Teaching kids to fight back against classroom invaders

[Ceicei]

Basically, the title says it all, reminiscent of the "taking back the plane" of 9/11/01.

First paragraph of the article says:

BURLESON, Texas (AP) -- Youngsters in a suburban Fort Worth, Texas, 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.

See link below for more:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/10/13/defending.the.classroom.ap/index.html

- Ceicei

 

[Andrew Green]

So since most schools have zero-tolerance policies... All the kids get 25 years afterwards as well? Or is this one of those "conflicting messages" everyone is supposed to ignore. "Don't fight back, just get a teacher... unless they got a gun and are a adult..."

Kids should not be taught to get in harms way, teachers maybe, but not the kids.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Fighting is always better than being a passive victim. This is a good thing. I wonder if any other schools will do this.

Jeff

 

[Ceicei]

Well, if kids attack en-masse, instead of one at a time, then maybe their chance of surviving will go way up. In a classroom, there is usually just one teacher. A teacher cannot do all the fighting.

- Ceicei

 

[Kacey]

I go back and forth on this one. On the one hand, they are correct: en masse, the students in a room, along with the teacher, can (most likely) overcome any single gunman. The most immediate problem I see is coordinating such an attack - because it is most definitely something that must work the first time, and everyone must attack at the same time - otherwise, most likely the leader will get picked off, and the rest will hold back, losing the advantage of numbers. In addition, a failed counter-attack of this nature will considerably up the ante for such a situation - having once killed a hostage, the gunman is left with very little to lose.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

I go back and forth on this one. On the one hand, they are correct: en masse, the students in a room, along with the teacher, can (most likely) overcome any single gunman. The most immediate problem I see is coordinating such an attack - because it is most definitely something that must work the first time, and everyone must attack at the same time - otherwise, most likely the leader will get picked off, and the rest will hold back, losing the advantage of numbers. In addition, a failed counter-attack of this nature will considerably up the ante for such a situation - having once killed a hostage, the gunman is left with very little to lose.

Great points, and I think this tactic should be reserved for cases where the gunman has walked in and started shooting and not necessarily for ALL invasions, regardless of specifics.

 

[MJS]

I go back and forth on this one. On the one hand, they are correct: en masse, the students in a room, along with the teacher, can (most likely) overcome any single gunman. The most immediate problem I see is coordinating such an attack - because it is most definitely something that must work the first time, and everyone must attack at the same time - otherwise, most likely the leader will get picked off, and the rest will hold back, losing the advantage of numbers. In addition, a failed counter-attack of this nature will considerably up the ante for such a situation - having once killed a hostage, the gunman is left with very little to lose.

Yes, I'm on the fence with this as well. I think its good that people fight back, but as you said, something like this, needs to be thought out. I was watching a movie about flight 93 and if I recall correctly, the members that over took the plane did so after much planning. In addition, I'd imagine alot would depend on the ages of the kids involved. I could see something possibly working with older kids, but I have to wonder how things would play out if we're dealing with 4 and 5 yr olds.

Mike

 

[morph4me]

Given a choice between (a) getting shot while doing nothing or (b) getting shot while attempting to escape or take down the shooter, I for one vote for (b). I think the death tolls in the school shootings would be much less if the students had this kind of training. Granted, kids will still get shot, but they have a better chance of survival if they are moving and if the shooter is trying to protect himself rather than just taking target practice with passive victims.

There is never a good answer in situations like this, but if it were my kids, I would rather they did something to give themelves a chance, then just sit there and be a sitting duck.

 

[Drac]

, but I have to wonder how things would play out if we're dealing with 4 and 5 yr olds.Mike

An Excellent question..

Given a choice between (a) getting shot while doing nothing or (b) getting shot while attempting to escape or take down the shooter, I for one vote for (b)

Same here....

 

[Kacey]

Given a choice between (a) getting shot while doing nothing or (b) getting shot while attempting to escape or take down the shooter, I for one vote for (b). I think the death tolls in the school shootings would be much less if the students had this kind of training. Granted, kids will still get shot, but they have a better chance of survival if they are moving and if the shooter is trying to protect himself rather than just taking target practice with passive victims.

There is never a good answer in situations like this, but if it were my kids, I would rather they did something to give themelves a chance, then just sit there and be a sitting duck.

I understand the point you're making, and for myself, I agree - b every time. However, as a teacher, I don't feel that it's a decision I can autocratically make for every student in my classroom. Too much depends on the age and abilities of the students, the willingness of the teacher to lead, and the situation occurring at the moment. Are too many people trained from an early age to lay down and hope for the best? Yes. But that doesn't mean it's always a bad response. You have to be willing to shift your plans according to the situation as it is occurring at the time.

