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

CERT - https://www.citizencorps.gov/cert/ - provides basic first aid and triage training, among other things.

jf1acai wrote: CERT - https://www.citizencorps.gov/cert/ - provides basic first aid and triage training, among other things.

Definitely an organization that needs to be invited to the table. Just checked my hard drive and I already have all the manuals for CERT training. This is something, however, that may need to be done in conjunction with community first response organizations so they will know what levels of expertise to expect. Teen CERT has also been active, at least in Pueblo, CO. I kinda lost contact for awhile, but if interest is there, that's something, too, that could be explored for students (age appropriate of course) willing to get involved.

http://www.citizencorps.gov/cert/teencert/index.shtm

Thanks for sharing.

Just got this suggestion from a friend of mine out in San Diego. Putting it here as sort of a PSA both for self-protection and for a possible suggestion for school faculty, age appropriate students, admins, and anyone else on campus having a car with a "panic button" feature. I'm asking a "planning issue" question with regard to this possibility. Would an active shooter be distracted enough by a cacaphony of sound coming from who knows how many cars "going off" in the parking lot to perhaps cause the situation to "defuse"? Just askin'.

This tip came from a neighborhood watch coordinator--put your car keys beside your bed at night. Next time you come home for the night and start to put your keys away, think of this:

If you hear someone trying to break into your home, just press the panic button for your car. It's a security alarm system you probably already have and requires no installation. Test it. It will go off from most everywhere and will keep honking until your battery runs down or until you reset it with the button on the key chain. It works if you park in your driveway or garage. The odds are when your car alarm goes off a criminal won't stick around and chance being seen by neighbors looking out their windows.

It could also be useful for any emergency, such as a heart attack or if you were to have an accident outside and cannot reach a phone--activate the car alarm.

A "planning issue", if I ever saw one. In responding to the question I'm about to ask, please try to take your emotional reaction out of the equation and try to look at this actual "scenario" from a "what lessons learned" might we be able to take away from this incident in Portland, OR to help us enhance safer schools. While this incident didn't occur on school grounds, the question we must ask ourselves is what if it had? These men were perfectly within their rights in doing what they did according to the article. And, I'm not saying they were right, I'm not saying they were wrong. I saw this as an opportunity for further discussion of identified planning issues regarding safer schools.

So, the question I'm asking is, "how would you have reacted had you been in this situation as a bystander?"

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/12/men-cause-panic-in-portland-by-carrying-assault-rifles-in-attempt-to-teach-about-gun-rights/

Saw this and was wondering if this might even be a viable option for faculty, admins, and maintenance staff at schools? If it can benefit EMS, why not schools, especially if it's "incentivized" by granting professional development credit for obtaining the training?

http://www.jems.com/article/training/tactical-training-proves-beneficial-ems

This is actually pretty disturbing in some respects. From the article:

Immediately after the shooting, residents of Taft, a small town about 125 miles northeast of Los Angeles, identified the suspected shooter as a boy who had repeatedly threatened to kill people and had boasted about a hit list.

Angela Hayden, whose 16-year-old daughter attends Taft, told the Los Angeles Times the alleged shooter had threatened to kill her daughter and other students last year.

"He was telling everyone that he had a list of people who messed with him over the years and that he was going to kill them," Hayden said.

I'm pretty sure California, with it's more "progressive" mentality, would more than likely have a program similar to Colorado's "Safe-to-Tell" program. Because the article doesn't mention these threats being made known previously, the only question I can ask is why weren't they?

Also from the article:

The shooting at Taft came just 10 minutes after administrators had announced new lockdown safety procedures prompted by massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. on Dec. 14.

This is also pretty disturbing given the general awareness these types of events engender. The fact the "lockdown" safety procedures had been implemented 10 minutes prior to the tragedy speaks volumes, in my opinion.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/police-probe-reports-hit-list-high-school-shooting-article-1.1238181#ixzz2HmuuBlld

See if I can answer some of the questions without being too vague or writting a whole novel.

The WatchDog program sounds interesting indeed and agree training could/should be offered too. And definitely want to give a big thumbs up on the CERT advice. Very beneficial.

ZHawke wrote: Would an active shooter be distracted enough by a cacaphony of sound coming from who knows how many cars "going off" in the parking lot to perhaps cause the situation to "defuse"? Just askin'.

I suppose that honestly depends on the shooter in question. To some it may be a symphony of destruction so to speak but others might actually find it a distraction of sorts. Don't know if there's any evidence of it, but I wonder how many shooters they've found wearing ear pro if any?

ZHawke wrote: So, the question I'm asking is, "how would you have reacted had you been in this situation as a bystander?"

