Students taught to attack if gunman appears

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:11 pm

BURLESON, Texas - Youngsters in a suburban Fort Worth school district are being taught not to sit there like good boys and girls with their hands folded if a gunman invades the classroom, but to rush him and hit him with everything they've got — books, pencils, legs and arms.

“Getting under desks and praying for rescue from professionals is not a recipe for success,” said Robin Browne, a major in the British Army reserve and an instructor for Response Options, the company providing the training to the Burleson schools.

That kind of fight-back advice is all but unheard of among schools, and some fear it will get children killed.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15253321/

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2926, old post ID:52073

scherzo · Post by **scherzo** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:10 am

But school officials in Burleson said they are drawing on the lessons learned from a string of disasters such as Columbine in 1999 and the Amish schoolhouse attack in Pennsylvania last week.

apparently they released the 911 tapes of the guy in the amish schoolhouse where he told police to back off or he was going to shoot. 2 minutes later he called his wife.

Parents of the children must be distrought at the possiblity their children's death could have been prevented by some negotiation.

This 'new' aggressive teachings will defeniatley take the 'heat' off the police.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2926, old post ID:52078

Stasi · Post by **Stasi** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:30 pm

Yes, but since when did complicity with the nutcase(s) reduce the body count anyway?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2926, old post ID:52097

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:30 pm

If kids are being told to attack the gunman, would they also be told when to stop attacking? I don't know if a group of kids attacking a gunman would be able to stop themselves from actually killing the dude.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2926, old post ID:52110

Stasi · Post by **Stasi** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:48 am

Bookworm wrote: If kids are being told to attack the gunman, would they also be told when to stop attacking? I don't know if a group of kids attacking a gunman would be able to stop themselves from actually killing the dude.

It's about doing whatever it takes to eliminate the threat. If that means killing the guy, then boo hoo, poor crazy sicko coming to the school with a deadly weapon to kill people! I'd rather lose a million of these types of people than a single innocent child.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2926, old post ID:52120

scherzo · Post by **scherzo** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:40 am

Stasi wrote: rather lose a million of these types of people than a single innocent child.

if the child fights back are they still innocent?

The overall objective is to save lives. all of them if possible. I am sure negotiations have proven susscessful in the past, otherwise they would have abandoned it long ago. Traing the children is usefull, however to " rush him" is reckless and should be used as a last resort.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2926, old post ID:52127

Stasi · Post by **Stasi** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:42 am

scherzo wrote:
Stasi wrote: rather lose a million of these types of people than a single innocent child.

if the child fights back are they still innocent?

Absolutely - why wouldn't they be? A human being has a natural right to defend itself from threats to its life and limb. Fighting back in such a case as someone who comes to a school intent on committing harm does nothing to make someone less innocent.

The overall objective is to save lives. all of them if possible. I am sure negotiations have proven susscessful in the past, otherwise they would have abandoned it long ago. Traing the children is usefull, however to " rush him" is reckless and should be used as a last resort.

You're sure that negotiations have proven successful in past instances where a gunman or gunmen invaded a school, but what is this certainty based on? Negotiation is SOP for hostage situations, however, not many school shootings involved hostage taking and therefore negotiations weren't even attempted. The case of the psycho at the Amish school is a fairly unique one. And that negotiations weren't given a full chance made the outcome questionable, and unquestionably horrible.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2926, old post ID:52130

Red Squirrel · Post by **Red Squirrel** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:08 pm

I totally agree with this, its good that they teach them, and to me if the gun man dies before doing damage. good. he'll kill himself afterwards anyway. (well most do)

Same with hijacks. 9/11 could of been stopped if people would not just sit there like idiots. I mean come on, jump the freaken terrorists, its like 50 on 2, total gankage. (and think 50 is actually low as these planes had about 100 people I believe)

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2926, old post ID:52141