting on December 14, 2012. The study showed, in an active shooter situation, immediate action is the best course of action. The training before Sandy Hook was to wait for the tactical unit (SWAT) to show up. That proved to be improper and ineffective, allowing the death toll to rise.
From that time, the doctrine on how to handle active shooters changed. Sadly, the modern doctrine is not always followed. It is hard to ask a lone officer to go into an active shooter situation. He will not know where, how many, or what he is facing. Nevertheless, that is the doctrine, and officers must be trained to confront the shooter at the earliest opportunity.
A case in point is the shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Florida. On June 12, 2016, 29-year-old Omar Mateen killed 49 people and wounded 58 others in a mass shooting. The attack was the deadliest single-gunman mass shooting in United States history at the time. There, again, law enforcement waited. That carnage could have been lessened to a significant degree if action —immediate action— had been taken. Mateen took time to reload and call news agencies while officers waited outside.
The bottom line is the arming of school staff is already being done and has been in effect for several years.
So, what is the answer? Again, it goes back to the best course of action. The shooter must be confronted at the earliest possible moment. We know law enforcement will most likely be too late, so it is up to those at the scene to act.
In Texas, there are two programs already in place: the School Marshal Program and the Guardian Plan. Schools with armed staff and teachers are not new. No need for some expensive congressional focus group. No need for longitudinal studies. That system is in place and can be used right off the shelf.
A couple of years ago I was asked to consult with a local school superintendent to help advise and design their Guardian Program. That school district was in a rural area with law enforcement response iffy at best. They instituted a program on arming selected staff.
The Guardian Program is a plan designed by the individual school district and is much less expensive and has much more flexibility than the state-administered School Marshal plan.
In Texas, over 172 school districts arm their teachers. Have you heard of all the terrible mass shootings of innocent students happening? Have you heard of any issues at all? No, there have not been any problems.
Comments in the press and from those that oppose the idea about accidents, murder for racial reasons, and teachers shooting indiscriminately at an unruly student have become assinine. They seem to say just throwing money at supplies and mental health is the answer.
I strongly disagree. Mental health initiatives are certainly needed, but once that shooter enters the school, all the supplies, teacher pay hikes, and counseling are a moot point. At that moment it is too late for counseling, for prevention, for what could have or should have been done. The only option then is to protect, to confront, and to try to save the lives of our children.
At the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, Aaron Feis, assistant football coach and security guard selflessly shielded students from the shooter when he was shot. The coach threw himself in front of the shooter in Florida. It is entirely possible, had he been given the tools, the ability, the weapon to defend the students, he could have made a difference. Instead, he died, helplessly trying to do the best he could to save our children.
The bottom line is the arming of school staff is already being done and has been in effect for several years. If the federal government and all those that are on both sides of this current debate want to look into the possibilities of hardening our schools, all they need to do is look to Texas for a best practice. The program is in place and operating. Why reinvent the wheel?
