"Lockdown" vs. "Firedrill"


PDA






ReadyontheRight
April 21, 2007, 12:20 PM
IMHO, the VT atrocity should start changing the way that schools deal with invasion.

We should encourage schools to should start treating these events like a fire drill and get the kids the heck out of there.

A "lockdown" is exactly what a hostage-taker or murdering-idiot wants.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Lockdown" vs. "Firedrill"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ilbob
April 21, 2007, 12:30 PM
The problem is that most situations where a lock down is used, there is no real danger to the children anyway. They are often used if there is some kind of violent crime that occurred in the area, just to make it a little harder for any criminal to get a hostage as they are trying to flee police, or in even rarer cases to reduce the chances of collateral damage from a shootout.

To make an informed decision about a chaotic event while it is happening is impossible. No one can do it. It is all about instinct. Because instinct is as often wrong as it is right, especially in such a case, there is some logic to having a predefined plan in place so no thinking is required.

Short of having good guys with guns in the school already, I do not see there is any practical way to prevent these kind of events, nor is there any especially effective way to deal with them after they occur that does not end up like Columbine and VT.

You can Monday morning quarterback what the cops on the scene did after the fact, but while no one in authority will publicly admit it, there is not much they could have done to change what happened. The die was cast when a lunatic went in with the intent to kill a bunch of people.

rugerdude
April 21, 2007, 12:46 PM
Juts put a mossberg 500a loaded with buckshot in those little lockers they use to keep fire extinguishers in.

"a gunman walked into a local highschool today and was immediately stopped by a student with a violence extinguisher"

Daniel T
April 21, 2007, 12:59 PM
"violence extinguisher"

That is an instant classic. :D

thexrayboy
April 21, 2007, 07:57 PM
From the perspective of LEO a lockdown makes life simpler. If everyone in the building flees like rabbits in all directions it makes it easy for a BG to blend in with the running crowd and melt away preventing arrest. The lockdown scenario gives LEO the chance to create a perimeter and then sweep the area searching and even handcuffing anyone of interest until they are satisfied that the BG is either arrested or is not among those they have evaluated.

Which response, "lockdown" or "fire drill" is the better choice is debateable. At times one would be preferable and at other times the other would be.
I personally don't care if the BG manages to escape among the panicing sheep as long as his rampage has ended. LEO can do some legwork and catch them later. I do object to the option that unarmed victims should be
forced to remain locked inside a building at the mercy of fate wondering who will reach them first, the police or the madman with no say as to their own future.

ace1001
April 21, 2007, 08:38 PM
The lockdown only works if there are some responsible people with guns inside to keep the threat out or deal with the threat already inside. Otherwise you have just created the "fish in a barrel" scenerio. Ace

kfranz
April 21, 2007, 08:46 PM
A "lockdown" is exactly what a hostage-taker or murdering-idiot wants.

Baloney. Read this

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/us/22norris.html?ei=5065&en=261d7a8b7f72d09f&ex=1177819200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Yeah, yeah, NY Times. Who cares. Look for which classrooms the casulties occured in? Don't want to read? I'll sum it up for you.... it was those that the gunman was able to enter. In which classrooms did the students survive? Hmmm, those that were able to block the door, kind of like a "blockdown" since the classroom doors didn't actually have locks.

Ask yourself this, if you were a crazed gunman intent on killing loads of people, which is going to help your causulty count? A bunch of locked doors that you can't open, or a hundred or two paniced kids in a narrow hallway, all trying to escape through two or three doors...

If you're locked in a classroom with an exterior window, yep, lock the door and get out is probably a good idea.

You know, the more I read this stuff the less happy I get. Please, Readyontheright, if you would, share your particular expertice in the area of school shootings. Or even expertice in the school environment. Whatever, give me some reason to think what you're advocating is something other than reckless advice that if followed, might very well result in MORE death...

ace1001
April 21, 2007, 10:37 PM
Most of the college buildings I see have glass exterior doors. You want to hold that shut? Yes students and teachers blocked classrom doors...not a part of the university lockdown plan. They saved their own lives, but he just went to the next classroom.
Police do not stop this kind of act. They investigate the aftermath. If he had brought more ammo, there would have been more killing. He shot till he was down to his last shot and shot himself. The police never engaged him. An armed professor or janitor knows the floorplan and MOST important, is on the scene. Ace

Don Gwinn
April 22, 2007, 12:07 AM
There is no perfect answer. "Lockdown" is not perfect, either.

On the other hand, school shooters have used fire alarms and the like to get students and staff fleeing outside before picking people off at the exits.

precisionshootist
April 22, 2007, 12:25 AM
First off, I kind of find the term "lockdown" a bit oppressive sounding. Lockdown is something that happens in federal prisons not our schools, hospitals, public buildings, entire cities, where does it stop? Don't get me wrong I believe this is done with good intention but I also question whether this whole "control everything" strategy of law enforcement is effective. IMHO the law enforcement tactic should be "intervention" not "check everyone, control everything". This "lockdown" response smacks of big government control freak mentality.

