This PoliceOne First Person essay is from PoliceOne Member George Williams, a Police Training Specialist and Director of Cutting Edge Training, LLC, in Bellingham (Wash.). Williams offers counterpoint to Val Van Brocklin, whose column argues that teachers lacking adequate training should not be allowed to be armed in schools.
By George T. Williams
Police1 Special Contributor
The mass murder of our children in schools is an unconscionable breach of trust by those who are irreparably mentally and morally damaged. These suspects, typically armed with a stolen weapon, enter the school and begin targeting unarmed students and staff. Most schools are designated “gun-free zones.”
Possession of a firearm means arrest and prosecution. Legally armed citizens fearing arrest comply with these laws – predators do not. The absence of firearms creates a target-rich environment to safely carry out these mass murders.
Historically, officers interrupt less than one of every 13 shootings.1 From 2008 to 2011, spree killings (the mass murder of innocents not ending in hostage situations) took place in less than three minutes.2
Since 2011, these incidents typically conclude within two minutes. Patrol officers cannot hope to interrupt the shooting unless already on scene when the first shots ring out. Most events are long over by the time the call is dispatched. Relying upon the police to interrupt the violence has proven to be a failed strategy. Although rare, teachers and students are forced to fend for themselves in this lethal environment.
Teachers currently have nothing but their bodies and luck to defend against being murdered. Newtown teacher Victoria Soto died using her body to shield the kids in her class.
History proves a firearm is fundamentally necessary to defeat an armed suspect. While nothing compels teachers to defend the children, some do so at the cost of their lives.
If we cannot rely upon patrol officers to respond in time, what are the options?
• Assign a School Resource Officer (SRO) to each school;
• Permit teachers to be armed if they choose to be.
School Resource Officers
An SRO in every school may be a sufficient deterrent to most shooters. However, the SRO is only one officer in what is often a very large building or complex of buildings.
In small schools, a single officer can respond within a minute or so of the first shots being fired. In a large school, if s/he can hear the gunshots on another floor at the opposite end of the building, the SRO’s response may take two to three minutes.
If the trend of maximum carnage in the shortest amount of time continues (in that Aurora movie theater, 70 were shot in less than a minute), a two-minute response will not prevent a significant number of wounded. A single SRO, unless that officer is nearby when the shooting starts, is unlikely to make an overall difference in interrupting the suspect’s attack.
Legally-Armed Teachers
Teachers should not be forced to give up their right to self-defense because they are a teacher.
The question of whether or not an armed educator can influence a school shooting and act reasonably was answered on October 1, 1997, in Pearl, Mississippi, when Assistant Principal Joel Myrick retrieved his .45 pistol from his truck parked off-campus, and stopped and held the mass-murder suspect at gunpoint until police arrived.
There has also been long-term success in arming teachers in public schools. Utah has permitted teachers to carry their licensed, concealed handguns into schools for over a decade.
These teachers, like other responsible citizens, have shown they can be trusted in this capacity. I corresponded with two experienced Utah SROs who could not recall a single event where an armed teacher created a safety problem.
Armed Teachers Influencing School Shootings
Active shooter suspects tend to be cowardly, committing suicide in 90 percent of these shootings.3 That any teacher in general might be armed creates a significant deterrent, causing uncertainty of safe and unfettered access to victims.
Many educators do not wish to be armed, and it should not be a condition of employment. In some schools there may be no armed teachers. The goal is to end the perception of a vulnerable gun-free zone.
The qualification and training requirements for licensed concealed carry is currently designated by the respective states’ legislatures. Teachers – as licensed-to-carry citizens – must comply with those minimum-training requirements.
Legislatures can enact increased training requirements or strict firearms storage requirements in school at the teacher’s expense. Rather than a collective ban preventing effective defense, an individual teacher’s misconduct would be criminally prosecuted. Each would be civilly liable for any negligence. Additional training should always be encouraged and prudent for anyone carrying a gun, officer, responsible citizen, or armed teacher.
What will teachers likely face? There will be a sudden, jarring warning – shots fired nearby. The teacher will have clear target – the guy shooting students. Typically, a raging gunfight is unlikely. The suspect may briefly return fire but overwhelmingly soon end their lives at the first show of force. Only quick armed resistance is able to cut short the free slaughter of innocents.
This event is unlike most police shootings. The high pressure need for subtle evaluation of suspect threat is absent – the imminent threat is the one shooting the kids. High level skills aren’t required – videos of actual events show victims hiding or fleeing like fish from a shark. The stalking suspect is isolated as a target. Anything that distracts him from the children gives officers more time to respond.
And it may stop the killing.
The bottom line is we trust our children to teachers. We should also trust our teachers to be the first line of defense against those monsters who would destroy this most vulnerable part of us.
Teachers should not be required to relinquish their Second Amendment right to self-defense. Statistically, the police will not be there in time to interrupt the killing. Those teachers who are willing to undertake the responsibility and liability of being armed should be permitted to be armed and given the ability to save their own lives and the lives of our children.
About the Author
George T. Williams is a Police Training Specialist and Director of Cutting Edge Training, LLC, in Bellingham, WA. A police trainer for three decades as well as a police expert witness, he trains officers nationwide in all survival skills and officer safety domains as well as civil liability prevention. He has authored more than 200 articles and two books. He can be reached at gtwilliams@cuttingedgetraining.org.
References
1. Sgt. Craig Allen, Hillsboro, OR, Police Department: Since 1966, officers have interrupted only 25 events; in five of these incidents, officers were on-scene when the shooting began.
2. Source: Ron Borsch.
3. Ibid.
