Article and poll concerning School Resource Officers

[Thernlund]

Funding affects West Valley school-resource officers
By Melissa Leu and Eddi Trevizo
The Republic | azcentral.com
Wed Dec 26, 2012 9:30 AM

Some West Valley schools have police officers on campus, an idea that got a renewed push by the National Rifle Association.

The NRA is advocating for armed guards on every school campus after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., where a gunman killed 20 children and six educators this month.

Currently, there is a divide among high schools. Those in such cities as Avondale, Peoria and Surprise have police officers, called school-resource officers, on campus, while many high schools in Glendale do not.

It comes down to money.

Full article:  http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/20121226west-valley-funding-affects-school-resource-officers.html

There's a poll at the link.  Be sure to vote.

Districts have special bond elections fairly regularly, which are also pretty regularly voted down.

I bet a bond election to fund Resource Officers at all schools would pass.  If there was ever anything worthy of spending tax dollars on, this has to rank up there.


-T.

[Dough333]

I am curious.  What firearm do the guard carry? Do they typically carry just a sidearm or do they carry rifles also?

I remember the first time I saw an armed guard on the streets of London carrying an assault rifle..  It was a bit of a shock at first before I realized that they have been dealing with terrorism for much longer than we have.  This was pre 911 though and I was much more naive back then.

[idiotsayswhat]

My wife teaches at an Elementary in central Glendale.  They have a police officer at the school something like 3 days a week for a few hours at a time...  Either way, the protection one guy on site provides for an entire K-8 school campus is minimal considering the whole area is ghetto. 

...but yes, it's ALL about the money... 

[AlmightySheep]

I am curious.  What firearm do the guard carry? Do they typically carry just a sidearm or do they carry rifles also?

I remember the first time I saw an armed guard on the streets of London carrying an assault rifle..  It was a bit of a shock at first before I realized that they have been dealing with terrorism for much longer than we have.  This was pre 911 though and I was much more naive back then.

A Glock at my school.

[JesseL]

If the job were just to be defending the students in the event of an attack, I'd be happy to see them using a rifle or shotgun. Pistols are a compromise we accept when you primarily need to be doing other things and keeping your hands free.

[Black_water]

I vote yes and it keeps telling me on the next screen that no one voted yet.

Must be like those voting machines were you vote for Romney and it scores one for Obama.

[Dough333]

As with most subjects on here, I am torn.  I just wonder how effective a single security officer would be at a school if he was only carrying a glock.  I know that if I had a child and a gunman came into the school armed with an AR, I'd feel much better if the security guard was likewise armed.

I guess the positive I could see is the deterrent factor.  A reasonable person would probably choose a target with the less resistance, then again these shooters are far from reasonable

[Paul]

I would put a trained and seasoned single police officer up against an untrained idiot any day of the week. It is simply about deterrence, we never fired a single D5 during the Cold War and we didn't need to because of the US commitment to mutual destruction. Criminals don;t tend to frequent place that are patrolled by police officers. I live in the whitest most Mormon part of Mesa, there is not much crime and the police constantly patrolling. Go to the more run down areas of Mesa with much less police presence and it's a totally different story.

[Thernlund]

I vote yes and it keeps telling me on the next screen that no one voted yet.

Must be like those voting machines were you vote for Romney and it scores one for Obama.

No comments either.  I've seen this on AZCentral before on non-controversial topics.  I think something broke.  Not so sure it's malicious.


-T.

[davycrockettfv]

One armed guard is better than nothing, but it wouldn't ease my fears much.  Pretty easy to take out an armed guard if you know he's there already.  The armed guard is a good addition but there need to be other changes along with that one to increase safety.  I vote yes and hope for more.

[Wingman709]

I don't feel this is necessary.  I say we get teachers trained and CCW permits so they can protect the kids. 

I honestly feel paying for cops in every school is a knee jerk reaction.  And this is coming from a father of three.  I want my kids safe at all costs as well, but having several trained and armed teachers sounds better than one rent a cop.

[Black Wolf CCW]

I don't feel this is necessary.  I say we get teachers trained and CCW permits so they can protect the kids. 

I honestly feel paying for cops in every school is a knee jerk reaction.  And this is coming from a father of three.  I want my kids safe at all costs as well, but having several trained and armed teachers sounds better than one rent a cop.

I agree with Wingman709, people should wait and let emotions settle before jumping to solutions to fix (for the most part) a non existant constant problem..... A lot of these incidents would not have been stopped, maybe limited as to how far they proceeded. Even with armed security, the people that do these will simply figure out a way to do them anyways (which wouldn't be to hard), then what????? Also....

I am in the middle on this, The cops need to be on the streets as were they are needed more so. I am for arming the teachers if the training they get is worthy. A simple CCW class to me is NOT good enough. Only because CCW classes DO NOT get a person mentaly prepared for what they may encounter (they are extremely short and condensed versions of this area). A lot of CCW classes give people false confidence.... If they put a 2 week class on (AZ POST type outline) with areas geared to firearms usage (1000 rounds plus), MILO exercises, mental prep for use of force, active shooter scenarios, most certianly after the shooting mental and physical issues, yearly continual training to kkep the person focused, ect.... Even with all this training there are no guarantees that it will work....