Sorry, I seem to be in rant mode tonight!

ace1001
April 22, 2007, 06:14 AM
If this is ranting, this is a very tame group.

Police seem to think that they are the sheepdogs and we are the sheep, and they get very testy when the sheep start to do things to protect themselves. In their eyes, individual sheep are expendable, order is what maters. Notice how they have another level of retribution when one of their own is killed.
If someone had a hidden gun and stopped this thing, I guarantee he would have been punished to the fullest extent of the law. Never embarrass the sheepdogs. Ace

kfranz
April 22, 2007, 07:53 AM
If someone had a hidden gun and stopped this thing, I guarantee he would have been punished to the fullest extent of the law.

:rolleyes:

Most of the college buildings I see have glass exterior doors. You want to hold that shut?

Most of Cho's victims were IN CLASSROOMS that he was able to enter. Some were in the HALL, when they tried to escape or came to investigate. Again, where were the survivors? IN BLOCKADED CLASSROOMS.

Asking "who wants to hold glass entry doors closed" is just a foolish argument, and to even make it casts your ability to use the facts of the case and a little logic in doubt.

I hate the idea of a lockdown. precisionshootist, I know what you mean when you rant on about control freak stuff. But you know what, it the rooms where it was implemented, it worked.

There is no perfect answer. "Lockdown" is not perfect, either.



No, lockdown is not perfect. Armed individuals dropping the bad guy before he gets a shot off is perfect. Maybe someday...

On the other hand, school shooters have used fire alarms and the like to get students and staff fleeing outside before picking people off at the exits.

In that case, the shooter was outside and some distance away. A smart shooter is my nightmare scenario, because they'll double or triple Cho's count... :(

Autolycus
April 22, 2007, 07:56 AM
Actually Jeff White posted an excellent explanation of why locking down the school is a much better idea than letting everyone run through the halls. Basically it allows police who are looking for an active shooter to actually engage the shooter without as high a risk of killing innocent people.

ace1001
April 22, 2007, 08:24 AM
Students reported that the doors would NOT lock. Even the professors had to HOLD their doors shut. The university lockdown plan was an absolute failure. It was to lock building entrances and stay in classrooms. Locking classrooms would have been better. You would only sacrifice one class and those in hallways. Provided your doors are heavy enough.
Lockdown without weapons will always sacrifice that first classroom. Maybe you are OK with that. Classrooms need to be easily locked from the inside with secure doors and Conceiled Carry should be allowed. Those permits are held by responsible people.
I think if you ever find yourself unarmed behind a glass door or one with a window, trying to hold out an armed gunman, you will see my point. Ace

ilbob
April 22, 2007, 10:54 AM
Police seem to think that they are the sheepdogs and we are the sheep, and they get very testy when the sheep start to do things to protect themselves. In their eyes, individual sheep are expendable, order is what maters. Notice how they have another level of retribution when one of their own is killed.
ALL police are not that way, but it is a very common attitude with LE.
If someone had a hidden gun and stopped this thing, I guarantee he would have been punished to the fullest extent of the law. Never embarrass the sheepdogs. Ace
Especially if he had stopped the onslaught before it got started.

Don Gwinn
April 22, 2007, 11:54 AM
Police seem to think that they are the sheepdogs and we are the sheep, and they get very testy when the sheep start to do things to protect themselves. In their eyes, individual sheep are expendable, order is what maters. Notice how they have another level of retribution when one of their own is killed.
If someone had a hidden gun and stopped this thing, I guarantee he would have been punished to the fullest extent of the law. Never embarrass the sheepdogs. Ace

I've read more ridiculous things than that on THR . . . but not today.
I'm aware of two school shootings ended by people on scene with guns. One was a high school in Pearl, MS and the shooter was stopped by an assistant principal with a handgun. The other was a college shooting I can't recall at the moment, but the shooter was stopped by two students. I believe the two were either reserve police officers or full-timers off duty; at the time, the media tried to say that they had only "tackled" the shooter, but because of their law enforcement status, the fact that they were armed came out.

In neither case is there information that anyone involved in stopping the crime was charged with anything or threatened with charges at any time.

Your assertion is baseless and, rightly or wrongly, implies that your irritation with law enforcement was more important than the facts in this case.

ace1001
April 22, 2007, 01:23 PM
I have no animosity towards law enforcement. I know many LAOs. They do consider themselves and civilians as separate species. Helps them to not get personally involved. But it does cause them to look at lockdown from a prison standpoint. Call a lockdown and systematicly pounce on everything that doesn't lockdown until you secure the whole building.
Now that they have changed to moving moving quickly to the shooting, I have no problem with their tactics. The tactic used to be secure perimeter, establish communication, and negotiate. Times have changed and perps have changed.
My problem is with the laws that disarm CCL holders, They have been checked out, trained and if on the scene already, they are our best defense and deterrent against acts like VT suffered. LE hates to be embarrassed, wants everything by the book. CCL holders are a variable that they don't want, even if it saves lives. Ace

Cesiumsponge
April 22, 2007, 02:26 PM
Lockdown plans don't work if the doors to classrooms don't actually lock.

