Press "Enter" to skip to content

Schools Require Active Shooter Training: Quakers Need Not Apply?

The Black Hills Pioneer seems to run a new photo each week of hysteria in the Lead-Deadwood school district. We see teachers tackling mock gunmen in active shooter training. We see officers with weapons drawn stalking down the school hallways in training exercises.

Our universities, too, are giving in to fear. A friend at South Dakota State University says that professors must now include emergency exit routes on their syllabi and submit to active shooter training. SDSU's emergency management website offers three links on active shooter training, including this Homeland Security advice (be aggressive, but don't make any quick movements when the police arrive).

I'm curious: can our public institutions require employees to engage in violent active shooter training? Can staff conscientiously object to attacking another human being, even for pretend? Suppose I turn Quaker. Does my administration really want to get into a First Amendment fracas by making my employment contingent on my willingess to physically assault someone?

43 Comments

  1. Nick Nemec 2013.03.08

    I'm reminded of Hutterites who were jailed during WW1 for refusing to be inducted into the Army. They suffered immensely for standing up for their long held beliefs.

  2. David B. 2013.03.08

    Would it fall under the "Other duties as assigned" portion of the job description???

  3. Mark 2013.03.08

    What about visually-impaired faculty?

  4. Mark 2013.03.08

    The tipping point for tenure in the Peace Studies Department might be getting an improved marksmanship score...

  5. Mark 2013.03.08

    Maybe the NRA could get involved with "Rate My Professor."

  6. Steve Sibson 2013.03.08

    "Our universities, too, are giving in to fear."

    Yes they are, the fear of a Constitutional Republic that stands for the rights of the individual as that prevents their collectivist agenda whose goal is the establishment of a one-world government based on a socialist federation of nation states who give up their sovereignity and their guns for the false utopian hope of world peace and no more wars. Dream on Kool Aid drinkers.

  7. owen reitzel 2013.03.08

    Thanks for the link Larry. Embarrasing to say the least

  8. Steve Sibson 2013.03.08

    "Embarrasing to say the least"

    Yes, how in the heck are we going to implement a complete totalitarian world government when little old South Dakota thinks the indivduals still retain rights? Somebody needs to get those rural hicks in line. Right Owen? From Larry's link:

    "Supporters say that the measure signed by Mr. Daugaard, a Republican, is important in a rural state like South Dakota, where some schools are many miles away from emergency responders."

  9. owen reitzel 2013.03.08

    "Somebody needs to get those rural hicks in line. Right Owen?" yup

    "Supporters say that the measure signed by Mr. Daugaard, a Republican, is important in a rural state like South Dakota, where some schools are many miles away from emergency responders."

    And the last time we had a shooting at one of these rural schools? Oh but that's not the point. Obama is coming to take away our guns!

  10. Steve Sibson 2013.03.08

    "And the last time we had a shooting at one of these rural schools?"

    How many shooting happened at Sandy Hook before the last one? How many more millions have to die at the hands of a totalitarian police state before you understand that banning guns is not the way to go?

  11. larry kurtz 2013.03.08

    South Dakota is a totalitarian police state now, Sib: your prayers have been answered.

  12. Steve Sibson 2013.03.08

    "South Dakota is a totalitarian police state now"

    No just the schools where only the police can have guns. After HB1087 becomes law, the school board and the sherriffs decide which schools remain police states and which ones will not.

  13. larry kurtz 2013.03.08

    Qualifying students should be able to carry, too: the law is unconstitutional prima facie.

  14. owen reitzel 2013.03.08

    "How many shooting happened at Sandy Hook before the last one? How many more millions have to die at the hands of a totalitarian police state before you understand that banning guns is not the way to go?"

    Nobody is banning guns! just common sense regulations. no 100 round drums, no 30 round clips. no assault rifles. will that cure everything. No but it couldn't hurt.

  15. Steve Sibson 2013.03.08

    "Nobody is banning guns!"

    You have/want to ban guns at schools Owen, thus creating a totalitarian police state.

    "No but it couldn't hurt."

    Again, How many more millions have to die at the hands of a totalitarian police state before you understand that banning guns is not the way to go?

  16. larry kurtz 2013.03.08

    Sibby: this law won't stand. Your gloating only hurts your party.

  17. Steve Sibson 2013.03.08

    "Sibby: this law won't stand."

    Larry, I know, we have the right to bear arms regardless of what the schools boards or sherriffs think.

  18. larry kurtz 2013.03.08

    Expect the world press to descend on the state: it's going to get really ugly.

