Armed Janitors Approved By Montpelier, Ohio, School Board To Stop School Shootings


PDA






4thHorseman
January 12, 2013, 02:53 PM
I think arming janitors is a very good start. Here is an article which talks about an Ohio school arming it's janitors for the children's protection from crazies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/armed-janitors-approved-school-shootings_n_2458167.html?ncid=webmail1

If you enjoyed reading about "Armed Janitors Approved By Montpelier, Ohio, School Board To Stop School Shootings" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
browneu
January 12, 2013, 02:58 PM
I think its good as well. Janitors know the school better than anyone else and it doesn't add much to the budget.

Wife and I both thought good when we heard of the news.


Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

Texan Scott
January 12, 2013, 03:00 PM
"PLEASE don't make me shoot you, son... I just mopped this floor."

LOL. Joking aside, this is an excellent start.

xXxplosive
January 12, 2013, 03:04 PM
They're janitors.........or teachers........once a gun is produced by a civillian the civil suits explode.
Put a cop with a desk in school during school hours like they are for the DARE Program and be done with it......this is all BS to me.

rcmodel
January 12, 2013, 03:08 PM
The janitor I had when I went to school was scarier then the lone gunman would have been.

rc

9MMare
January 12, 2013, 03:08 PM
I agree on the liability issues. (Not the cops tho, or any additional taxpayer expenses). Once the schools start creating such programs, it opens them up to law suits if there are accidents or actual crimes (we already have teachers and janitors that get caught having sex/molesting kids).

IMO, just allow teachers and staff to have the normal choice to cc on the grounds and let it be their personal responsibility.

Texan Scott
January 12, 2013, 03:22 PM
xXxplosive: They're janitors.........or teachers........once a gun is produced by a civillian the civil suits explode. Put a cop with a desk in school during school hours like they are for the DARE Program and be done with it......this is all BS to me.

Yes, they're janitors or teachers. WHAT ARE YOU, that you feel you should be trusted to be safe and effective with a firearm, but not them?

This sounds suspiciously like the elitist anti-2A "only cops and special people" garbage.

Janitors can't carry guns! They're only *gasp* hard-working ordinary American citizens!

col.lemat
January 12, 2013, 03:42 PM
I would rather have a janitor protect me or my kids. It is alot better than what we have in place now.
RC: We must have had a tuff bread of janitors in our day. At my school he rolled his own one handed and said if you dont behave he would put a knott on your head!!!

Bobson
January 12, 2013, 03:45 PM
They're janitors.........or teachers........once a gun is produced by a civillian the civil suits explode.
Put a cop with a desk in school during school hours like they are for the DARE Program and be done with it......this is all BS to me.
So continue to deny teachers the right to defend themselves simply because they work in a school. You're quite the gentleman.

How about eliminate gun free zones entirely, since the entire concept is nothing more than a sick joke, and be done with it.

Roadking Rider
January 12, 2013, 03:53 PM
Your kidding right? I own a gun,been in the military,have a spotless record, level headed,and great credit score, and shoot pretty well. That does not mean I'm qualified to protect children in life and death situations. With a lawyer behind every bullet fired , I hardly think janitors for what they get paid would be willing to take on that roll.

Bobson
January 12, 2013, 04:01 PM
Your kidding right? I own a gun,been in the military,have a spotless record, level headed,and great credit score, and shoot pretty well. That does not mean I'm qualified to protect children in life and death situations. With a lawyer behind every bullet fired , I hardly think janitors for what they get paid would be willing to take on that roll.
And nobody is forcing them too. But if an individual wants to carry a firearm, and has the lawful authority to carry a firearm elsewhere, he shouldn't have to leave it at home just because he's sweeping floors at a school.