 

[Lisa]

I go back and forth on this one. On the one hand, they are correct: en masse, the students in a room, along with the teacher, can (most likely) overcome any single gunman. The most immediate problem I see is coordinating such an attack - because it is most definitely something that must work the first time, and everyone must attack at the same time - otherwise, most likely the leader will get picked off, and the rest will hold back, losing the advantage of numbers. In addition, a failed counter-attack of this nature will considerably up the ante for such a situation - having once killed a hostage, the gunman is left with very little to lose.

Excellent post Kacey.

Anyone here ever try to get a group of 20 to 25 kids of any age to do something en masse and completely coordinated with out practice practice practice? Tough thing to do when they aren't scared and upset never mind when they are freaked out.

The concept has its merits, I agree with that. But one "seminar" won't do it. If the school/school district is going to adopt such a policy then the students need to be trained and simulations need to be run for it to work. I think it may have merit for older children, but younger ones...I have my doubts.

 

[Makalakumu]

Fighting is not always the most appropriate option for self defense. In this situation, I think the risks are too great.

Imagine this simple test, I walk into a class of 7th graders with two paint ball guns. The entire class rushes me and I open fire and take simple evasive manuevers. Eventually, the entire class is going to overwhelm me, but how many of those kids are going to have paint on them?

This does not take into account the fact that a paintball can go through someone and hit someone behind them...or even behind a wall.

The bottom line is this, I could probably paint half the class before they took me down.

Now imagine its your kids with paint on them.

I think the likelihood of survival is much greater if the kids just do what they are told. Let the professionals sort this one out and hopefully negotiate a solution.

And if the person comes in with the intent to start shooting, make sure the teacher is trained and armed...

God we lived in a ****ed up world...

 

[MJS]

Excellent post Kacey.

Anyone here ever try to get a group of 20 to 25 kids of any age to do something en masse and completely coordinated with out practice practice practice? Tough thing to do when they aren't scared and upset never mind when they are freaked out.

The concept has its merits, I agree with that. But one "seminar" won't do it. If the school/school district is going to adopt such a policy then the students need to be trained and simulations need to be run for it to work. I think it may have merit for older children, but younger ones...I have my doubts.

So true!! Even when they conduct a fire drill, sure everyone is calm. Why? Because there really is no need to panic...its a drill. Now, if the building was actually on fire, I'd imagine a different frame of mind. Same thing on a cruise. Before the boat even takes off, they go thru a safety drill, having everyone put on a life jacket, and assemble as their assigned stations. A cruise ship is huge, with thousands of people of all ages, yet everyone meets at the assigned station, etc., etc. Imagine what it'd be like if the boat was actually taking on water!

Mike

 

[Ceicei]

That's the point of the drills, isn't it, for repetition, so that the kids know what they should be doing and at least have a semblance of organization. In martial arts, we drill all the time so that hopefully, we can act quickly when needed.

Per Upnorthkyosa, he says he will be able to paintball half of the kids before they take him down. It would be interesting to test this out.

Try this out in a paintball field. Get a good sized number of friends, arrange them as if they are in a classroom. Pretend there is a doorway. You aren't anticipating being rushed, going in with the intent to take hostages. As soon as you enter with the paintball gun, they attack you in a flurry. You're able to get some of them, but because of being rushed, your targeting isn't all that great (meaning there probably are more wounding than fatality). How many of your friends are you able to paint? How many display hits that could be considered fatal? This is assuming the invader does not immediately shoot upon entry (per Columbine).

It would be interesting to see if this is a viable concept at all or if the risks outweigh the benefits? The concept to be tested out thoroughly for viability before implementing it. Too many things seem good in theory, but turn out to be bad in reality.

- Ceicei

 

[Ceicei]

And if the person comes in with the intent to start shooting, make sure the teacher is trained and armed...

Some teachers are being trained to do just that in Utah. In the thread, "Guns in Public Schools", see the MT link below to my post #90 that I made yesterday. That post has the link to the newspaper article about arming teachers.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38449&page=9

- Ceicei

 

[Makalakumu]

Per Upnorthkyosa, he says he will be able to paintball half of the kids before they take him down. It would be interesting to test this out.

Try this out in a paintball field. Get a good sized number of friends, arrange them as if they are in a classroom. Pretend there is a doorway. You aren't anticipating being rushed, going in with the intent to take hostages. As soon as you enter with the paintball gun, they attack you in a flurry. You're able to get some of them, but because of being rushed, your targeting isn't all that great (meaning there probably are more wounding than fatality). How many of your friends are you able to paint? How many display hits that could be considered fatal? This is assuming the invader does not immediately shoot upon entry (per Columbine).

It would be interesting to see if this is a viable concept at all or if the risks outweigh the benefits? The concept to be tested out thoroughly for viability before implementing it. Too many things seem good in theory, but turn out to be bad in reality.

What this test doesn't take into account is the shock at being faced with a real weapon. I think that kids are going to be very afraid (Hell, so would I) if an armed intruder invaded their classroom.

