nah after columbine they changed it to go in and stop shooter pretty surrrree
nah after columbine they changed it to go in and stop shooter pretty surrrree
Yep. If he's not going in, what is there for? Every kid on campus has a phone to call 911 with.
Not saying him going in would've solved the problem, and indeed it might have made things worse, but there's literally no reason to have him there if he's not going to try to intervene.
Like all of ya want another body on the count just to say 'well he tried. gold star for his casket.'
Would be better if the resource officer wasn't 99% of the time some fat turd trying to ride out until retirement. Not sure how anyone can defend someone that is law enforcement from not moving to protect kids from a gunman but to each their own.
Obviously the armed resource officer's job is to stand-by and reassure kids as they run out of the building during an active school shooting.
I’d really like to see what the official policy for his department or what specific risks he agreed to for this job before casting judgement.
This seems like a good paper on the police end of active shooter situations, and talks quite a bit about police response at school shootings- http://www.policeforum.org/assets/do...nts%202014.pdf
The intro does indeed talk about how Columbine changed the game.
In all of the solo entries we identified where the scene was still hot, one-third of the police officers who made that solo entry were shot.
But it's ok to arm teachers
https://www.propublica.org/article/a...ite-hate-group
Here's a wonderful read.
I didn't know Spicy was a neonazi
.![]()
spicy
Regarding the resource officer not going in, I forget if current policy is one officer enter or wait for a second officer to enter and that was changed after Aurora and Orlando. It's still definitely less than three I can tell you that for a fact at least in my department.
Of course Trump says he would've went in there even without a weapon.
(-____-);