Fishslayer
January 12, 2013, 04:04 PM
The janitor I had when I went to school was scarier then the lone gunman would have been.

rc

Wasn't this guy, was it? :D

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn215/THE_Fishslayer/Cool%20Stories/christopherwalken_edited.jpg

Sam1911
January 12, 2013, 04:05 PM
That does not mean I'm qualified to protect children in life and death situations. With a lawyer behind every bullet fired , I hardly think janitors for what they get paid would be willing to take on that roll.The real twist in this conundrum is the difference between hiring someone to protect people as part of their job and ALLOWING them, in essence, the same right to defense of self and others that they'd have off of school property.

In the case of a police officer, they are trained to follow specific department policies and are indemnified against civil suit if they do follow those policies. The citizens of their town or city (through the city's insurance) take on the risk for that officer's actions while performing his/her duties. An armed guard hired to provide security has a slightly different but similar set of circumstances. He's an employee of a firm set up to handle the fallout of whatever he might do on the job, so long as he's following his lawful orders.

Schools are not set up to provide training for teachers or janitors to use lawful force and they don't have either school-board policies on the use of force nor indemnification of the employee against civil suits resulting from the use of force while on the job.

The real rub, however, is what happens when a school board simply says, "the following employees are hereby permitted to be armed on school property. (period)"? Can the school completely absolve itself from being involved in a civil suit if the employee does something stupid, careless, ... or right and lawful but with some negative consequences? The answer is almost certainly not. You can sue almost anyone you want and the school district will have deeper pockets than anyone else involved.

There is also the question of whether a citizen, who happens to be a teacher or janitor at a public school, would willingly take on the responsibility for discharging a firearm in a classroom -- BUT, I think almost all teachers would rather do so (whatever the consequences might be later) rather than see their students murdered.

Roadking Rider
January 12, 2013, 04:50 PM
And nobody is forcing them too. But if an individual wants to carry a firearm, and has the lawful authority to carry a firearm elsewhere, he shouldn't have to leave it at home just because he's sweeping floors at a school.
__________________

A lot of people carry firearms but that still does not make them qualified to protect children in a school in life and death situations. What if this cowboy janitor got into a situation and ended up shooting one of your children because he was not qualified to handle a gun in high stress situations? Do you really believe he going to be able to go from cleaning out a stopped up toilet to this super clear headed protector of children in a matter of seconds?

Jim NE
January 12, 2013, 05:00 PM
They're janitors.........or teachers........once a gun is produced by a civillian the civil suits explode.
Put a cop with a desk in school during school hours like they are for the DARE Program and be done with it......this is all BS to me.

I'm afraid I have to agree with xXxplosive on this one. There's a real potential for the Left sabotaging the guns-in-schools-to-protect-kids concept if a custodian or teacher makes a wrong call. Have police or trained guards.

"CCW" does not = "LEO"

Armed citizens (custodians, teachers) are better than nothing, just not the optimum effort to make the idea work.

ccsniper
January 12, 2013, 05:00 PM
I am a janitor, not only do we know the buildings better, but we also have keys to every room in the building and are often the ones that find things people are trying to hide such as drugs. (not that were snooping or anything)

Jackal1
January 12, 2013, 05:03 PM
I say just let anyone with a valid concealed permit carry @ the school. A lone cop protecting a school might work... but might not. Like a past occurrence (was it in minnesota?) once the school shooting started that lone cop ran off scared.

My church has a security guard, and he stated that if a shooting begins he is going to run and hide, radio for backup, and not come out of hiding until the backup arrives. That would be no different than a school employee @ sandy hook dialing 911 and waiting for the police.

BHP FAN
January 12, 2013, 05:24 PM
At the Holocaust Muesuem the uniformed cop was the first one taken out.

BHP FAN
January 12, 2013, 05:25 PM
then there's this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVM2-yPXlTQ

I truly think we're better off protecting ourselves.

9MMare
January 12, 2013, 05:30 PM
I'm afraid I have to agree with xXxplosive on this one. There's a real potential for the Left sabotaging the guns-in-schools-to-protect-kids concept if a custodian or teacher makes a wrong call. Have police or trained guards.

"CCW" does not = "LEO"

Armed citizens (custodians, teachers) are better than nothing, just not the optimum effort to make the idea work.

So someone on the Right wouldnt sue the school system if a teacher or janitor accidentally shot one of their kids?

itchy1
January 12, 2013, 05:35 PM
Kinda puts a whole new twist on "Taking out the garbage".

Jim NE
January 12, 2013, 06:25 PM
So someone on the Right wouldnt sue the school system if a teacher or janitor accidentally shot one of their kids?

Since when are "suing" and "sabotaging" the same thing?

I'm talking about folks who'd try to push armed protection out of schools were a mistake ever made by school staff.

BHP FAN
January 12, 2013, 07:40 PM
What about when the police wound eleven innocent bystanders? I'll take my chances with the janitor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVM2-yPXlTQ

MedWheeler
January 12, 2013, 07:46 PM
I cannot believe so many here actually made it through that article; I almost slipped and fell on the bile it was spewing before it even began pretending to be headed for a point..

BHP FAN
January 12, 2013, 07:51 PM
A retired LEO trying to stretch his income, a trained security guard, or an armed civilian teacher janitor or staff volunteer....I really don't care . Lets try ALL of them. I really hate the idea of one more defenseless child dyeing while we dither about, wondering what to do.

Airbrush Artist
January 12, 2013, 11:02 PM
Here is the Most dangerous FEAR I face everyday driving My School Bus, LET ME PRTOECT THE KIDS I'M RESPONDSIBLE FOR...https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1476_10200144558798018_680527526_n.jpg

Deltaboy
January 12, 2013, 11:46 PM
Folks forget the VP at Pearl Miss stopped that School shooting and could have stopped it sooner except he had to run OFF CAMPUS because of that Idiot Gun Free Law.

It coming to pass in TX and at my HS we have plenty of ex military and lifelong gun owners and hunters to man the campus. I am also for getting retired LEO' s to work as security.

Dakoma
January 13, 2013, 12:48 AM
Just the knoledge of armed guards ,Teachers or janitors will be packing in schools will stop alot of this killing because those krazy gunmen only pick schools ,Theaters and gun free zones for one simple reason,they will not have resistance in going on their killing spree because there is nobody there to shoot back everyone is a easy target,put that dought in their twisted mind they will be shot and killed the second they produce a weapon then they have a obsticle that is not in their favor ! Camera's are not that expensive and can also help to spot or profile a person that may be there to kill kids ,their actions and the way they are dressed is a good give away !

BHP FAN
January 13, 2013, 01:16 AM
Absolutely right. if the nuts know that someone is armed, they just won't try it. There's no such thing as a ''gun free'' zone. That's just a sign.

9MMare
January 13, 2013, 01:30 AM
Since when are "suing" and "sabotaging" the same thing?

I'm talking about folks who'd try to push armed protection out of schools were a mistake ever made by school staff.

Ah....sabotage how? I think the people you imagine fit your stereotype would just prevent it in the first place. From what I've read, there are usually state and county laws, public opinion, and unions to overcome already.

9MMare
January 13, 2013, 01:38 AM
Just the knoledge of armed guards ,Teachers or janitors will be packing in schools will stop alot of this killing because those krazy gunmen only pick schools ,Theaters and gun free zones for one simple reason,they will not have resistance in going on their killing spree because there is nobody there to shoot back everyone is a easy target,put that dought in their twisted mind they will be shot and killed the second they produce a weapon then they have a obsticle that is not in their favor ! Camera's are not that expensive and can also help to spot or profile a person that may be there to kill kids ,their actions and the way they are dressed is a good give away !

I would love to see some confirmation of this. Very very few school shootings are random people. They are plotted out for weeks and months. They KNOW if there are guards. Guards unfortunately can be easily overcome, even by a single shooter. Randomly worrying about the 'possibility' that a teacher will be carrying? Not such a big risk.

It's not the fact that schools are gun-free zones....it's about motivation. These people are angry, full of hate, seeking thrills, revenge, delusional, whatever. THey put alot of time and energy....their last hurrah generally because they plan to die usually....into it. THey dont care if the places are gun-free....they know they'll probably die one way or another....that is the glorious end to their f'ed up plans.

It's about motivation....and that is why armed guards dont stop bank robberies. Banks in many states arent even gun-free zones. Those robbers are highly motivated...just like school shooters.

Bobson
January 13, 2013, 01:45 AM
Do you really believe he going to be able to go from cleaning out a stopped up toilet to this super clear headed protector of children in a matter of seconds?
You bet I do, as much as a waitress or grocery store clerk can.

Do you want your kids gunned down without a chance, or do you want someone - anyone - to be able to offer a glimmer of hope? I'm a parent, and I don't care if the guy who waters the potted plants is armed. That's infinitely better than nobody.

I'd much rather see all schools allow (not force) teachers/janitors/administrators to carry concealed firearms, than have all schools hire an armed guard or two.

1911 guy
January 13, 2013, 01:47 AM
I agree. Too many holes in allowing teachers and staff. to CCW. I think the best course of action is to just ban guns. That's a perfect solution, right?

Sarcasm mode off.

You people who are so dead set against allowing teachers and staff to CCW are letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. And most likely didn't read the article that explained the situation, either, just went off half cocked. The school isn't going to *require* anyone to be armed.

So someone is fully capable of defending them selves and possibly innocents in a crowded shopping mall but becomes a knuckle dragging moron when you put the same man in coveralls working in a school? Shame on you for being so myopic, elitist and wrong.

Unlike the vast majority of you, I've got skin in this game. I have kids in Ohio public schools. The more this gains traction here in Ohio, the more likely MY kids are to be protected. If you want the ideal response for your own kids to be sitting in the corner of a room relying on the mercy or stupidity of as killer, that's your business. It sure isn't my idea of a good idea.

4thHorseman
January 13, 2013, 02:01 AM
A retired LEO trying to stretch his income, a trained security guard, or an armed civilian teacher janitor or staff volunteer....I really don't care . Lets try ALL of them. I really hate the idea of one more defenseless child dyeing while we dither about, wondering what to do.

Thank you sir for the sanity.

Jenrick
January 13, 2013, 02:04 AM
It's not the fact that schools are gun-free zones....it's about motivation. These people are angry, full of hate, seeking thrills, revenge, delusional, whatever. THey put alot of time and energy....their last hurrah generally because they plan to die usually....into it. THey dont care if the places are gun-free....they know they'll probably die one way or another....that is the glorious end to their f'ed up plans.

It's about motivation....and that is why armed guards dont stop bank robberies. Banks in many states arent even gun-free zones. Those robbers are highly motivated...just like school shooters.

So why don't we see active shooters hit Police stations, military bases from the exterior, etc.? Why don't we see robbers try the Federal Bullion Depository (Ft. Knox) or one of the Federal Reserve banks? An active shooter is motivated by the desire to make as big a statement as possible, using the biggest body count possible. Not in dying in a hail of gunfire that barely gets 5 minutes of the 10PM news. This does not mean that they only go for gun free zones. However a large number of soft targets ARE gun free zones. Double bonus.

I'm a full time LEO, I can tell you that if a civilian goes out and shoots more then 50-100 rounds more then twice a year they shoot and train more then 90%+ of LEO's. Of course your local agencies might be the exception, but by an large most cops are not shooters. It's a very small part of our job, and most cops don't really shoot out side of their mandated requirements. If you've got a janitor, lunch lady, teacher, coach, crossing guard, etc. that takes their CCW seriously and has made an effort to become proficient and skilled, they probably have better technical ability to make the shot then your average LEO. Do LEO's have an advantage in tactical training to find and close with the shooter, yep. But the idea there is we're having to hunt for the bad guy, running to the sound of the gunfire and ending the threat isn't a difficult thing to figure out.

-Jenrick

BHP FAN
January 13, 2013, 02:04 AM
4TH Horseman said ''Thank you sir for the sanity...''

You sir, are quite welcome.

BHP FAN
January 13, 2013, 02:09 AM
Jenrick said;''I'm a full time LEO, I can tell you that if a civilian goes out and shoots more then 50-100 rounds more then twice a year they shoot and train more then 90%+ of LEO's. Of course your local agencies might be the exception, but by an large most cops are not shooters. It's a very small part of our job, and most cops don't really shoot out side of their mandated requirements. If you've got a janitor, lunch lady, teacher, coach, crossing guard, etc. that takes their CCW seriously and has made an effort to become proficient and skilled, they probably have better technical ability to make the shot then your average LEO. Do LEO's have an advantage in tactical training to find and close with the shooter, yep. But the idea there is we're having to hunt for the bad guy, running to the sound of the gunfire and ending the threat isn't a difficult thing to figure out.

-Jenrick ''

BEST comment of the YEAR!

9MMare
January 13, 2013, 02:14 AM
So why don't we see active shooters hit Police stations, military bases from the exterior, etc.? Why don't we see robbers try the Federal Bullion Depository (Ft. Knox) or one of the Federal Reserve banks? An active shooter is motivated by the desire to make as big a statement as possible, using the biggest body count possible. Not in dying in a hail of gunfire that barely gets 5 minutes of the 10PM news. This does not mean that they only go for gun free zones. However a large number of soft targets ARE gun free zones. Double bonus.

I'm a full time LEO, I can tell you that if a civilian goes out and shoots more then 50-100 rounds more then twice a year they shoot and train more then 90%+ of LEO's. Of course your local agencies might be the exception, but by an large most cops are not shooters. It's a very small part of our job, and most cops don't really shoot out side of their mandated requirements. If you've got a janitor, lunch lady, teacher, coach, crossing guard, etc. that takes their CCW seriously and has made an effort to become proficient and skilled, they probably have better technical ability to make the shot then your average LEO. Do LEO's have an advantage in tactical training to find and close with the shooter, yep. But the idea there is we're having to hunt for the bad guy, running to the sound of the gunfire and ending the threat isn't a difficult thing to figure out.

-Jenrick

We do see it all the time....the disgruntled employee going back and shooting up his workplace. THe rejected moron shooting up the women's gym or theatre. The STUDENT shooting up the school. The ex husband or boyfriend shooting up the salon or pancake house where the woman works.

It's PERSONAL. The motivation is strong. If your motivation is strong...the risk only makes it sweeter... If your motivation is $, where are you going.a bank or Ft. Knox? Really, was that even a serious question? For them, survival is important, unlike many of these other situations.

As an ex-LEO AND ex Human Resources where we had to study this, there is strong motivation AND gratification behind this stuff.


And I dont know why you went into all that stuff about cc'ers....I have no objections to that. Except that just like armed guards, I dont see them as a deterrant to a motivated shooter.

Fryerpower
January 13, 2013, 02:32 AM
Your kidding right? I own a gun,been in the military,have a spotless record, level headed,and great credit score, and shoot pretty well. That does not mean I'm qualified to protect children in life and death situations.

When death comes knocking will you cower and hide, maybe try to shield their little bodies with yours? Or will you do YOUR BEST to defend them with the tools you have at hand? No one is asking for Rambo in the schools. We are asking for mama bears and sheepdogs. Fiercely protective guardians who will give their lives if they have to, but would much rather shoot and stop the threat.

I have no doubt that my wife, a teacher and HCP (CCW/CWP) holder, would draw and shoot if confronted. She is not Rambo, but you better not back her into a corner or threaten her children! All we have to do is make it legal for her to carry on campus.

That uncertainty about who is or is not armed is a heck of a good start at keeping out an active shooter.

Jim

Bobson
January 13, 2013, 02:51 AM
I agree with you, Fryerpower. This isn't about putting Navy SEALs in schools, its about realizing that its absolutely insane to believe a "No Guns Allowed" sign makes a difference to a murderer; and upon accepting that fact, giving people the right to defend themselves accordingly.

zorro45
January 13, 2013, 03:05 AM
If anyone has ever tried to really secure a large building with multiple doors and windows they will realize that it is almost impossible. Without writing a playbook for how to defeat a school security plan, I think we can all agree that it takes more than one person to do this. As a comparison, imagine the local courthouse.
Controlled access, xrays of all parcels, etc. They have a lot more than just one armed security/deputies/marshals etc. This plan makes good sense. I think the term "custodian" sounds better and has more shades of meaning than "janitor"
These guys are already controlling the access to the building and mechanical systems. In my state this would just require a sign-off by the superintendent.Of course these people are pretty risk-averse, if they were not they would still be teachers. Once they run it by the members of the school committee.....

Roadking Rider
January 13, 2013, 08:09 AM
Ok Bobson I can see you have a need to be right. So OK your right. Give every janitor who has a permit to carry a gun who wants to carry a gun in school the right to do so. Lets just agree to disagree. Personally I think there are other options that need to be explored long before we start asking school janitors to protect our children. Why we're at it maybe we can ask landscapers and trash men protect our neighborhoods. It 's not like there not hard workers.

beatledog7
January 13, 2013, 08:51 AM
Simply removing the legal prohibition would make 90% of the difference required.

Sam1911
January 13, 2013, 10:09 AM
I'm all for allowing anyone who is lawful to possess a gun to carry it ANYWHERE, ANYTIME. That is how our country should be, period.

I do not believe for an instant that even the certain knowledge that someone in the school is armed (let alone a school district policy that make it possible that someone maybe could be, perhaps) would stop a "process" killer intent on this kind of violence for the same reasons that 9MMare said. (Unfortunately, it is also not terribly well considered to believe that an armed guard is much of a hindrance to these guys. As we all well know, if a potential killer has the motivation to do this and spends the weeks obsessing out a plan as most of these guys seem to do, the guard will be dead before the game even begins.)

I don't really believe there IS a solution to this rarefied problem. But I certainly do applaud any step that would make it possible for someone to react with force on the 100-million-to-one chance that such a situation develops in front of him or her.

That's an important distinction to remember: 1) This will NOT deter mass shootings. It can't. And that should not be the point of such a proposed change. 2) This would allow someone who chooses to prepare the chance of perhaps saving their own life and maybe the lives of a few others.

And it will probably remain an eternally moot point. These shootings are very statistically rare. VERY rare. The number of people who ever choose to carry a concealed weapon is very small. (What? About 7% in the most-armed states?) And very few of those who do carry carry every day, every where. So the chances of a mass shooter and an armed citizen arriving at the same place in the moment when the murderer chooses to act -- and having the armed citizen be in some position to act with force -- are cosmically low indeed.

However, as I said, we simply should be promoting and allowing the law-abiding citizenry to go armed wherever and whenever they choose, as a matter of general principle.

9MMare
January 13, 2013, 02:28 PM
You people who are so dead set against allowing teachers and staff to CCW are letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. And most likely didn't read the article that explained the situation, either, just went off half cocked. The school isn't going to *require* anyone to be armed.

.

I have seen very few, if any people against allowing teachers/staff to cc in this thread or on the forum since the CT shooting.

9MMare
January 13, 2013, 02:32 PM
I do not believe for an instant that even the certain knowledge that someone in the school is armed (let alone a school district policy that make it possible that someone maybe could be, perhaps) would stop a "process" killer intent on this kind of violence for the same reasons that 9MMare said. (Unfortunately, it is also not terribly well considered to believe that an armed guard is much of a hindrance to these guys. As we all well know, if a potential killer has the motivation to do this and spends the weeks obsessing out a plan as most of these guys seem to do, the guard will be dead before the game even begins.)

.

Thank you. I appreciate this reiteration.

And agree with the entire post.

Onward Allusion
January 13, 2013, 02:37 PM
Texan Scott

Quote:
xXxplosive: They're janitors.........or teachers........once a gun is produced by a civillian the civil suits explode. Put a cop with a desk in school during school hours like they are for the DARE Program and be done with it......this is all BS to me.


Yes, they're janitors or teachers. WHAT ARE YOU, that you feel you should be trusted to be safe and effective with a firearm, but not them?

This sounds suspiciously like the elitist anti-2A "only cops and special people" garbage.

Janitors can't carry guns! They're only *gasp* hard-working ordinary American citizens!

Amen, Brother! Amen! This mentality of "Why, they're not LE...blah, blah, blah is ludicrous." Anyone with a valid CC permit, should be allowed in schools, period. Going back to the Janitor & Teachers thing... Hell yes, there's bad apples, but there's bad apples in every freakin' profession, including law enforcement.

Onward Allusion
January 13, 2013, 02:46 PM
ccsniper
I am a janitor, not only do we know the buildings better, but we also have keys to every room in the building and are often the ones that find things people are trying to hide such as drugs. (not that were snooping or anything)

Just as an aside, there have been more than a few news stories of janitors doing exactly what you'd described - looking into rooms, acting as the building's custodian - and they discover drugs, dead bodies, or teachers having sex with students. Not kidding here. No one knows a building better than the building's custodian. Hence, if they are qualified, they should be allowed to carry as a safety precaution against intruders to the school.

CharlieDeltaJuliet
January 13, 2013, 02:50 PM
My janitor worked part time with the Sheriffs dept. He was an "on call" or reserve deputy. He also was scary.. Or atleast to a kid he was a 6'4" 245lb muscle man who also trained people in unarmed self defense. I guess the difference though was when I was in school, we had our firearms in our cars. Until a year after I gratuated students often went hunting before school and immediately after and were allowed to have their hunting rifles on school grounds. We also took a mandatory gun safety/hunters education course in school at 13-14 years old. I guess this was because I grew up in a rural part of NC. We also had one of the lowest crime rates in the nation at the time. Ahh.... The good ole days.

I have no problem with a CCW holder carrying on school grounds. Nor would I have a problem with an armed custodian or teacher as long as they went through a safety course. I think the armed personnel should be approved by the CLEO or Sheriff, much the same way they approve a CCW permit (in my state). Just my $0.02

cl4de6
January 13, 2013, 03:19 PM
The only problem I have with this is that now we know it's the Janitors who are armed.

This could work for and against school protection.

If you know that a specific person in a school is armed, you can target that specific person when you begin your attack. If you don't know who is armed, things get more complicated. On the other hand, if you know that somebody is armed, you may choose a different target.

I actually like the idea of armed officers in schools, but not for protection as much as public relations. For most citizens, their first interaction with an LEO comes when they see flashing red and blue lights in their rear-view mirror. Why should the first interaction with a cop be a negative one?

A police officer in a school becomes a deterrent to crime and a trusted adult figure that children can go to for problems. He could help coach sports and provide a respectable adult role model. He becomes an initial positive example of police which could help reverse some negative opinions of LEO's.

22-rimfire
January 13, 2013, 04:02 PM
Janitor? Sure. I would favor anyone who works at a school be allowed to carry if they have a carry permit. Gun free zones do not work. Only honest people abide by them.

Deltaboy
January 13, 2013, 04:17 PM
The only problem I have with this is that now we know it's the Janitors who are armed.

This could work for and against school protection.

If you know that a specific person in a school is armed, you can target that specific person when you begin your attack. If you don't know who is armed, things get more complicated. On the other hand, if you know that somebody is armed, you may choose a different target.

I actually like the idea of armed officers in schools, but not for protection as much as public relations. For most citizens, their first interaction with an LEO comes when they see flashing red and blue lights in their rear-view mirror. Why should the first interaction with a cop be a negative one?

A police officer in a school becomes a deterrent to crime and a trusted adult figure that children can go to for problems. He could help coach sports and provide a respectable adult role model. He becomes an initial positive example of police which could help reverse some negative opinions of LEO's.
This is why you need more than one armed person in the School.

CharlieDeltaJuliet
January 13, 2013, 04:49 PM
Deltaboy is right. Sure arm the janitors, but let the teaches or administration have the option to CC. I even agree with giving retired or off duty LEO's an incentive (huge tax break, or something) to encourage them to take the job.

HorseSoldier
January 13, 2013, 11:25 PM
I agree that identifying which employees, or category of employees, are armed gives away too much information. Having it out there as public knowledge that unspecified and an unspecified number of employees at a school are armed (or even potentially armed) makes a school a harder target than providing more details to the public.

A police officer in a school becomes a deterrent to crime and a trusted adult figure that children can go to for problems. He could help coach sports and provide a respectable adult role model. He becomes an initial positive example of police which could help reverse some negative opinions of LEO's.

Up here the School Resource Officers we have in the schools definitely have a mixed mission of target hardening for the schools and community policing for juvenile population, with the latter being the primary day to day function.

The other thing the school district does up here is hold active shooter response drills quarterly. I don't know how widespread that is nationwide these days, but it definitely is to the benefit of staff and students to have a rehearsed plan of action that everyone is familiar with. (Details of how a recent incident played out here (http://www.adn.com/2013/01/08/2745793/dimond-high-student-with-bb-gun.html).)

rjrivero
January 14, 2013, 12:29 AM
Seeing as how I live near this community and I actually know the players involved by reputation if they don't know me by face, I do know some of the back story here.

Part of this is due in part by the Buckeye Firearms Association's Armed Teacher Training Program. You can read about it here. (http://www.buckeyefirearms.com/) And HERE (http://tdiohio.com/active-killer-shooter-leciv/).

As you can see, it's sponsored by the BFA as well as the Tactical Defense Institute. www.tdiohio.com.

Small town politics is the group of guys in High School who all played on the football team in their glory days. So you wouldn't be surprised to find the Superintendent of the Montpilier Schools is friends with the Cheif of Police seen here (http://montpelieroh.net/police/about/personnel.htm). The Chief of Police, friends with the Superintendent of schools, is also an instructor at TDI Ohio. Seen Here. (http://montpelieroh.net/police/about/personnel.htm) He's the 22nd on the list.

So the Montpilier Police Department will be developing a response plan to compliment the "Armed First Responders" which will be coordinated with the area SWAT program as well.

The fact of the matter is that I would love to see Gun Free Zones go the way of the do-do bird. However, the current climate demands that this program be initiated carefully, precisely, and thoroughly. With the backing and training from TDI and their cadre of instructors, as well as the Multi-Jurisdictional SWAT team that is also TDI- Trained, it provides an easier platform for this community to get on the same page so to speak. I think this is a great start.

HorseSoldier
January 14, 2013, 12:54 AM
The fact of the matter is that I would love to see Gun Free Zones go the way of the do-do bird. However, the current climate demands that this program be initiated carefully, precisely, and thoroughly.

+1. I think this is a ground-gaining issue for guns rights, but if an armed teacher or other school employee is involved in misapplication of deadly force or other bad shoot sort of scenario, it will be costly to our side. If a school employee authorized by his employer to carry concealed goes postal or something, it could be catastrophic.

We can talk about how there should be zero infringement on carrying concealed and such, but the potential downsides are such that I think thorough background checks and attendance of a training/certification course covering proficiency with the weapon to be carried, as well as detailed instruction on appropriate use of deadly force, are in order.

If you enjoyed reading about "Armed Janitors Approved By Montpelier, Ohio, School Board To Stop School Shootings" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!