Lockdowns in classes where small windows are present would offer much better concealment than a classroom with large glass windows or glass doors. The feasibility and success of a lockdown is going to vary from school to school (or even building to building) based on the architectural design.

Sage of Seattle
April 22, 2007, 02:40 PM
If this is ranting, this is a very tame group.

Not tame, just civil.


My experience was working security on a community college campus that had about three thousand registered students, no dorms, about two dozen buildings scattered about the property. Most of the classroom doors were just open to the outside and so had crash bars on the inside which, as part of my duties, I had to lock down so that the door could be opened from the outside. In other words, the door was unable to be locked unless one had the hex key or allen wrench in that size.

Every door on campus, however, was able to be locked in one way or another to prevent access from the outside, for whatever it's worth.

bogie
April 22, 2007, 02:44 PM
Last time I participated in a fire drill, it was an orderly movement, lined up, toward the exits, and we went to a pre-selected place outside. Not a big deal.

The reason law enforcement likes "lockdowns" is that it makes it easy to debrief EVERY person in the building - i.e., everyone is guilty until they are cleared. LE is assuming that the shooter is a student.

And they're looking to do this AFTER the incident.

Firedrill strikes me as a much better solution.

ace1001
April 22, 2007, 03:27 PM
Lockdown works for the second classroom on, if the doors are solid and lock from the INSIDE. You will sacrifice the people in the first classroom. Is that acceptable to you all?
CCL holders on the scene are the ONLY hope for that first class. You lock him out of the other classes, he is going to do a thorough job on that first class or lecture hall.:what: Ace

migoi
April 22, 2007, 04:38 PM
CCW for students and instructors might be more desirable than the other options...until we actually attain that goal what is the next best solution.

Last time I participated in a fire drill, it was an orderly movement, lined up, toward the exits, and we went to a pre-selected place outside. Not a big deal.

Not a big deal...until the first line of kids gets dropped.

Let me see if I can visualize this. Guy with gun is on campus. Protocol should be to line all the students up, march them through ingress/egress constrictions, then mass them in an open area with no cover or concealment. Police respond, each and every one of the approximately 2000 teenagers and adults milling around outside have to be confronted and treated as if they are the shooter.

If the doors are glass, replace the doors. My school has solid doors that open out with peened hinge pins. The buildings (almost all) are concrete. At least on my campus the potential for fatalities with an active shooter goes WAY up it we used a firedrill protocol versus a lockdown.

migoi

kfranz
April 22, 2007, 07:29 PM
You will sacrifice the people in the first classroom.

You will always sacrifice the first group, unless you know he's coming in advance. Or, as in a perfect world, you allow to be armed those that would chose to be armed.

benewton
April 22, 2007, 08:57 PM
I think it'd be a bitch to be in the sacrificial first group, and I'd prefer the chance to fight back.

But then, I did Boston U and U Mass, unarmed, so there's something to be said for blind luck!

As for the morons who populate and rum such places, while I'm not a believer, there should be a hotter place in hell for them.

ReadyontheRight
April 22, 2007, 09:07 PM
Please, Readyontheright, if you would, share your particular expertice in the area of school shootings. Or even expertice in the school environment. Whatever, give me some reason to think what you're advocating is something other than reckless advice that if followed, might very well result in MORE death...

I am expressing an idea to encourage debate. I have never claimed to be an expert. I began this thread with "IMHO", which means "In My Humble Opinion", which generally means that I am offering an idea. But if you take it as advice, it's worth about as much as you paid for it.

However, the DEBATE - beyond my humble opinion - on this board in particular is invaluable. I would like to know what to tell my children and influence my school to do more than "cower, hide and hope."

bogie
April 22, 2007, 10:45 PM
We could clear my high school in under a couple of minutes without even working at it.

I can get through a "hardened" door in about 10 seconds. It'll be loud, messy, and the door won't work anymore, but hey...

Too many theoreticians are confusing their concepts with the real world.

Strategy should be two-pronged.

Designated shooters to engage the bad guy(s).

Herders to get the kids moving and out.

Scenario: Bad guy(s) come in, hopefully setting off alarms (even if mental). Bad guy(s) engaged at first target location as evac commences.

What's wrong with that? Not enough paperwork?

kfranz
April 23, 2007, 07:59 AM
We could clear my high school in under a couple of minutes without even working at it.

Mine too. Only difference is that when we drill, no shots have been fired and there are no bodies in the hallway. Funny, kidna, mildly related story. Earlier this year, my kids and I went to McDonalds. Since we don't go often, it's pretty exciting for them. Anyway, in their excitement, they both tried to get out of the van at the same time. Problem is, there were two of them and only room for one between the passageway between the bucket seats in front of them. It was a Three Stoges moment to be sure, but they were wedged in tight enough that I had to push one of them back to clear the jam. That's two kids in a minivan at McDonalds. Multiply the kids by 100, the exit points by two, the "excitement factor" of a real live shooter by whatever you think is appropriate, then use your imagination.

ilbob
April 23, 2007, 08:23 AM
We could clear my high school in under a couple of minutes without even working at it.