Getting a security person should come from a place that is greared or suited to a personal protection area, not just any general armed security guard business.

[PHXCobra]

How about we train any teacher that wants to protect themselves and their children. Lets give teachers who want it, complete a paid training course, recertify every semester, a certification and the ability to carry concealed in their classroom. We could even issue them a government property firearm they have to turn in if their certification lapses. This would be completely voluntary, cost the government $1-2k a semester per school for paid training and ammo, plus the cost of firearms, and leave more police on the streets to deal with criminals. How many teachers are former military? I can think of several of my teachers that were former military, including one that was a SEAL.

I see no problem with police in schools. My high school had at least one armed officer on campus while the gates were unlocked and during any school activity. I grew up in a middle class neighborhood. I wouldn't mind seeing at least one officer at every school and additional where needed.

[Thernlund]

I don't think arming teachers is immediately doable.  You have to identify teachers that are willing, you have to adequately train them, etc, etc.

Resource Officers are something we can do right now.

Using bonds to shore up funding is always a temporary step anyway.  So the bond issue can pay for resource officers in the near term, as well as fund training for teachers.  Then in the long term, trained teachers take over as resource officers are (mostly) phased out.

A nice side effect is that this can potentially ease the general acceptance of armed individuals in schools through gradual introduction.  After all, there is a political element here that you just can't ignore.


-T.

[Coyotesfan97]

School Resource Officers are usually posts to Junior Highs and High Schools. I don't think any are assigned to Elementary schools. The ones assigned to Jr Highs are often assigned 2-3 schools and they float from school to school as needed.

If we are talking about putting SROs in every school take a look at how many elementary schools are in your city. The cost is going to be expensive and hiring new people and training them is going to take 18-24 months at least.

Cops are usually type As and finding the people willing to take a position to a school is hard. An SRO slot isn't something a lot of cops don't want to do. So you might be looking at assigning people. Usually meaning those with low seniority are the ones picked.

I have no problem with a program much like the airline pilots use. I think you'd be better off using motivated, willing teachers who will use force if needed. You don't want unwilling people who can't or won't use force. If someone doesn't think they can shoot an attacker then we have no business arming them.

Community Colleges have their own sworn armed security. They are AZPOST certified peace officers. Most school districts already have unarmed security forces. I think a better option would be to model a program for the school districts based on this. You hire retired cops or military personnel who are still AZPOST certified or put them through an academy. There'd be plenty of retired municipal cops willing to take a second job in a school.

[PHXCobra]

T I agree that teachers being armed isn't a short term solution.  The logistics of it just can't happen, at least until the Fall semester. 

I'm all for that.  Someone who is a retired police officer or military member takes up a post defending the schools.  There are active men and women doing this right now without pay.  The only issue being they (at least military members) are currently unarmed. 

[RetroG]

I don't see what the problem is with letting any teacher, school admin, maintence worker or even parent volunteer who has a CCW permit to carry at schools for security.  The students (and the bad guys) wouldn't know who was carrying, the CCW permitees have gone through a background check, and quite frankly I don't buy into the whole "you won't know what to do without extensive training" argument.

[Thernlund]

By that reasoning, why train cops?  CCW ought to be enough, right. 


-T.

[trig]

If they needed volunteer armed guards for schools why not use the Arizona Rangers , If they did that I would come out of retirement.     


13yrs in the armed guard field / Academy trained   
 

[RetroG]

By that reasoning, why train cops?  CCW ought to be enough, right. 


-T.

I've known a lot of cops and their trainers.  They may have more training, but most of the cops I know (and their trainers agreed with me) were horrible shots, rarely practiced, rarely maintained their guns, and didn't do as well under pressure as private citizens who competed in the gun sports regularly. 

We train cops because we want them to be as ready as possible, but to a minimum standard.  That standard is qualifying with their issue weapons once a year, maybe twice, with no requirements for practice at any time during the year.  So they don't, except for the ones who are gun people to start with (which isn't most of them, sadly).  I would rather have an amateur who is enthusiastic (like a school employee or parent) who might regularly get exposed to adrenaline dumps during gun competitions, who practices multiple times a month, than a cop who is doing the minimum to get by his yearly qualifications.

I know I would have cheerfully added school guard to the long list of other things I volunteered for while my son was in school, because I cared about him and the other kids in his school, more than the local cops (unless they had kids there).

I guess my bottom line is that if I need to go through extensive training to defend innocents from an evil crazy, then we all should need that level of training to defend our homes from an bad guy or to carry a gun in public.  Are we really saying that?

[gilacr]

I've known a lot of cops and their trainers.  They may have more training, but most of the cops I know (and their trainers agreed with me) were horrible shots, rarely practiced, rarely maintained their guns, and didn't do as well under pressure as private citizens who competed in the gun sports regularly. 

We train cops because we want them to be as ready as possible, but to a minimum standard.  That standard is qualifying with their issue weapons once a year, maybe twice, with no requirements for practice at any time during the year.  So they don't, except for the ones who are gun people to start with (which isn't most of them, sadly).  I would rather have an amateur who is enthusiastic (like a school employee or parent) who might regularly get exposed to adrenaline dumps during gun competitions, who practices multiple times a month, than a cop who is doing the minimum to get by his yearly qualifications.

I know I would have cheerfully added school guard to the long list of other things I volunteered for while my son was in school, because I cared about him and the other kids in his school, more than the local cops (unless they had kids there).

I guess my bottom line is that if I need to go through extensive training to defend innocents from an evil crazy, then we all should need that level of training to defend our homes from an bad guy or to carry a gun in public.  Are we really saying that?

Maybe things have changed today but Az Post used to require extensive firearms training in the academy. Officers were also required to participate in FATS simulations annualy so as not to make poor judgement calls. Granted, some were marginal in their proficiency but that was not the norm and the qualification standards were substantialy more difficult then that of a CCW course.

Don't get me wrong I am all for arming trained school employees. But, it is not the ability to shoot that is critical, it is to know when to shoot.

[Black_water]

As much as I like the idea of volunteers etc, I think the potential to get wannabe Rambo types in there is high.

I read the above about cops and to some extent I agree.  My issue is that I have friends, none of which were in the military, never been in shape, never did anything all that difficult, that prance around at the BBQs talking about their "skills", bad mouthing the military and LEOs etc.

There are plenty of people out there that think that because they have a membership to Frontsite and take a couple classes a year that that makes them "operators".  Sure, I get they have some training, but LEO are under stress everyday.  I don't care if they shoot or not, a cop that meets minimum standards is likely to still shoot minimum standards when the SHTF.  A Frontsite operator who maxes the standards will likely not hit the broadside of the barn when the SHTF.

I don't mean to insult anyone going to Frontsite.  I get that LEOs go, former and present military etc.  The people I am talking about, and there are plenty of them, know who they are.

[RetroG]

Once again, if I don't know when to shoot after taking a CCW class, then I shouldn't be carrying a gun at all, and should not have one for home defense.

Non-LEOs have stopped more shootings than LEO's ever will.  If you doubt that, every month the NRA has a whole page in their magazine of examples of this happening.

I'm not saying LEO's aren't trained and don't qualify, I'm just saying that any school employee or parent who goes through a CCW or shoot/no-shoot training should be allowed to carry concealed on school property.  A parent or school employee is going to care more about those kids and know when something is "off" than any LEO who is assigned there or any hired security.

And it doesn't cost the school or state a penny to allow people who have already gone to the trouble of getting the CCW to carry concealed on school property. 

Do we really want to say that it is better to have gun free target zones at schools than allow responsible gun owners to protect our children??  That sounds more like a gun control organization's stand to me.

[Thernlund]

How do you identify "responsible" gun owners.  I can assure you that simply having a CCW is no indication.  Any kack can go get a CCW.  Doesn't make them qualified to carry or use a firearm.  I've known morons in the past that had CCWs.  One almost shot me in the head once.

CCW is nothing more than a hall pass from the gov't.  Beyond that, it means very little.  If people are going to be carrying as part of a job that includes protecting children, I think more than simply showing up with a gun on your hip is going to be required.

Are we to make them go to through a police academy style training?  Certainly not.  But a certification from a qualified instructor, preferably who specializes in civilian CQB and the particulars of schools, should be required.

The NRA has committed to providing exactly this kind of training for free.  Specialized training that focuses on the specifics of schools.  I see no reason why this shouldn't be made a required endorsement for school staff who wish to carry.


-T.

[RetroG]

I identify responsible gun owners the same way I identify responsible people in any other category, I watch what they do.  Like getting a CCW and not having accidents with their firearms. 

I don't know exactly what is the training requirements particular to a school is that is different than anywhere else.  If some high speed / low drag operator/instructor wants to tell me, great.  What I do know is that the government made it absurdly difficult and took much too long to allow airline pilots to have a gun in cockpit after 9/11.  I would prefer not to have another one of these slaughters while we wait for the government to either approve the idea or take away more of our rights.

I tend to trust my fellow man until such time as they prove me wrong on that account.  It seems kind of two-faced to say on one hand that anyone who passes the requirements for a concealed carry permit can walk around armed most places where there are children present, but not if they are a school employee at a school that we trust with our children's safety and education every day they are at school or a school function. 

Do you think you as a parent should be able to carry at a school, say to pick up your child or attend some school function?  (I know I do.)  If so, how much civilian CQB training specific to schools have you had?  Should every parent who wants to carry have to have that additional training? 

And to go back to your argument about anyone can get a CCW, anyone can get NRA training (or even be an NRA trainer) and still be a mope with a gun.