HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Is the idea of Police off...

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:52 PM

 

Is the idea of Police officers in schools still stupid?

One of President Obama's initiatives:

- Give $150 million to school districts and law enforcement agencies to hire school resource officers, school psychologists, social workers, and counselors. This would put up to 1,000 new school resource officers - specially trained police officers who work in schools - and school counselors on the job.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/about/tribune-search/sns-rt-us-usa-guns-factboxbre90f156-20130116,0,1056231.story


"Liberal" gun control will never be taken seriously when a basic concept, like armed police in schools, is stupid when suggested by the NRA and smart when suggested by Clinton or Obama.

84 replies, 3272 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 84 replies Author Time Post
Reply Is the idea of Police officers in schools still stupid? (Original post)
TPaine7 Jan 2013 OP
Squinch Jan 2013 #1
TPaine7 Jan 2013 #3
Indydem Jan 2013 #4
ellisonz Jan 2013 #25
Comrade_McKenzie Jan 2013 #2
hack89 Jan 2013 #8
PDJane Jan 2013 #5
TPaine7 Jan 2013 #17
PDJane Jan 2013 #19
dkf Jan 2013 #57
PDJane Jan 2013 #66
rustydog Jan 2013 #77
dkf Jan 2013 #83
Dash87 Jan 2013 #84
kaiden Jan 2013 #6
JaneyVee Jan 2013 #7
Lex Jan 2013 #9
TPaine7 Jan 2013 #12
gollygee Jan 2013 #27
Still Sensible Jan 2013 #10
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #11
randome Jan 2013 #13
TPaine7 Jan 2013 #14
randome Jan 2013 #16
jmg257 Jan 2013 #18
randome Jan 2013 #55
jmg257 Jan 2013 #58
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #29
shadowrider Jan 2013 #79
jberryhill Jan 2013 #15
TPaine7 Jan 2013 #20
jmg257 Jan 2013 #23
TPaine7 Jan 2013 #45
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #67
bongbong Jan 2013 #65
jberryhill Jan 2013 #68
MineralMan Jan 2013 #21
rustydog Jan 2013 #22
ellisonz Jan 2013 #24
HappyMe Jan 2013 #34
ellisonz Jan 2013 #39
Earth_First Jan 2013 #43
HappyMe Jan 2013 #46
Oilwellian Jan 2013 #26
Robb Jan 2013 #28
gollygee Jan 2013 #30
Kaleva Jan 2013 #31
TPaine7 Jan 2013 #42
Kaleva Jan 2013 #48
Earth_First Jan 2013 #32
Kaleva Jan 2013 #35
Earth_First Jan 2013 #36
Kaleva Jan 2013 #41
TPaine7 Jan 2013 #44
Earth_First Jan 2013 #47
TPaine7 Jan 2013 #51
Earth_First Jan 2013 #60
Kaleva Jan 2013 #53
TPaine7 Jan 2013 #56
HangOnKids Jan 2013 #72
HockeyMom Jan 2013 #33
keithmkr59255us Jan 2013 #37
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #38
NewHere112233 Jan 2013 #40
Historic NY Jan 2013 #49
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #50
liberal N proud Jan 2013 #52
woodsprite Jan 2013 #54
Kalidurga Jan 2013 #59
Tikki Jan 2013 #61
keithmkr59255us Jan 2013 #62
99Forever Jan 2013 #63
2pooped2pop Jan 2013 #64
deathrind Jan 2013 #69
sinkingfeeling Jan 2013 #70
jeff47 Jan 2013 #71
Recursion Jan 2013 #74
Recursion Jan 2013 #73
Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2013 #75
Ian David Jan 2013 #76
LeftInTX Jan 2013 #78
aandegoons Jan 2013 #80
Bigmack Jan 2013 #81
Bigmack Jan 2013 #82

Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:54 PM

1. Is gun control "liberal?" I hadn't realized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:55 PM

3. Not really, but many think so. Hence the quotation marks. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:55 PM

4. No it's not.

There are liberals who oppose it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indydem (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:24 PM

25. There are still liberal NRA members?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:54 PM

2. It was only stupid when it was the sole proposal... and not part of a broader package. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:57 PM

8. Same for databases for people with mental illness

talking about New York of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:56 PM

5. Personally, I think it's useless pandering when promoted by either side.

It's a waste of money, a fine way to produce really obedient children with a fear of thought, and it's not going to solve the problem of gun violence. So, what was your point again???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PDJane (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:16 PM