I can get through a "hardened" door in about 10 seconds. It'll be loud, messy, and the door won't work anymore, but hey...

Too many theoreticians are confusing their concepts with the real world.

Strategy should be two-pronged.

Designated shooters to engage the bad guy(s).

Herders to get the kids moving and out.

Scenario: Bad guy(s) come in, hopefully setting off alarms (even if mental). Bad guy(s) engaged at first target location as evac commences.

What's wrong with that? Not enough paperwork?

There are a bunch of things wrong with it. It is another "one size fits all" solution that probably won't work any better than the ones the authorities have already come up with.

BTW, if you think that lock downs are any better, the bad guys know about the basic strategy of trying to hide too. They will bring some means of opening the locked doors with them next time (think tire iron). The guy at VT didn't have to because he knew there were no locks. The locks on a typical classroom door will resist a tire iron for maybe ten seconds.

I am not sure there is a real answer to this problem. We have yet to have a well planned attack on a school. Even the impromptu ones do plenty of damage.

Risasi
April 23, 2007, 08:56 AM
There is nothing you can do to stop crazy nutjobs from attacking people. All you can do is minimize the damage. Firearms are a great deterrent, but since they are out, and this thread is about looking for a "second best" solution. Well, lockdowns help, at least for now, until we get a mad bomber. Seeking cover and concealment is not unwise.

IMO this thread is trying to answer a problem which has already been answered by Israel. Attacks are a common occurrence there, and they have adapted to circumvent, or at least minimize the damage done.

kfranz
April 23, 2007, 09:09 AM
We should encourage schools to should start treating these events like a fire drill and get the kids the heck out of there.

A "lockdown" is exactly what a hostage-taker or murdering-idiot wants.

Readyontheright, the IMHO was included in the first line you wrote. Perhaps I understood it to stop with that thought. My question perhaps could have been better phrased as "on what factual evidence do you base your opinion". An opinion with no fact to back it up is just somebody talking.

Scenario: Bad guy(s) come in, hopefully setting off alarms (even if mental). Bad guy(s) engaged at first target location as evac commences.

Sounds like a decent idea. Not so easy to implement, but hey, when are they ever. Why not, though, instead of pouring hundreds of extra potential victims into the firing zone/likely perp escape route, lock the doors while bad guys are being engaged? Really, how many of the victims in any of the school shootings were accessed through a locked/blocked classroom door?

ace1001
April 23, 2007, 11:41 AM
give me some reason to think what you're advocating is something other than reckless advice that if followed, might very well result in MORE death...

1 Have a meeting and see how many faculty and staff and janitors are have CC permits. Then find out how many would be willing to go through the training if the university pays for it.

2 Install secure doors that can be locked from inside by anybody.

3 An alarm, maybe intermittent firealarm to signal lockdown.

Upon alarm, all classrooms lock doors.. CC holders lock the doors behind them with instructions to STAY in the room. Then those with CC permits proceed to closest predetermined vantage points with field of fire and cover to control the halls. If there are more than one at these points, then they can move toward any known threat.

This might require drills without students, and some password and signal known only to faculty, staff and LE to avert friendly fire.

Students with CC permits should be allowed, but not allowed to leave classroom without faculty. Ace

kfranz
April 23, 2007, 12:56 PM
give me some reason to think what you're advocating is something other than reckless advice that if followed, might very well result in MORE death...

Was in reference to the original posts statement that schools should evacuate the building in the middle of an active shooting situation.

ace1001
April 23, 2007, 01:36 PM
Well in 15 min. I threw a pretty good begining for a workable plan. Not too expensive, working from the inside out, instead of sealing the perp in the barrel with all the fishes and sorting out the carnage. I am tired of hearing the people in charge say "We just could never even imagine anything like this". If they can't imagine it after we have all been talking about it for years, then we need administrators with more imagination.:cuss: Ace

JohnBT
April 23, 2007, 03:07 PM
Your plan doesn't account for people caught out in the open in the parking lots or between buildings. Where do they go? What about people in elevators in dorms, do they return to their rooms or gather in the lobby or go outside and look for a police officer? Do the dining halls, athletic facilities and bookstores get reinforced locking doors? What if the shooter is in one of those buildings when they're locked down?

I think you have some more work to do on your plan.

John

ilbob
April 23, 2007, 09:19 PM
Install secure doors that can be locked from inside by anybody.

of course this might make it all the more difficult for police to rescue hostages.

ace1001
April 23, 2007, 09:21 PM
Your plan doesn't account for people caught out in the open in the parking lots or between buildings.

If I'm already outside, unarmed, I get away frome building with shooting inside, using available cover. No Brainer:confused:


What about people in elevators in dorms, do they return to their rooms or gather in the lobby or go outside and look for a police officer?

The staff controlling the halls decide what to do with stragglers. Put them in available room and lockdown or send them out to police or shelter with staff.