Another thing that isn't being taken into account by this test is the pain and shock factor of actually being wounded. If the group rushes and the attacker is able to shoot the first few or five, perhaps even dropping a few, this is going to have an effect.

And then their is the fact that I just don't want my kids thinking about that while they are in school. I want to them to feel safe so they can learn. If they've got to learn how to operate like a unit and attack en-masse and ignore the screams of their injured and dying friends, then I'm going to be finding a different school as far away from that as possible.

One of the things we learn when we learn to be teachers is that if kids aren't safe, they can't learn.

With that being said, I think we should protect them discreetly. I think that adults should be responsible for their safety. If teachers need to be armed and trained, so be it. That is a better option, IMHO, if we really live in a world where the kids are that unsafe in our schools.

At least, then, we may be able to preserve some semblance of the purpose for that school...

 

[Ceicei]

Upnorth,

I have no argument with your points. I'm in full agreement there. The "fighting back" training is not fully thought out. I suppose people are frustrated with not being able to 'stop' with the traditional ways. The school attacks seem to keep on coming....and coming....

- Ceicei

 

[exile]

I think we should protect them discreetly. I think that adults should be responsible for their safety. If teachers need to be armed and trained, so be it. That is a better option, IMHO, if we really live in a world where the kids are that unsafe in our schools.

At least, then, we may be able to preserve some semblance of the purpose for that school...

I agree with UpNKy completely here---except that I have reservations about the feasibility of bringing classroom teachers up to standard in what is one probably one of the most difficult situations facing professional law enforcement personnel imaginable. I'd rather see the portion of my taxes devoted to police budgets go way, way up and get plainsclothes SWAT-capable professional LEOs in every school, if that's what it takes for my kid to be safe. The kind of training necessary to get school teachers competent to handle school invasions---marksmanship, hostage negotiations, simulation of the chaos of the kinds of situations we saw at Columbine or that series of horrible events a couple of weeks ago---is going to be very demanding---and with almost all teachers, you'd be starting from scratch. And it's very likely some of them would simply be unable to pull the trigger when it came to that, no matter how necessary it was---even professional soldiers have trouble doing that, according to David Grossman's research. I'd much prefer seeing people in that position whose life's work already gives them a huge headstart in the critical actions, attitudes and skills involved.

That said, though, I agree completely with the main point that it's not children's jobs to take on armed psychopaths. If I really thought that's what it would take for my child to have some chance of getting through school in once piece, I'd have him out in a heartbeat and homeschool him all the way through Grade 12.

 

[Makalakumu]

I agree with UpNKy completely here---except that I have reservations about the feasibility of bringing classroom teachers up to standard in what is one probably one of the most difficult situations facing professional law enforcement personnel imaginable. I'd rather see the portion of my taxes devoted to police budgets go way, way up and get plainsclothes SWAT-capable professional LEOs in every school, if that's what it takes for my kid to be safe. The kind of training necessary to get school teachers competent to handle school invasions---marksmanship, hostage negotiations, simulation of the chaos of the kinds of situations we saw at Columbine or that series of horrible events a couple of weeks ago---is going to be very demanding---and with almost all teachers, you'd be starting from scratch. And it's very likely some of them would simply be unable to pull the trigger when it came to that, no matter how necessary it was---even professional soldiers have trouble doing that, according to David Grossman's research. I'd much prefer seeing people in that position whose life's work already gives them a huge headstart in the critical actions, attitudes and skills involved.

That said, though, I agree completely with the main point that it's not children's jobs to take on armed psychopaths. If I really thought that's what it would take for my child to have some chance of getting through school in once piece, I'd have him out in a heartbeat and homeschool him all the way through Grade 12.

Good points. Some of my argument is a bit tongue in cheek...as in I'm assuming that society is so dangerous that it demands that we must contemplate certain things.

I really don't think its the teacher's job, but if we really live in a society that is so dangerous that we would contemplate sending kids en-masse after armed psychopaths, then I think we need to do what we must.

In reality, I think having more police laisons would help and it would also help to let teachers who want to conceal/carry, to do so. I'm not sure if our society is as dangerous as people tend to think. Yet, sometimes its hard to tell...

 

[exile]

I'm not sure if our society is as dangerous as people tend to think. Yet, sometimes its hard to tell...

I know---it's like that old joke, `Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you'. You don't want to see things through the frequently distorted lens of media coverage, but on the other hand it's probably a serious error to assume that everything is just peachy.

Maybe it's a case of it not being particularly dangerous on any given day, for most people, but if you're one of the ones unlucky enough to be there when things do get dangerous, then you're in a LOT of danger...

Kind of like aviation safety---mostly you'll be fine, but things get bleak very very quickly on the statistically rare occasions when something goes wrong on your flight.