17. Reread the OP. If you can't understand it, there's no way to help you. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:21 PM

19. I understand it, I just feel the whole damn discussion is ridiculous in the extreme.

More authority with guns is NOT going to stop the problem; it's likely to exacerbate the problem. If you don't understand that, then nothing can help you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PDJane (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:14 PM

57. So does having Secret Service to protect the Prez make it more or less safe for him?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #57)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:39 PM

66. Yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #57)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:34 PM

77. Ask Ronald Reagan, he would know if it stops shootings

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #77)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 07:19 PM

83. Oh I'm sure it dissuaded a few.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #57)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 07:29 PM

84. Careful about buying that NRA false equivalency.

The President has a country to run, hundreds of thousands of enemies, and is a political figure.

Kids in kindergarten are constantly in a much (almost an understatement) safer environment. They don't need protection by police officers any more than you or I.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:56 PM

6. Of course, the House will never approve the needed funds for these school resource officers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:56 PM

7. I think using police in school is a stupid idea, but everyone I know on the Left has been for

armed security guards from the beginning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:59 PM

9. "specially trained police officers who work in schools"

does that say "armed" ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:10 PM

12. No it doesn't. Feel free to assume that they, unlike every other sworn law enforcement officer (with

 

possible rare exceptions like some undercover agents), will be unarmed.

I fail to see the point of hiring an unarmed police officer to engage in hand to rifle or even hand to handgun combat, but to each his or her own I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:26 PM

27. We have police officers in schools here

and they are armed, and their official title is "Resource Officer." I'm sure that's what this is talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:04 PM

10. Among other things, it is an acknowledgment that

many schools in the U.S. already have armed personnel of some type on campus and it is one option for schools to consider.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:08 PM

11. It's going to cost a lot of money and do very little to ameliorate the school shooting problem

In my mind at least it falls into security theater category in that I think it's not a good allocation of resources, like a lot of what TSA does.

Beyond that I don't like the idea of children thinking they are only safe when armed guards are around, that's not the way toward a less violent society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:13 PM

13. It doesn't say 'armed' in the article.

'school resource officers' and 'specially trained police'. I don't think that automatically means they would be armed.

I think it can do some good to have police officers present -not necessarily armed- because it serves as a deterrant to those mentally disturbed individuals who still have a couple of brain cells left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:14 PM

14. See post 12. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:16 PM

16. Even unarmed can have a deterrant effect, I think.

I hope that's how it shakes out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:20 PM

18. Why would they have to be LE then if they weren't going to be armed?

It wouldn't make sense to hire 'school resourse officers from PDs otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:11 PM

55. I would think a police officer would have more knowledge of security issues.

If they are properly trained. Just throwing out suggestions here. Obviously we need more details on this proposal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #55)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:15 PM

58. You are right...I did see below unarmed sheriffs are used in this capacity.

I guess we shall see how play out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:27 PM

29. If they're not armed the likelihood of one stopping another Sandy Hook is all but nil

That makes the cost/benefit ratio even worse.

There's a lot of things in our lives that I see as a necessary evil or risk if you will, fire is a good example, a powerful tool but also deadly in the wrong circumstances.

I feel the same way about cops, particularly the way our police forces seem to be moving to a more militarized attitude toward the public, they are something that's necessary but making your kids too comfortable around them is asking for trouble, particularly for minority kids. I say that as someone who had a really great cop in my family until he passed away some years back but he told me himself that a lot of people stay in policing too long and it changes them.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 05:02 PM

79. It won't stop another Sandy Hook, as it won't stop any other senseless tragedy

Let me explain

A bad guy intent on shooting up a school will care less if there if a "Resource officer" is present. The element of surprise will bring carnage long before the officer can respond. A shooter won't care he/she is cornered, he/she will either shoot it out, or commit suicide. These people WANT to out in a blaze of glory.

Now, some say, there was a security guard at Columbine which is a true statement. However, he was outside and his rules of engagement called for him to WAIT for assistance and not take the initiative to stop the shooting, which is exactly what he did.

My question is, what will the rules of engagement be for these "Resource Officers" in case of a shooting?

Two things, in my opinion, would contribute greatly to slowing (not stopping, that'll never happen) school shootings.
1) Mental health intervention for those deemed a danger to themselves or others
2) A media blackout of the name of the shooter under any and all circumstances. Many people do these kinds of things so their name will live long after their deed is done. A guarantee of anonymity MAY cause some to rethink their actions.