Do the dining halls, athletic facilities and bookstores get reinforced locking doors? Yes, shelter like classrooms

What if the shooter is in one of those buildings when they're locked down?

The building where the trouble starts is being secured from the inside out as are all adjacent buildings. Shooter can choose to leave if things get too hot for him, but he will find the staff has secured the outer doors of other buildings and police should be ariving soon.
I'll call this defended sheltering.


I think you have some more work to do on your plan.
I think I have answered your questions. Got more? Ace

ace1001
April 23, 2007, 09:29 PM
Install secure doors that can be locked from inside by anybody.
of course this might make it all the more difficult for police to rescue hostages.

Yes but they have all the time they need. The halls are already largely secured and the students are safe behind the doors. They can proceed straight to any gunfire, they can get coherent reports from staff guarding corridors. Maybe you need an all clear signal that the shooter cannot reproduce, so those needing medical attention can make themselves known. Next question? Ace

ReadyontheRight
April 23, 2007, 09:43 PM
Your plan doesn't account for people caught out in the open in the parking lots or between buildings. Where do they go?

They run away. Far away. Pretty much the first thing taught in any good CCW course. Also a nice instinctive reaction.

Crunker1337
April 23, 2007, 09:49 PM
Either way, the people will travel and behave in a predictable manner - and that's the last thing you want.

Both, however, could work if there is armed security.

ace1001
April 23, 2007, 10:39 PM
Both, however, could work if there is armed security.

WE are the armed security. We can no longer afford to pay others to do our duty. Ace

jcoiii
April 24, 2007, 01:33 PM
Lockdowns are not perfect. However, the fire drill option is a nightmare scenario for trying to catch and stop the bad guy. Imagine you are rushing the active shooting position, trying to find and neutralize the bad guy. As you run toward the gunfire (you're an LEO here), doors from classrooms open and kids start running away from the sounds of gunfire and toward you. They are grabbing you, screaming, crying "help me" "save me" etc. These kids were not in the area where the shooter was. You are still heading toward the badguy and gunfire sounds, but now you are hampered by the flow of students. You have to club a couple of them on the head to keep them from clinging to you and your weapon/weapon hand.

Then, the shooting stops. You try to continue to the place you think the bad guy is. All the classrooms are emptying and people are fleeing. Where is the bad guy?

Now the policy at my college (I'm a campus police officer at a smaller college) is immediate lockdown by campus staff and faculty, while the police officers rush to the gunfire. Once the threat is located, classrooms away from the shooting location are evacuated by the faculty and staff to a safe zone. It is told to faculty that if you hear gunfire in the room next to you, make your own decision. Lock down or get out. We understand that you do what you have to. Those not immediately in danger, stay out of the way.

JohnBT
April 24, 2007, 02:24 PM
"The building where the trouble starts is being secured from the inside out as are all adjacent buildings."

Oh, my mistake, I thought we were discussing locking down an actual campus like Va Tech's where the location of the threat was not known. You know, like everybody keeps suggesting the Tech admins should have done after the first two killings.

In your example, locking down AJ dorm where the first 2 murders took place and the adjacent buildings on the south side of the Drillfield wouldn't have done a thing to prevent the murders in Norris Hall on the far side of the Drillfield a half-mile away.

"Next question?"

Yeah, do you really have any idea what you're suggesting or are you just making this stuff up as you go?

John

ace1001
April 25, 2007, 01:53 AM
Attack the plan, not the man.

Well what might have happened at VT with this plan?
There was a disturbance in a dorm room. The RA showed up, and shots were fired. I he had CC it might have ended there. But lets say he was as helpless as LE wants us all to be...and dead. Now with the shots all residents bunker in their rooms, except CC permits, who take predetermined positions to control hallways. Those in rooms will call police and front desk to set off alarm to begin sheltering throughout the building. Those outside hear alarm and clear out. Administration is called and have to decide how many adjacent buildings to lockdown and make the calls to those buildings to set off alarms and lockdown. Shooter is lucky to have exited building by now. We can't hold him in because of so many fire escapes. He may not have gotten around our CC permit holders. He can't easily get into another building and is likely to run into another CC holder at every turn and the police will arrive at any time. Yes, he may escape, but I would rather have him almost ANYWHERE else.
The difficulties occure where CC holders come across each other. Faculty and staff have signals and passwords to identify each other, but students cannot be part of this because the shooter will most likely be a student. Processing the hall stragglers and identifying the shooter is a job where you trust nobody completely. The guy might even come up with a police uniform so the existing system has the same problem. This plan happens a lot faster. Police response is about twice as long as it takes you to drive the distance. Ace

Richbaker
April 25, 2007, 02:05 AM
Quote, ACE1001:"2 Install secure doors that can be locked from inside by anybody.