While I'm all for gun rights, I'm also for responsible promotion of them as well, and in my opinion these guys did more harm than good. By all means promote it, but to walk around on the streets casually slinging rifles over shoulder, is not such a good idea these days. A side arm holstered, would have caught my attention, but I'd relax a little more quickly as that's common place around here. (Had they set up a little booth type area with signage stating something as tacky as "Ask me about my gun", I think their actions might have been a little more well received.) As to how I would have reacted? Cautiously I'll admit. The pic displayed in the article shows two guys, we're alleging these are the two gentlemen indicated in the text. The relaxed, "luggage" style carry they display is certainly not a tactical advantage and personally I'd feel much safer within two to three feet of them than longer range with no cover because of this. The pic also clearly shows that magazines are docked into the rifles, this is something that if I encountered by sight at a distance would also advise caution. Don't think I'd be ready to dial 911 or anything though if I saw their body language.

ZHawke wrote: Saw this and was wondering if this might even be a viable option for faculty, admins, and maintenance staff at schools? If it can benefit EMS, why not schools, especially if it's "incentivized" by granting professional development credit for obtaining the training?

Training is one of those 'better to have and not need' sort of things, like many others I can think of. So many think they'll never need it, and thusly never seek it and then if something does happen, they tend to compound problems by either inaction, or overaction. State of mind is something so critical to we humans. If a child on a playground breaks an arm and the teacher is very panicy, there's a chance this child may need to be treated for shock as well as the broken limb. I know I'm sort of blowing an event out of proportions a bit, but the point is, that a little training can go a long way into maintaining a level state of mind of any and all involved.

ZHawke wrote: I'm pretty sure California, with it's more "progressive" mentality, would more than likely have a program similar to Colorado's "Safe-to-Tell" program. Because the article doesn't mention these threats being made known previously, the only question I can ask is why weren't they?

As I see it, this sort of thing falls on so many shoulders, but the biased article doesn't seem to acknowledge that at all. It almost has a feeling like the shooter is a victim and I'm not totally buying into that and definitely not the source's political stance. The blame is certainly on the shooter for their actions, and I will agree that blame should also be placed on any who knew of this person's threats. The threats should never have been dismissed, taken lightly, or anything. There's even a chance, that had someone come forward prior to, the individual could also have benefitted from getting help from alleged bullying. One potential problem though is that in today's society, the individual in question may have seen severe legal consequences for making such remarks and only further complicating his state of mind on the matter. That he wouldn't get the help he required but villianized instead. And of course whoever came forward would have been dubbed "a hero" and highlighted. There are some serious issues with the way our media presents events and then manipulates a populace to think a certain way, but now I'm getting a little too political. Let's get back on track here.

Someone definitely should have come forward on this, and have their identity concealed to the public and persons of interest. Would not have made headlines as it would not have needed to.

Badger

I think kids are reluctant to report stuff as the adults are often dismissive or punitive. We have to find a way that kids feel safe reporting issues and the adults have to actually follow up.

chickaree wrote: We have to find a way that kids feel safe reporting issues and the adults have to actually follow up.

This was a definite issue the wife and I had with PCHS. To get a follow up on anything at all seemed like we were asking to have somebody's teeth pulled or something. That, topped with the "need to know basis" mentality we were treated with was what made us decide to homeschool. On a more broad aspect this very issue is not just subject to our local towns here, but aparently a problem on the national level as well. Adults in a position of responsibility, should act responsibly. Never would have thought that to be such a difficult concept, however so many people just don't seem to get it. It raises the question though, can/should the parents of a situation hold those with prior knowledge accountible?



Badger

Agree with everything. And, that's why groups like the ones we're promoting might help. I say "might" because no two situations are ever the same. Taking that into consideration means there will be successes, and there will be perhaps not so successful successes (if that makes any sense). Our perspective has been, is now, and will continue to be there are no failures for trying. The old saying, "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again" still holds water. It just demands we back up, re-evaluate, and approach things a bit differently from the first attempt.

I especially agree with the comment you made, Badger, with regard to the media. In fact, here's an old Wizard of Id cartoon I used to use in my training seminars all the time to illustrate how everyone needs to "use" the input they get from media types:

Some of us may choose to agree to disagree on this, but our experience with media is they all too often get things so wrong, especially when reporting on school tragedies, most of the time everyone just wants them to be gone. That being said, they can also be "used" as a viable tool in incidents like these if that "use" is well planned for beforehand (food for thought in another post yet to come).

Finally, regarding the fact no one apparently made this young man's threats known beforehand even with their own prior knowledge: I believe programs like Safe-2-Tell in Colorado can be effective, but only if students, parents, and communities embrace them fully. Some will, some won't. But we need to start promoting them more if we want them to be able to make any kind of difference at all. The I Love U Guys Foundation addresses the Safe-2-Tell Program on their website. While we don't "feature" it on our website like they do on theirs, it is listed as a resource (maybe we need to promote it more - not closing that door at all). I'm not aware of it, but do any of the CommunityBound sites promote it in such a way as to increase awareness?