Your opinion may differ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:14 PM

15. "One size fits all" solutions are almost always stupid


The NRA calling for an armed yahoo in every school, and having specifically trained officials in schools where it is deemed appropriate, are two different things.

There are schools which need, and have, armed officers in them already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:22 PM

20. I think an "assault weapons ban" is a one size fits all solution, and also unconstitutional.

 

If Obama had focused on keeping them out of the wrong hands, through things like safe storage, mandatory inventories and theft reportage, and universal background checks for guns and perhaps for magazines with more than 10 rounds he would have been on much firmer ground.

Heinous crimes committed with Bushmasters mean that no ordinary American should be able to own AR-15 style weapons is stupid IMO, and America's current mood notwithstanding, it is probably a long term losing proposition, politically and legally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:23 PM

23. Why would you think an AWB won't be part of a much larger bill? They usually are... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:51 PM

45. Then the AWB part is still one-size-fits-all and unconstitutional. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #45)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:40 PM

67. Stop making sense! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:29 PM

65. Why is it unconstitutional?

 

Where in the Constitution does it say you can have as many assault rifles as you want?

If you're talkng about the 2nd Amendment, it's about state militias, and has nothing to do with laissez-faire gun ownership by scared children (AKA Delicate Flowers)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:48 PM

68. I see...


And why wasn't the AWB overturned during the years it was in force?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:22 PM

21. It was never stupid. Many schools have security officers on duty

all the time. It's not at all uncommon. That doesn't mean, though, that they can prevent shootings by a dedicated shooter at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:23 PM

22. Yes it is stoopid. At one point the funding of the "resource officers" become local tazpayer burdens

and they are one of the first things police depts cut to prevent losing officers. CPTED is a better expenditure of taxpayer money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:24 PM

24. That wasn't the NRA's proposal...

...the NRA proposed putting "volunteers" in schools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #24)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:35 PM

34. I thought that the NRA said that

they would pay for the armed guards. I assume that since they would be paying, they would get to choose them.

I may have heard wrong, but I think the President said that money would be provided for the cop in the school if that's what the school chooses to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:39 PM

39. From the beasts mouth:

The NRA didn't offer to pay for shit:

Now, the National Rifle Association knows there are millions of qualified and active retired police, active, Reserve, and retired military, security professionals, certified firefighters, security professionals, rescue personnel, an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained, qualified citizens to join with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every single school.

We could deploy them to protect our kids now. We can immediately make America’s schools safer, relying on the brave men and women in America’s police forces. The budgets -- and you all know this, everyone in the country knows this -- of our local police departments are strained, and the resources are severely limited, but their dedication and courage is second to none. And, they can be deployed right now.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-21/politics/36018141_1_mayhem-with-minimum-risk-nra-wayne-lapierre/3


A Zimmerman in every classroom!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #39)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:43 PM

43. No thanks!

Thank you for the quote/link, however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #39)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:51 PM

46. The way they keep saying

'deployed' is creepy. Armed nutbars recommended by the NRA pretty much does equal a bunch of Zimmermans in a school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:24 PM

26. Our local HS has had an unarmed resource officer for years

His sheriff car is parked outside the entrance. I doubt he could stop an AR-15 assault rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:26 PM

28. "...And school counselors." Did you stop reading at "police"?

Idiot districts might choose cops. The rest of us will happily take cash for additional school psychologists, social workers, and counselors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:27 PM

30. Suggesting that armed guards (not necessarily trained police) in schools

would solve the problem was ridiculous. Suggesting we arm teachers was even worse.

But to have more resource officers as one part of a larger plan isn't bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:29 PM

31. You argued in the past for teachers themselves to be armed.

You've also argued against banning high capacity magazines.

How can you expect to be taken seriously here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #31)


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #42)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:53 PM

48. You have a well documented history of supporting the NRA....

which you have refered to as "... the foremost defender of gun rights in America--the NRA.".

Your comment:

"Narrow-mindedness is not supposed to be a liberal trait."

Yet you yourself support a right wing organization. That's not exactly a liberal trait itself is it? But then I've never seen you claim to be a liberal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:32 PM

32. It's too bad that the NRA has taken over the gun control debate at Democratic Underground...

I served on the jury just now on this thread and it was voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT when the majority of those responding to this thread oppose militarizing our schools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Earth_First (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:35 PM

35. With no explanation given by those 4 who voted to leave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #35)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:37 PM

36. +1

Obviously you were #6...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Earth_First (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:39 PM

41. I was the one who alerted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #41)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:46 PM

44. This is a depressing trend on DU. The ideologues here are so "pure" in their "liberalism" that they

 

will try to shut you down for AGREEING WITH OUR DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT that having police in schools to stop shootings is a good idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #44)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:52 PM

47. The depressing trend is that whenever public opinion on the idea changes, you pull pins...

and replaced the debate.