  19. Steve Sibson 2013.03.08

    "Does my administration really want to get into a First Amendment fracas by making my employment contingent on my willingess to physically assault someone?"

    How come somebody from law enforcement hasn't tried that one yet?

  20. LK 2013.03.08

    Sibby,

    I should know better than to ask this question, but I will anyway.

    Does your belief in the absolute right to carry a gun wherever you please mean that people cannot prevent you from entering their house armed with a gun?

  21. Brett 2013.03.08

    If a student gets a concealed carry permit, will they now be allowed to carry in schools as well? If more guns equals more safety, why not arm students?

  22. PrairieLady - Gayle 2013.03.08

    I have a question. What will this do to the school's liability insurance?

  23. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.03.08

    David, we are expected to attend all professional development activities scheduled by the school. But that still leaves my question open: can a public school district require an individual to engage in violent activities that violate her/his conscience?

  24. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.03.08

    Brett, if a student can legally carry a gun, and if that student volunteers to be a sentinel, HB appears to allow the school to authorize that student to carry her/his firearm in the school upon completion of training.

  25. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.03.08

    Gayle, I'm not sure active shooter training like that in Lead-Deadwood has a big impact on liability insurance rates... although roughhousing at in-service would seem to increase the chance of on-the-job injuries.

  26. David Newquist 2013.03.08

    Woops. This belongs here, not under the insult-and-abuse women coverage. The stuff flyeth so intensely and so swift sometimes I need Nick Nemec's Border Collie to guide me. [CAH: understood, David! I've deleted the other post for you.]

    The Washington Post put Dirk Lammers' AP story on this out front today. Once again South Dakolta is number one in the nation for those things which thoughtful people want to be last in.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/sd-governor-signs-school-sentinel-bill-which-allows-teachers-other-personnel-to-be-armed/2013/03/08/4dac782a-881a-11e2-b412-2e8596e7c927_story.html?hpid=z3

  27. SDBlue 2013.03.09

    "Does my administration really want to get into a First Amendment fracas by making my employment contingent on my willingess to physically assault someone?"

    "How come somebody from law enforcement hasn't tried that one yet?"

    Because law enforcement knows a physical assault may occur at some point during their routine. They are trained for such situations. Teachers are there to teach, not be a stand-in for law enforcement. Where is all the money coming from to now train those in our schools as law enforcement? The Republicans here are not interested in investing in education at any other time.

  28. Tricia Martens Todd 2013.03.09

    Don't worry boys, I'm sure there are plenty of men with active testosterone levels that would be willing to be the protector of children and women. Sheesh! And yes, Cory, if the military allows for "Consciensious Objectors",( in a draft situation, they put them in areas that are non-combatant, ie: medical, laundry, kitchen, )I'm sure the schools could find a place for someone to be in charge of roll call or something less lethal than, God forbid, having to assault a potential killer.

  29. Jana 2013.03.09

    Remember the good old days when the farthest right of the GOP wanted gun control...

    "Nixon pushed for gun control, once considered banning all handguns."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/ap-enterprise-nixon-pushed-for-gun-control-once-considered-banning-all-handguns/2013/03/09/97ff5aa0-88e2-11e2-b412-2e8596e7c927_story.html

    Nope, the GOP is all about principal and completely uninfluenced by money.

    Just guessing that the NRA hadn't started buying politicians yet...

  30. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.03.10

    "active testosterone levels"?! Read Tricia's comment, and you get a clear reminder of what I'm up against in trying to get the Legislature to vote with its head and not with its pants.

  31. Bill Dithmer 2013.03.10

    New from THE CHURCH OF BILL
    Its wheel gun training for your kids twelve and older. That's right now you can arm your kids before they leave for a school day. Just imagine the peace of mind that you will feel knowing your kid might be able to stop a school shooting before it starts.

    This is a full two day comprehensive course covering the following areas of interest.

    We will address the issues that naturally come along in instances like these.
    1. Care and handling of a side arm.
    2. Target identification.
    3. The care and emergency treatment of a gunshot wound.
    4. We will give them a step by step guide to securing a school with the least amount of collateral damage.
    5. One whole hour on the firing range to get a feel for their weapon.
    6. And finally a dandy diploma suitable for framing showing their competency at the time of their graduation from our academy.

    Our two instructors have a combined 100 years experience and have been certified by me"The Blindman" to have at least one of their original teeth.

