Thought you'd all enjoy this. 
No response yet. I just don't get people.
Kyle wrote: "Jack, thanks for your clarification. Currently, when schools bring officers in for walking patrols, it's viewed as an extra duty, that either private security performs, or off-duty law enforcement officers moonlight the duty. If you add another stop at local elementary, middle, and high schools you add a LOT of extra work to the patrolmen and women. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "Thin Blue Line". The police forces in most areas are already stretched thin and to accomplish the extra stops on a route would necessitate one of two things that I can think of. 1.) Extra officers, or 2.) removing officers from other areas in favor of stopping at schools.
JACK’S REPLY: Having been an officer of the law in my distant past, I can write to this. Every shift going out to the streets is told what the oncoming officers should watch for and what daily priorities exist. Their focus is always stretched and broad and there is seldom enough manpower to fulfill their shift responsibility. They sit and listen to the shift leader drone on about graffiti on the fences, speeding near so and so high school, and domestic problems to oversee. When the sergeant says that all officers are to make passes at the schools in their areas, visit with the front offices, and wave to the children, he means to ‘keep an eye on the kids’. From experience, I find this not only workable but desirable and a deterrent, too.
KYLES RESPONSE: This might be a deterrent, but I don’t see how it will help when someone decicdes to do the unthinkable. Most of these crimes are planned for weeks or months. Easily enough time to factor in the occasional police patrol.
Let's keep in perspective that these types of crimes, however atrocious, are very uncommon and have not statistically increased over the last several decades. (Mass shooting deaths per year hover around 20.) As for reading your post again, I have to take issue with your very first sentence. Are you saying that if a school administrator is a former member of Seal team 6, you would trust your local police officers more than that individual to recognize and eliminate a threat to themselves or the individuals (including children) that are entrusted to the schools care?
JACK’S REPLY: I’m afraid the number of Seal Team 6 administrators in our schools can be numbered on one hand, perhaps one finger. Due to their training and levels of formal education, I don’t see 6ers seeking school administration jobs. That being written, and until I see 6ers headed in that direction, I’ll end my reply.
KYLES RESPONSE: Jack, you miss the point. Your statement that you don’t trust any civilian to posess a firearm regardless of the amount of training and proficiency speaks to a lack of understanding. I’m all for a properly traned adult to posess the ability to protect my kids while they are away from the home. Not to mention I feel it’s a duty of each individual that carries a firearm for their protection to be adequately trained and proficient in how and when to use that tool.
Most police officers are required to qualify with their weapons once a year. Oftentimes, the budgets of local departments do not enable them to train on a more regular basis. Classes are hit or miss in terms of their quality and quantity, both for civilians and military/police. Many avid sports shooters and concealed weapon carriers that I know fire thousands of rounds a year in both static and dynamic scenarios. [USPSA, IDPA, 3 gun competitions and target shooting] Laws against carrying weapons in schools don’t stop evil individuals with murderous intent. Such laws only disarm the law abiding and virtuous, who are now rendered incompetent to defend themselves and those in their care.
JACK’S REPLY: You have written off the role of the police as a proactive deterrent. You name their limitations and few of their attributes. Police presence has a chilling effect on the worst of our criminals, including the mentally ill ones, and should always be the point group for neutralizing crime in the community they serve. We rely on them to keep safe the community and that certainly includes our schools. When we look to arm administrators, perhaps the football coach, the third grade teacher, etc., we are admitting that we have lost faith in the police. Think of it this way, maybe we have not asked the police to expand their role from riding around the streets in cruisers to boot walking for unscheduled short periods among the children. I feel the police need a more proactive role in their service to community.
KYLES RESPONSE: Faith in the police to offer you protection is a flawed viewpoint. Police cannot be everywhere at once, and this occurance serves to solidify that fact. Police are a great deterrent. They provide the community with a valuable service. I’m all for a more proactive police presence, we agree on that point. My concern is giving credit where it is undue. Police cannot be the protectors of the masses because they are human. My belief is that the vast majority of Police would have chosen to be at that location at that time to respond in kind to the threat that was presented. BUT, until Officers have the ability to see where they are needed in the future, they CANNOT stop those bent on evil in the moment. They are a reactionary force that is often minutes away while evil is being spread upon the defenseless. Your lack of faith in your fellow man to stop the threat where it begins is disconcerting to me.
Police often arrive too late to make a difference, and are often there to collect evidence and apprehend the suspect. However well intentioned, they are a slow reactive force compared to an armed citizen on the scene. In the immediacy of a criminal attack, it is the intended victims (or their immediate care-takers) who are there, in position to put a stop to the attack, if they are capable. And being capable means being armed, trained, willing, and able to use deadly force, right then, right there. All of the teachers and staff were willfully disarmed by the Federal Government, by force of law and threat of prison, ultimately ensuring that they would be disarmed and incapable of saving the lives of the children entrusted to their care. Being unable to lawfully carry a weapon in a school guarantees that shooters meet no immediate armed resistance, which is exactly what is needed to stop such attacks."
JACK’S REPLY: Police are 90 % proactive right now, today. They do this by patrolling in view thus restraining a lot of ‘wannabe’ criminals before they rob, rape, and pillage. They should extend this proactive role right now and include the schools in their sphere of interest. I’m frightened at the thought all school teachers can be licensed to carry concealed weapons to school having passed some prescribed testing procedures.
KYLES RESPONSE: And with that 90% proactivity, these innocents are still dead. Do we know when the last time the school was visitied by a patrol? How often and at what times? Until we know that, we don’t know if your plan for police presence was in place. What we do know is that despite the best efforts of a professional police force, criminals continue to seek out and find “weapon free zones”. Those areas do not keep the criminals from bringing those weapons into those areas and destroying lives. Your aversion to the licencing, training, and the ability of civilians to defend themselves and those within their care is unfortunate. Individuals have a right and perhaps even a duty to protect themselves and those in their care.
here's the thread thusfar.
No response yet. I just don't get people.
Kyle wrote: "Jack, thanks for your clarification. Currently, when schools bring officers in for walking patrols, it's viewed as an extra duty, that either private security performs, or off-duty law enforcement officers moonlight the duty. If you add another stop at local elementary, middle, and high schools you add a LOT of extra work to the patrolmen and women. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "Thin Blue Line". The police forces in most areas are already stretched thin and to accomplish the extra stops on a route would necessitate one of two things that I can think of. 1.) Extra officers, or 2.) removing officers from other areas in favor of stopping at schools.
JACK’S REPLY: Having been an officer of the law in my distant past, I can write to this. Every shift going out to the streets is told what the oncoming officers should watch for and what daily priorities exist. Their focus is always stretched and broad and there is seldom enough manpower to fulfill their shift responsibility. They sit and listen to the shift leader drone on about graffiti on the fences, speeding near so and so high school, and domestic problems to oversee. When the sergeant says that all officers are to make passes at the schools in their areas, visit with the front offices, and wave to the children, he means to ‘keep an eye on the kids’. From experience, I find this not only workable but desirable and a deterrent, too.
KYLES RESPONSE: This might be a deterrent, but I don’t see how it will help when someone decicdes to do the unthinkable. Most of these crimes are planned for weeks or months. Easily enough time to factor in the occasional police patrol.
Let's keep in perspective that these types of crimes, however atrocious, are very uncommon and have not statistically increased over the last several decades. (Mass shooting deaths per year hover around 20.) As for reading your post again, I have to take issue with your very first sentence. Are you saying that if a school administrator is a former member of Seal team 6, you would trust your local police officers more than that individual to recognize and eliminate a threat to themselves or the individuals (including children) that are entrusted to the schools care?
JACK’S REPLY: I’m afraid the number of Seal Team 6 administrators in our schools can be numbered on one hand, perhaps one finger. Due to their training and levels of formal education, I don’t see 6ers seeking school administration jobs. That being written, and until I see 6ers headed in that direction, I’ll end my reply.
KYLES RESPONSE: Jack, you miss the point. Your statement that you don’t trust any civilian to posess a firearm regardless of the amount of training and proficiency speaks to a lack of understanding. I’m all for a properly traned adult to posess the ability to protect my kids while they are away from the home. Not to mention I feel it’s a duty of each individual that carries a firearm for their protection to be adequately trained and proficient in how and when to use that tool.
Most police officers are required to qualify with their weapons once a year. Oftentimes, the budgets of local departments do not enable them to train on a more regular basis. Classes are hit or miss in terms of their quality and quantity, both for civilians and military/police. Many avid sports shooters and concealed weapon carriers that I know fire thousands of rounds a year in both static and dynamic scenarios. [USPSA, IDPA, 3 gun competitions and target shooting] Laws against carrying weapons in schools don’t stop evil individuals with murderous intent. Such laws only disarm the law abiding and virtuous, who are now rendered incompetent to defend themselves and those in their care.
JACK’S REPLY: You have written off the role of the police as a proactive deterrent. You name their limitations and few of their attributes. Police presence has a chilling effect on the worst of our criminals, including the mentally ill ones, and should always be the point group for neutralizing crime in the community they serve. We rely on them to keep safe the community and that certainly includes our schools. When we look to arm administrators, perhaps the football coach, the third grade teacher, etc., we are admitting that we have lost faith in the police. Think of it this way, maybe we have not asked the police to expand their role from riding around the streets in cruisers to boot walking for unscheduled short periods among the children. I feel the police need a more proactive role in their service to community.
KYLES RESPONSE: Faith in the police to offer you protection is a flawed viewpoint. Police cannot be everywhere at once, and this occurance serves to solidify that fact. Police are a great deterrent. They provide the community with a valuable service. I’m all for a more proactive police presence, we agree on that point. My concern is giving credit where it is undue. Police cannot be the protectors of the masses because they are human. My belief is that the vast majority of Police would have chosen to be at that location at that time to respond in kind to the threat that was presented. BUT, until Officers have the ability to see where they are needed in the future, they CANNOT stop those bent on evil in the moment. They are a reactionary force that is often minutes away while evil is being spread upon the defenseless. Your lack of faith in your fellow man to stop the threat where it begins is disconcerting to me.
Police often arrive too late to make a difference, and are often there to collect evidence and apprehend the suspect. However well intentioned, they are a slow reactive force compared to an armed citizen on the scene. In the immediacy of a criminal attack, it is the intended victims (or their immediate care-takers) who are there, in position to put a stop to the attack, if they are capable. And being capable means being armed, trained, willing, and able to use deadly force, right then, right there. All of the teachers and staff were willfully disarmed by the Federal Government, by force of law and threat of prison, ultimately ensuring that they would be disarmed and incapable of saving the lives of the children entrusted to their care. Being unable to lawfully carry a weapon in a school guarantees that shooters meet no immediate armed resistance, which is exactly what is needed to stop such attacks."
JACK’S REPLY: Police are 90 % proactive right now, today. They do this by patrolling in view thus restraining a lot of ‘wannabe’ criminals before they rob, rape, and pillage. They should extend this proactive role right now and include the schools in their sphere of interest. I’m frightened at the thought all school teachers can be licensed to carry concealed weapons to school having passed some prescribed testing procedures.
KYLES RESPONSE: And with that 90% proactivity, these innocents are still dead. Do we know when the last time the school was visitied by a patrol? How often and at what times? Until we know that, we don’t know if your plan for police presence was in place. What we do know is that despite the best efforts of a professional police force, criminals continue to seek out and find “weapon free zones”. Those areas do not keep the criminals from bringing those weapons into those areas and destroying lives. Your aversion to the licencing, training, and the ability of civilians to defend themselves and those within their care is unfortunate. Individuals have a right and perhaps even a duty to protect themselves and those in their care.
here's the thread thusfar.
Last edited:
