School Safety: To Plan, or Not to Plan.........

A story of a very, very good cop. While I had the honor of actually meeting Officer DeAndrea following the tragedy at Platte Canyon High School, I only knew of him following the tragedy at Columbine High School.

This is a very well deserved honor given to a very humble man.

www.9news.com/story/news/local/2014/12/1...ce-officer/20667815/

Not school safety related, but necessary none-the-less in that we live where we do. So personal preparedness is also something we should probably pay attention to:

Another very good resource for you to consider when putting together your "bug-out bag". This one is comprehensive, but by no means etched in stone. That disclaimer must be given due consideration from a perspective this "list" can be added to or subtracted from based upon one's individual needs.

All in all, a very good guide:

Not exactly sure how I feel about this - just saw a story (won't share here because the names of the perps and a photograph of one of them looking pretty insane are included and I've signed on to the NoNotoriety campaign) about the so-called "basement tapes" made by the Columbine miscreants have been destroyed by the JeffCo Sheriff's Department. Every copy they are aware of has been destroyed. Very mixed feelings, indeed. Just the photo of one of the perps was enough to once again cause pain and emotional distress. NoNotoriety is a very good thing, IMO.

I watched the video embedded in this story first from an emotional perspective, and then my planning instincts kicked in.

At first glance, it appeared the SRO in this incident did, in fact, choke the young man who knocked him to the ground. I'll leave it to the authorities to sort out the complications and the nuances of this incident in their efforts to try and get to the bottom of it.

More importantly though, from my perspective, a couple of questions surface:

1. What if the SRO had been an armed teacher or an armed civilian allowed by law to open carry on campus?
2. How might the potential for collateral damages have increased or decreased if this had involved an armed teacher or an armed civilian?

From a planning perspective, this is one of those events that can help emergency management folks learn from actual incidents to help them in conducting threat assessments.

The fact this SRO has been handed over for a Grand Jury investigation should probably tell us all we need to know about how this might have gone down if an SRO had not been involved and an armed teacher or armed civilian had been.

And one more thing: I'm not saying what this SRO did was right, but might it also not be a consideration that he did not draw his weapon? Think about that.

He.did.not.draw.his.weapon! That, in and of itself, is illustrative of his training in situations like these. This incident could have resulted in something a whole lot worse. And, again, I'm not saying a choke hold was warranted here. Not at all. I'm saying an armed teacher or an armed citizen could arguably have reacted much more violently than did this officer.

www.wlky.com/news/police-say-video-shows...choking-boy/31764504

Another in the "planning issues" category.

For those who think simply arming staff and allowing open/concealed carry on school campuses is the way to address school safety, please take a very,very close look at this article because it quite simply is so much more than that.

www.campussafetymagazine.com/article2/10510

Yesterday, March 25, I had the pleasure of meeting with a group of high school students from East High School in Denver, CO. This is an activist group that has a range of things on their agenda that they hope to address over time. The subject of this particular discussion was "gun violence".

I must admit I was a little apprehensive going in as to what to expect. After all, it's been over 30 years since I last set foot in a classroom at that level and in a "teaching" capacity (although I wasn't there to teach, but, rather, to discuss with them), and I'm not so naive as to think things haven't changed over time. So, my anxiety levels were pretty high. They weren't warranted.

There were around 20 kids present. With the exception of one young man, the rest were all young women.

I started the session with a simple question: "How many of you support campus carry?" None of them raised their hand. The next question was: "How many of you oppose campus carry". Every single person present raised their hand including the two adults who kind of help "guide" this group.

Bottom line? This group is seeking knowledge, and therein lies their power. If anything at all was accomplished during this session, my hope is that it rests in this fact, and that this group of young women and one young man "get that". I believe they do.

We talked about emotion in the ongoing debate. We talked about their role, from both an individual and a group perspective, and how they've pretty much been excluded from participation by adults on every professional level even though age appropriate students are key stakeholders when it comes to school safety.

Finally, I was struck by their level of maturity and their willingness to listen, engage in discussion, ask questions, and, ultimately, to learn in this very contentious brouhaha going on around the country. That's something I haven't really seen all that much of from "adults" engaged in it.

This is a group that will ultimately be heard. I just hope the adults who hear them also heed what they have to say.

Unless you are aware of an exemption to state and federal law, the first requirement for concealed carry is be at least 21 years or older. Since this is a high school, most students are less than 19 years old. Whom exactly were they expecting to be carrying? School staff is prohibited from concealed carry under existing laws.
I just returned from training at Front Sight and met a man that worked for 3M in Minnesota and over dinner the discussion turned to the apparent lack of concern for our children when at school by some school officials. Since heaven forbid, we can't trust trained and vetted adults to protect them, we want more useless and ineffective laws that will continue to pose no help for our children until law enforcement arrives. He told us about window protection that will protect from gunfire and impact attacks, door lock guards and other products.

▶ 0:39




Was any of this discussed?

H, I'm not sure what you are trying to imply here with your response to my post, but I'm not going to argue what you are putting forward with you. I was simply stating I met with these students. I wasn't looking for an "agenda" although you might have, and probably did, read into how I presented this from the opening questions perspective that I did. The simple reality is they wanted the discussion to be about gun violence. I ran my talking points by both the adult coordinating this group and the student president of this group prior to going in.

We discussed HB 15-1168. This proposed legislation going through the state legislature right now, although publicly pushing the arming teachers agenda does not in any way, shape, or form, limit concealed carry on school campus to school staff. They were concerned about that. They brought up the questions swirling around this legislation. I didn't directly or indirectly "lead" them in that direction if that's what you are trying to imply.

We also discussed SB 08-181 and SB 11-173, neither of which addresses the issue of gun violence. Rather, they address the issue of emergency management for schools.

These students are key stakeholders in their own safety. That is something that is all too often left out of the equation when those "adults" you mention have an apparent lack of concern for that safety. Just because they are under the age of 21 and still in high school does not mean they should stifle their views.

The laws of which you speak were a very minor part of the overall discussion although they did come up. As far as your video is concerned, we had less than 40 minutes to discuss things. My information to them went to a lot of things, not just the issue of gun violence. I hope to be able to meet with them again sometime in the future. If the opportunity presents itself, that may just be one of the topics discussed. That's why I have always said the issue of school safety is not just active shooter related. It's much more complex than that.

Finally, when you say, and I quote:

"we want more useless and ineffective laws that will continue to pose no help for our children"

the very same thing could be said, in reverse of course, of the proposed legislation being considered right now to allow concealed carry by anyone with a legal carry permit onto school campuses everywhere at all levels - elementary, middle, junior high, high, and university. What, exactly, are those kinds of laws trying to "fix"? How will they be any more useful than those currently in place? And based upon what, exactly? Emotion, that's what.

The proposed legislation, HB 15-1168, is co-sponsored by Patrick Neville, a Columbine survivor. When I read his rationale for wanting to get this legislation passed, I could see his unaddressed PTSD in his words coming through loud and clear. I've been accused by many here and elsewhere in these types of discussions of being too emotional to talk rationally about the issue of school safety. The way I see it, there is nothing but emotion in Mr. Neville's statement as to why he wants this legislation passed. If I'm to be required to leave my emotions at the door when discussing issues like these that are relevant to school safety, shouldn't everyone be held to that same standard?

ZHawke wrote: Yesterday, March 25, I had the pleasure of meeting with a group of high school students from East High School in Denver, CO. This is an activist group that has a range of things on their agenda that they hope to address over time. The subject of this particular discussion was "gun violence".

I must admit I was a little apprehensive going in as to what to expect. After all, it's been over 30 years since I last set foot in a classroom at that level and in a "teaching" capacity (although I wasn't there to teach, but, rather, to discuss with them), and I'm not so naive as to think things haven't changed over time. So, my anxiety levels were pretty high. They weren't warranted.

There were around 20 kids present. With the exception of one young man, the rest were all young women.

I started the session with a simple question: "How many of you support campus carry?" None of them raised their hand. The next question was: "How many of you oppose campus carry". Every single person present raised their hand including the two adults who kind of help "guide" this group.

Bottom line? This group is seeking knowledge, and therein lies their power. If anything at all was accomplished during this session, my hope is that it rests in this fact, and that this group of young women and one young man "get that". I believe they do.

We talked about emotion in the ongoing debate. We talked about their role, from both an individual and a group perspective, and how they've pretty much been excluded from participation by adults on every professional level even though age appropriate students are key stakeholders when it comes to school safety.

Finally, I was struck by their level of maturity and their willingness to listen, engage in discussion, ask questions, and, ultimately, to learn in this very contentious brouhaha going on around the country. That's something I haven't really seen all that much of from "adults" engaged in it.

This is a group that will ultimately be heard. I just hope the adults who hear them also heed what they have to say.

What isn't understandable about the questions regarding campus carry is that now you bring up the current bills, but didn't in the initial statement. The context is of key importance. Did you follow up with why do they not want any adult with a permit to carry on campus? Please remember these are high school students and still learning about the adult world.
Regarding the 3M video, they are but one company with an effective and not that expensive product that offers real world safety and gives them a better chance while law enforcement is on route.

And what I find a little hard to understand is why you immediately went to the "useless laws" perspective. These kids are still learning - on that we definitely agree. By the same token, they also have a lot to offer, and I believe we adults need to listen. That doesn't mean we must agree, nor does it mean we must accept their positions. I'm approaching this whole thing from a perspective that they have voices, too. The majority of them appeared to me to be a little intimidated and afraid to ask questions based on the fact they ARE high schoolers. Part of my mission in doing this is to try to set their minds at ease in this regard and to invite questions without fear of being made to look "stupid". Again, this meeting was the first one, and we didn't have a lot of time to get too deeply into anything substantive with regard to your question about why they don't want adults with permits to carry on campus.