The original NRA suggestion; as was pointed out above; was that VOLUNTEERS be used as armed agents in our schools against gun related violence. It's there in black and white, quoted and linked.

It's been pointed out to you a few times here that most of us are against it.

Now the NRA has reconvened and now it's LEO's and SRO's; which has garnered some support, but not majority support.

So eventually the suggestion will be to change the debate to something entirely different same shit, different day with you NRA types...

Quit with the "liberalism" quotations while you are at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Earth_First (Reply #47)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:06 PM

51. "Liberalism"

 

Yes it is, quoted and linked.

However, I used a certified and approved by DU "liberals" site to arrive at my conclusion:

"NRA Press Conference: Wayne LaPierre Calls For Armed Police Officers At Every School" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/nra-press-conference_n_2346382.html.

I would think that you can reason enough to see that I didn't read the citation you're touting until after I posted the OP. You see, the citation was a response to the OP, and I am not a psychic. So implying that I am a liar on the basis of that citation is unrealistic.

As for the idea that "most of us are against it"--so what? As an argument, that's laughable on it's face. If a certain position has majority, I should not post opposing views?!!! Is that your "liberal" opinion? If so, that's just depressingly illiberal.

Oh, and as I'm sure you've noticed, I'll use the "liberalism" quotes as I see fit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #51)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:18 PM

60. So your position is that you are here for no other reason than to advocate for firearms

and to to bemoan the SoP which has been laid out by the admins of Democratic Underground that this be a place where like-minded individuals can interact with one another; so yes, your opinion about an opposing view is moot.

So in closing, I will leave you with good luck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #44)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:08 PM

53. You've argued in the past against schools being "gun free zones".

For you, the answer to everything is more guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #53)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:13 PM

56. Not really. The answer to "2 + 2 = ?" is 4. At least that's what they taught at my school. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #56)


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:33 PM

33. It didn't work in Florida where I worked

The Deputies didn't stop gun toting criminals from coming on campus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:39 PM

38. Teachers should NOT be armed.

Janitors should NOT be armed.
Principals should NOT be armed.

In some neighborhoods, I don't see any issue with having a police officer in and around the school. There are plenty of unarmed bad guys out there (pedophiles and drug dealers) who should know that schools are no place to ply their trade. I hold no misconceptions about a single police officer's ability to prevent a determined maniac from breaching the perimeter, but there are other good reasons to have an officer on site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:39 PM

40. Common Presence

Im from Omaha Nebraska, not a small town by any means but certainly no Chicago, LA, or NYC. When I was in middle and highschool both schools had an officer present at all times. I didn't find it strange. There was a officer in every middle in high school in our city. I figured that if we had them then most cities did. Just wondering, was this the case in most of your guys middle schools and high schools? Im not too old, only 26, so I started attending middle school in 1999 and graduated high school in 2005. Our school districts in the city each hire an officer as part of their staff, they are even included in our yearbook. Never phased me. Is the issue people are having with officers in schools more about them being present in elementary schools? I know we did not have a constant officer presence in elementary school but one did visit often to make us comfortable with them, to let us know they weren't the enemy and that if we felt unsafe or needed help we could always find and ask an officer to help. Personally Im not opposed to the idea if their presence makes my child feel safe. It also does help your child to understand they are not the enemy, etc, as I stated before. Edited: The cost in our state is funded by the same property taxes that fund our school...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:03 PM

49. In a few years as in the past it will become un-sustainable...

these aren't lifetime grants the district or the community will eventually pay in the form of higher taxes. Most funding last for 3yrs and then your on your own. I've spent 30 yrs in Le and seen it time and time again...people hired on and gone in 3yrs when the well goes dry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:05 PM

50. Yes.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:07 PM

52. The same ones calling for cutting all social programs want to pay for an army in the schools



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:10 PM

54. Resource officers aren't new. Had em for years in DE.

Last week in my son's middle school, the resource officer kept a teacher from being beaten to a pulp and Friday morning disarmed a kid with a knife. Those are the incidents parents have been told about. Before Christmas he had to deal with a stranger who came into the school and walked past the office trying to get into the rest of the building. Apparently she tried several different ways to get in that day. He called for backup to have her escorted to the police dept. He was afraid she might be a 'diversion' for something else, so he and a few of his buddies stayed at the school the rest of the day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:16 PM

59. It's stupid when...

It morphs into having an armed principle, teacher, or janitor. Because that is what is happening. Having an armed LEO isn't such a bad idea in a lot of cases. But, we need a lot more than that to protect schools, theaters, malls, and hospitals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:18 PM

61. School Police, maybe, if they pay enough...but how interesting it would be to have local..

county, state or federal police at each site...the cost to the public will be impressive. And school police would prob negotiate
along with classified for the school district's money.