3 An alarm, maybe intermittent firealarm to signal lockdown.

Upon alarm, all classrooms lock doors.. CC holders lock the doors behind them with instructions to STAY in the room. Then those with CC permits proceed to closest predetermined vantage points with field of fire and cover to control the halls. If there are more than one at these points, then they can move toward any known threat. " /Quote

I was thinking remotely triggered locks, that would coincide with an alarm...no time wasted running to the doors to lock them, then...

ace1001
April 25, 2007, 02:27 AM
To me, that is too much like a prison. Too expensive, and there is nothing lonelier than to be 2 feet OUTSIDE an automatic door when it locks. The shooter will be in one place when he begins, the other classes have time to lock if they move quickly.

On the other hand if it is widely known that all doors lockdown at the sound of a gunshot, it would be a deterrent. I think of too many problems. Ace

JohnBT
April 25, 2007, 07:41 AM
"Yes, he may escape, but I would rather have him almost ANYWHERE else."

That's precisely what happened at Tech, he ended up someplace else. He cleared out and blended in with foot traffic.

I hope I'm not in the same room with the murderer when those automatic doors lock. :) Or even in the same building when I'm locked in.

John

Don Gwinn
April 25, 2007, 01:10 PM
Emptying the school is not good enough. We're responsible for every student on the premises and we have to account for every student on the premises. A flood out the door doesn't cut it.

Thanks for the advice, though.

ace1001
April 25, 2007, 04:23 PM
I think if you read my posts you will see that a 'flood out the door" is not what I am proposing. Defended sheltering will require weapons.
I would say that the present "fish in a barrel" approach is completely bogus as well.
If terrorists take over a school like in Beslan, Russia in 2004, lockdown will suit them very well indeed. 338 were killed. 172 were children. Islamic terrorists who are willing to strap dynamite to their OWN children, have NO concern for OURS. One day they will hit several of our sleeping schools at the same time and they will go strictly for body count to get the most shock value. We have found American school floorplans in caves in Afganistan.
Ace

JohnBT
April 25, 2007, 05:33 PM
And you're going to fight terrorists holding explosives with CC permit holders in the halls?

"Now with the shots all residents bunker in their rooms, except CC permits, who take predetermined positions to control hallways."

You're jumping from plan to plan and one shooter to squads of terrorists too fast to be meaningful.

John

auschip
April 25, 2007, 06:35 PM
I wouldn't want my wife to work in a school where any student can lock the doors at any time. Currently she can lock her room (fireresistant door), and the doors to her pod (think a grouping of 5 classrooms with a steel firedoor). From everything I have read, the much maligned "duck and cover" (a misnomer of there ever was one) lockdown at VT would have been successful, if they had locking doors.

ace1001
April 25, 2007, 06:43 PM
The plan stands, It has to deal with whatever comes. Are you going to have 5 plans for 5 different scenerios? How do you tell, when the gunfire starts, which plan to implement.
If this plan is in place, maybe they pick someone elses school, where they allow absolutely NO weapons.
CC holders are a LOT more vigilant than the unarmed public. This could be important.
One armed man in the right place can unravel the best laid plans and timetables. 5 minute delay of their control of the building can mean everything. If we trade life for life, we will win. We have to be willing to make that sacrifice for our children. Ace

bogie
April 26, 2007, 01:04 AM
the fire drill option is a nightmare scenario for trying to catch and stop the bad guy

It's not about catching and stopping the bad guy. It's about eliminating a casualty-rich situation.

And it should be two-pronged. Armed faculty/ccw volunteers engage the shooter(s), while other armed faculty/ccw volunteers motivate the targets out the doors.

Lockdown only serves one purpose. Ensuring tidy after-action reports for the second-responders.

kfranz
April 26, 2007, 07:33 AM
bogie, do you ever lock your house door?

JohnBT
April 26, 2007, 08:22 AM
I know I do, but not if I think there's a shooter inside. YMMV of course. Me, I'm waiting to see what kind of plans the experts come up with for Virginia universities.

John

kfranz
April 26, 2007, 08:55 AM
I know I do, but not if I think there's a shooter inside. YMMV of course. Me, I'm waiting to see what kind of plans the experts come up with for Virginia universities.

Would you lock your bedroom door if you were inside the bedroom and a shooter was in your hall? Or, would you push your wife and kids out into the hall to evacuate while you engaged the shooter?

ace1001
April 26, 2007, 03:09 PM
I lock my bedroom to give me that extra second to gather my gun and wake up. Ace

JohnBT
April 26, 2007, 08:16 PM
"Would you lock your bedroom door if you were inside the bedroom and a shooter was in your hall? Or, would you push your wife and kids out into the hall to evacuate while you engaged the shooter?"

Those are two stupid questions.

John

kfranz
April 26, 2007, 09:29 PM
I don't know John, several folks are suggesting we herd students into the halls while there is a shooting in progress. I'm just wondering if they would advocate a similar course of action for their own home.

bogie
April 26, 2007, 11:06 PM
Someone's in the house.

You lock the door.

You stay there while they beat the door open.

You die.

OR....

You lock the door.

They kick the door, and you put several holes through it. Either they go away, or...

They continue to assault the door.

Dang, the window (first floor...) is just right there...

Lockdown serves one purpose: Keeping things nice and tidy for the folks who show up 10-15 minutes after the fact.

kfranz
April 27, 2007, 06:56 AM
And it should be two-pronged. Armed faculty/ccw volunteers engage the shooter(s), while other armed faculty/ccw volunteers motivate the targets out the doors.

These are your own words. Where do most classroom doors lead? The hallway....

CCW isn't allowed in many schools right now. It should be, and I said that earlier.

Out the window works great for classrooms with an outside wall, provided it's easy enough to break. Some classrooms either have windows that are too small or are very difficult to break. Others have no windows at all, are interior classrooms, or are on other than the first floor. Those folks should NOT be "herded" into the hallways where the shooter is roaming. They ought to be locked in the room and be piling everything they can in front of the door. That's what I do when we practice...NOTHING in any policy I've ever seen says the folks that are locked down have to wait for the guy to beat down the door and then cower while he methodically shoots them. Of course, I've not ever seen a report where a school shooter ever breached (and in this last case, blocked doors were fairly effective) a locked door. See, that's where lockdown very well may serve a second purpose...

I'd imagine there are a wide variety of items in a classroom that would function as expediant, if not perfect, defense items, should that ever change.

jcoiii
April 27, 2007, 07:35 AM
Lockdown serves one purpose: Keeping things nice and tidy for the folks who show up 10-15 minutes after the fact.

As many in this thread, myself included, have repeatedly stated, lockdown serves more than one purpose.

JohnBT
April 27, 2007, 08:51 AM
"I don't know John, several folks are suggesting we herd students into the halls while there is a shooting in progress. I'm just wondering if they would advocate a similar course of action for their own home."

I know. That was 'stupid' as in having an obvious answer. You at least seem to be thinking things through.

John

ace1001
April 27, 2007, 10:51 AM
John, I have not been advocating children in hallways. What worries me about you is your opinion that everything is in good hands. The people in charge of our schools have been in denial since 9-11. It can't happen here is prevalent and will be replaced with "We could never have imagined this could happen." I believe them. The educational people are NOT of the mindset to be in charge of security.
Most of our classroom doors open outward, for fire safety. They have windows. They are indefensible. They can be fixed with cleats and bars, at low cost, but that would be "ugly". Now finally the mood had shifted enough that something can be done.
It is my opinion that sheltering with indefencable doors is the worst form of stupidity. CC among staff MUST also be allowed and some tactical training. If we do it for firedrills, we must give this greater risk at least as much serious attention. Ace

kfranz
April 27, 2007, 11:12 AM
Most of our classroom doors open outward

None of the classrooms in the building where I work have doors that open outward. None of the classrooms in my son's school have classroom doors that open outward. Exterior doors, yes, but not classroom doors.

What worries me about you is your opinion that everything is in good hands.

I have not read that in any of John's posts. He is merely pointing out the flaws in the other plans, yours included. The biggest flaw in your plan is that you don't address the training required to have all the CC individuals acting in concert. Understand that no one is running you down for thinking and planning, rather pointing out weaknesses in your plan.

ace1001
April 27, 2007, 01:12 PM
OK. All CC holders have training to get their permit. So they have the skills to handle their weapon safely and effectively. In that area they will stack up pretty well against average LEO. I know this will send LE community through the roof, but they run the gammet too and CC is a pretty select group too. Most are lifelong gun enthusiasts and have a great deal of experience.
So what they need is a GOOD plan and tactics to carry the plan out. We won't know anyones resolve until the real thing, so there must be redundency. No one person can be key.
They can work out fields of fire, how to move forward in twos when possible, handsignals and passwords to keep from shooting each other or being shot by police. How to stand down without letting down your guard.
All of this can be worked out in no more time than fire drills and after school without students. There has not been a student killed in a fire in 25 years.

We have this great admiration for the "professional". You might be supprised how much combat experience your janitor has. But the most important asset is that he is ON THE SCENE. TIME IS PRICELESS. You can count the seconds in lives. There will be accidents and lives may be lost, but at a much lower rate. Most importantly, you will no longer be attracting the crazys of the world to this victim rich, safe working inevironment for them. WE HAVE CREATED A GAME RESERVE FOR WACOS. Ace

jcoiii
April 27, 2007, 01:41 PM
While I agree that the average CCWer is a better "shooter" than the average LEO, I completely disagree that the "training" is anywhere near the same.

In TN, the firing portion of the CCW class requires 35 or 40 hits out of 50 shots. (Don't remember which). A hit is defined as "on the black." That will not get you qualified at the police academy. At the academy, we shot 1500 rounds in three days, day and night, running, behind cover, entering doorways, over cars, etc. A score of 75 was required to qualify. And simply hitting the black did not provide a score of 75.

Now, the average CCWer trains much, much, much more than the average officer, and thus they are better shooters on the whole. So I do agree with you that CCWers have better skills, but it is not due to the requirements to obtain the license.

mdao
April 27, 2007, 02:04 PM
OK. All CC holders have training to get their permit. So they have the skills to handle their weapon safely and effectively. In that area they will stack up pretty well against average LEO. I know this will send LE community through the roof, but they run the gammet too and CC is a pretty select group too. Most are lifelong gun enthusiasts and have a great deal of experience.
So what they need is a GOOD plan and tactics to carry the plan out. We won't know anyones resolve until the real thing, so there must be redundency. No one person can be key.
They can work out fields of fire, how to move forward in twos when possible, handsignals and passwords to keep from shooting each other or being shot by police. How to stand down without letting down your guard.
All of this can be worked out in no more time than fire drills and after school without students. There has not been a student killed in a fire in 25 years.

I hate to say this, but completely and utterly unworkable.

The first issue is, how many CHL holders are even going to be at the place under attack at any given time? Lets assume it's a college in Texas (since I know Texas).

1/2 of the population will be ineligible straight off the bat due to age. Of the remainder of the population, < 2% will have a CHL. If we're being extremely generous, 50% carry on a daily basis.

So out of a building with 1000 people, you got 5 people with CHLs, guns, and varying levels of capability. And this is a very generous best case scenario. I don't know about you, but a handful of people who a) don't know each other b) have unknown skills and c) are scattered across a fairly large building aren't the thing that effective tac teams are made of.

auschip
April 27, 2007, 02:13 PM
OK. All CC holders have training to get their permit. So they have the skills to handle their weapon safely and effectively. In that area they will stack up pretty well against average LEO. I know this will send LE community through the roof, but they run the gammet too and CC is a pretty select group too. Most are lifelong gun enthusiasts and have a great deal of experience.
So what they need is a GOOD plan and tactics to carry the plan out. We won't know anyones resolve until the real thing, so there must be redundency. No one person can be key.


False, many states do not have a training requirement, and you would be surprised with the general gun handling skills for those who do carry. It would be the exception, rather then the rule as to people who could do this.

They can work out fields of fire, how to move forward in twos when possible, handsignals and passwords to keep from shooting each other or being shot by police. How to stand down without letting down your guard.
All of this can be worked out in no more time than fire drills and after school without students.

So, if I am to understand you. You want teachers to be able to implement combat movement and drills, as well as overlapping fields of fire? Why not just hire a security force? Better yet, I bet we can find someone with a tactical wheelbarrow, who would duct-tape plates to their back. (You may not recognize the joke, but this is in reference to a couple of our more famous trolls).

There has not been a student killed in a fire in 25 years.

Some folks at Seton Hall might disagree with you about that.

kfranz
April 27, 2007, 02:30 PM
Better yet, I bet we can find someone with a tactical wheelbarrow, who would duct-tape plates to their back. (You may not recognize the joke, but this is in reference to a couple of our more famous trolls).


Gunkid is NOT going to be happy when he reads this... :)

ace1001
April 27, 2007, 03:03 PM
The first issue is, how many CHL holders are even going to be at the place under attack at any given time? Lets assume it's a college in Texas (since I know Texas).

VT only needed one. Out of 23.000 I don't think that would have bee far fetched.

If you guys would actually READ my posts on this I wouldn't have to keep answering the same questions.

a) don't know each other

handsignals and passwords to keep from shooting each other or being shot by police. How to stand down without letting down your guard.
Remember, I was talking about staff. Previous post.

b) have unknown skills
Judging from the mottley crew of unarmed campus police and responding officers that didn't know the buildings, I'll take my chances with staff CC and being there 15 min. earlier, knowing the layout.

c) are scattered across a fairly large building aren't the thing that effective tac teams are made of.
An effective tac team is two staff CCs meeting at critical predetermined points offering cover and field of fire.

ace1001
April 27, 2007, 03:17 PM
Lets go over some mistakes our "professionals" have been making.
1. Don't EVER put school floorplans on the internet. Some have virtual tours of he schools they are so proud of. It should be a KNOWN rule. Once it is up, it is out there. Maybe in a cave in Afghanistan.

2. Never give information about security to people you don't KNOW have a right to it. Refer their questions to law enforcement.

3. Don't have easy access files in the school office, with a picture of the student in the corner, listing the parent as "police officer" ect.

4. Lockdown will only save lives if you have SECURE

ace1001
April 27, 2007, 03:22 PM
DOORS that can lock from the inside.

5. Banning firearms from your school sacrifices the first classroom to the tender mercies of the assailant, period. Don't delude yourself otherwise. It encourages him to pull his massacre here, where it is safer for him and he will have more time.

ace1001
May 8, 2007, 06:03 AM
Depends on what you consider successful. Teachers fumbling for their keys to lock the door while gunman is in the hall. How many of your "firedoors" can take a gunshot to the BOLT. Unlike the Mythbusters test.
And of course you have now limited his tender mercies to that first class, to do a very thorough job. That could be a lecture hall. How successful does that feel?

bogie
May 8, 2007, 11:29 AM
While folks generally advocate the "safe room" thing for a home burglarly scenario, there's a difference here - it is assuming that the bedroom door is secure, and that there's someone on the good side of it with a boomstick.

If there's no guns in the house, and there's a burglarly, I'm goin' through a window.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Lockdown" vs. "Firedrill"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!