    Just think in a mater of two days you can have your premenstrually unfriendly, hormone raging teenage daughter handling a side arm like a pro. You dads can be proud of your testosterone pumping he-man son for the way he carries himself on the street without fear of someone with a weapon scaring him.

    This will give school a whole new meaning when the kids take control of their own safety. No more worries.

    Each and every graduate of our academy will receive at no additional cost.
    1. A new Ruger LCR .38 Sp with quick acquisition laser site.
    2. A comfortable underarm holster with a name sticker pasted on the side.
    3.And a brand new box of .38 Sp ammo

    All this for the amazing price of two thousand dollars. that's right just $2,000 is all that separates you from a safer and friendlies school, "and home."

    What are you waiting for?
    Class size is limited to thirty kids.
    Kids must carry their own insurance.
    There will be no refunds after payment is made.
    All payments must be made in full.

    The CHURCH OF BILL is striving to make your community a safer place for everyone. Isn't it time to invest in the future?

    The Blindman

  32. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.03.10

    Jana: That's our Legislature at work, undoing years of positive tourism promotion with stupid legislation.

    Bill: I know you're kidding, but the scary thing is, I think you could get 30 serious takers for your gun school.

  33. LK 2013.03.10

    Jana and Cory,

    The people responible for this bill don't care. The SD Legislature works under a Hollywood mindset; most legislators believe there is no such thing as bad publicity.

  34. David B. 2013.03.10

    Cory, when I was in Indiana, we started conducting active shooter training for schools and large businesses around 2005/2006. The training was funded by Federal grant money, shifted down to the State level and then through my office at the County level for the different local police departments to conduct the training. We conducted training in the 6 different school districts within the County. Attendance by all faculty and staff was required, so everyone would know what the game plan was, but participation was voluntary for faculty and staff during the hand to hand portion of the training. Granted, policies vary from district to district, so I can only speak for the 6 I attended in Indiana.

  35. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.03.10

    LK, we need Hollywood to challenge that mindset by making more movies that show people with guns screwing up.

  36. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.03.10

    Interesting, David! Have any of those districts experienced any active shooter situations? I wonder which is more cost-effective: active shooter training, or tornado drills?

    And as a professional in the field, David, what do you think: should we expand active shooter training to include active shooter drills during school time?

  37. David B 2013.03.10

    Cory, one had a student with a gun in a backpack, but it was taken care of by the police officers assigned to the school. It turned out to be a gangbanger initiation, which is starting to be a real problem there, as gangs are moving from the city to the suburbs. I only attended the initial AS trainings so I could document info for grant reports. After that, the schools and police departments worked on additional trainings on their own using their own training funds and I wasn't involved. I don't know if they did it during business hours or not. From an emergency management standpoint, I was more involved conducting tornado drills than the active shooter drills, which fell under law enforcement. I have a philosophy for any type of training... Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Also applicable to any type of training... The more you do something in a controlled environment under non-emergent circumstances, the easier it'll be to do it automatically when the real situation happens, such as a tornado, a fire, or an active shooter.

  38. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.03.11

    Question remains: is our training time better spent doing Red Dawn re-enactments or working on curriculum?

  39. David B. 2013.03.11

    C) All of the Above... Just because an active shooter situation hasn't happened in a particular school or business, doesn't mean it may not happen in the future. You can't deny they do happen. They may never have a fire or may never be hit by a tornado either, yet they train for those scenarios all the time with fire drills and tornado drills. Why? So when a fire does occur or a tornado is spotted in the area, everyone knows what to do and how to do it in a more orderly fashion than if they had had no training. And I know fires and tornados are more likely to occur than an active shooter situation, but all it takes is one time. As I stated earlier, it's better to have training experience and not need it, than to need training experience and not have it.

  40. John 2013.03.11

    Nick, jailed? Some were killed. Beaten to death in US military prisons. Didn't turn the other cheek enough, eh? Jesus loving hypocrites that refused to hate like the rest of us.
    http://library.ndsu.edu/grhc/articles/newspapers/news/rockportcolony.html

    No worry about where the school boards, superintendents, principals, and Lead School District will receive their ammunition and armored vehicles. The carnival barkers are warming up at the US Department of Homeland Insecurity procures 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition - some of it illegal hollow-point expanding bullets. DHI is also snapping up hundreds, nay thousands of armored combat vehicles to run through US streets. Oh, the 'peace' found in the police state, the land of the not-so-free, and the home of the not-so-brave.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/

    But is it enough? How rounds did the Wehrmacht have in 1941 for Barbarossa? Whatever it was it was evidently not enough.

Comments are closed.