Tikki

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:20 PM

63. Yes, turning our schools into armed camps is still stupid,...

.. still dangerous, still asinine, still a complete waste of a lot of money, still a rightwingnut NRA meme, and still blows fucking chunks.

Any more stupid fucking questions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:27 PM

64. many schools already have police

and or security in place. So why should we have to foot the bill to put them in all schools?

I see this as a way to scare us about our public schools because I do believe the rich are planning on doing away with the public school system and making us afraid to send our children would accomplish much in their goals.

What is the ratio of school shootings in poor areas verses school shootings by the spoiled rich kids? I wonder. Is this a bigger problem in the rich kid areas or do we just not hear about it when it happens to poor or black areas?

I don't care for the idea of having police in schools but giving the janitor the gun and saying this is now part of your job, seems even worse.

Sorry lots of jumbled thoughts.lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:50 PM

69. It has

Never been "stupid" to have a well-trained LEO at a school what was "stupid" was to suggest arming principals / teachers and other faculty. Although there was an armed LEO at Columbine and that did not stop what happened there.

Also the NRA add just shows the limit of their intelligence and of their target audience.

1st- POTUS and his family are targets of numerous threats many, many, more than some 8th grader sitting in the back of the math class.

2nd- There are literally dozens and dozens of agents that protect POTUS and his family so comparing the protection of 4 people by 50-100 or more Secret Service Agents vs. 300-400-500 or more students being protected by 1 Law Enforcement Officer is just ludicrous. Like I said there was a Deputy at Columbine and that event still happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:06 PM

70. Resource officers aren't what the NRA had in mind. They want armed guards in

the classrooms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:17 PM

71. A resource officer isn't really a police officer

They're more of a hybrid between a cop and a therapist. They are also trained to defuse situations instead of slap on handcuffs.

The NRA want typical "beat" cops in schools. That wouldn't help - it already failed in places like Columbine. The idea behind the "resource officer" is to try and intervene before the law is broken instead of punish after the law is broken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #71)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:29 PM

74. Yeah, this is outreach and prevention stuff. Think DARE, only...

...less slavishly tied to keeping kids from smoking pot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:28 PM

73. No, but talking about it in the context of mass shootings is misleading

More and more it bothers me that mass shootings are what get people talking about gun control because they're so unlike "regular" shootings that there's not much in common that would prevent both.

Resource officers are good for a lot of things, mostly community outreach and early intervention. They're not there to stop mass shooters and we shouldn't expect them to do that. Even SWAT teams usually don't enter until the shooting is over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:30 PM

75. Actual police officers? Not stupid, but not sure how effective it will be. As to armed teachers....

....or armed civilians in schools, yes. Yes, that is stupid. Incredibly stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:31 PM

76. Pro: Cops are in unions. Con: School Cops feed students into private prisons. Con: "Mission Creep."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:38 PM

78. My son was arrested by the campus police in 2001

He was breaking the law. They had to contact the DA etc. As a parent I was glad they were there. My son didn't have a gun, but he was engaging in behavior that was dangerous and illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 06:06 PM

80. Yes.

The answer is the removal of the need to have police in schools. I can't believe you are proud of a country that needs to do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 07:08 PM

81. We had an armed city police resource officer at out HS...

The kids loved him, even though he could be a hard-ass. Young and fairly good looking... the girls especially loved him.

One day I was walking behind him and bunch of guys laughing and joking with him.

I was chilled when I thought what could happen if they just overpowered him and took his weapon.

Or some kid sucker-punch him and take his weapon.

I'm not saying I'm against armed cops on campus, just that it's not a perfect solution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 07:13 PM

82. Then there's the 6 LA cops...

... who fired 90 rounds at an unarmed man. Killed him.

But where did the other 75 rounds go.... background anybody?

Or the NYC cops who wounded 8 bystanders shooting at a perp?

Cops on campus are no guarantee... but as I said, I'm not against it.

(Sorry if I've posted this info before, but it's still relevant.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread