Fake Blood and Bullets: Schools Stage Active Shooter Drills

reply to post by Xcathdra


I wasn't clear - I meant the purpose of the drill from the students point of view (in response to those who were concerned this was too dramatic) the point that I was trying to make was that if the purpose was well established then it help to clarify what would happen during the drill and thus, not be overwhelming. From the perspective of the first responders, I agree with your thoughts. From my own perspective as a "victim" in one of these drills, it was extremely enlightening in many ways and really, to explain it would take too long, but I would just suggest that if anyone has the opportunity to be a part of one, they should give it a go...

reply to post by 3mperorConstantinE


Trying to make a distinction between a wild animal and a human is like comparing apples to Pluto.

An active shooter is intent on accomplishing there goal, which is to kill specific people / large numbers of people. An animal attacking a human and a human attacking a human are not even compatible counter examples to each other.

What is seen more often in an emergency room ER?
Animal Attacks?
or
Humans being shot?
Humans being stabbed?
Humans being beat?

Depending on where you live it could be a mix. The larger picture though is when a mass incident occurs, where there are large numbers of wounded / dying / dead, it never revolves around wild animals. The point is to prepare (as much as one humanly can) the first responder / first receivers to be put into an environment where true emergency triage / emergency medicine comes into play.

As I pointed out in other posts its normal for medical staff to deal with the every day situations. When you introduce elements that move a situation beyond the normal, a new set of action / thinking / planning comes into play.

Let me give an example -
When dealing with large amounts of wounded individual you resort to triaging them as a group.

* - You ask any person who is able to stand and walk to stand up and move to area B.
* - The people left behind are then triaged based on injury / chance of survival.
* - Of those individuals, a decision must be made, and I cant emphasize that enough, MUST be made to determine which patients can be saved and which patients cannot.

That mind set is not a normal part of everyday scenarios, and runs contrary to the medical services goal. If you have a person who is critical and on the verge of death arrive at the Hospital on a normal day, the patient is admitted and every effort is made to stabilize / save the patient.

When a situation occurs where medical services are stretched, a person who might have been seen the day before might not be able to be seen during this encounter.

Individual encounters in the ER are designed to save the persons life.
Mass Casualty encounters moves into the area of preventing death by concentrating on those who can be stabilized.

While it looks easy enough in writing / text / disaster plans, it becomes something completely different for the person who is forced to triage mass casualties in that manner. Its not something that a person can adequately be prepared for, regardless of training. However, that does not mean we should not train on the off chance we ever have that situation occur.

When you introduce a further destabilizing element into the mix, like the victims being children / elderly / invalids, the decision on triage becomes even more difficult. Even more so when the persons triaging have children / relatives of the same age / background as the people they are dealing with. While I don't want to ever see an incident where those decisions have to be made, simply ignoring them and the training for those situations serves no one.

Even Law Enforcement faces these situations. Its one thing to respond to a shots fired call and seeing a person or child has been killed. When we respond to an active shooter event in a school, we are forced to deal directly with the carnage of dead / injured children. As much as we want to stop and help every person, we cannot until we can stop the threat and secure the area.

What people fail to realize is medical / fire generally are prohibited from entering a scene until secured by law enforcement. If we stop and check every person we come across, that's time wasted searching for the threat, which adds time to the clock meaning Medical / Fire are that much more delayed in doing their job.

While I understand your argument, I don't agree with it. Ignoring training in areas that could be considered 1 in 100 million chances of occurring is dangerous. The mindset of "it will never happen here" is precisely why the training must be done.

Why?

Because there is always the possibility that a deranged person living in an area that has the mindset of "it will never happen hear" will act out their plans knowing full well that their actions will stand a better chance of occurring, concluding with the results the deranged person wants instead of the conclusion everyone else wants.

While opinions and what we should or should not do should be considered, unless a person is directly involved in those scenarios, one will never know how they will act / process the images they see etc.

Thank you for the response, Xcathdra.

Xcathdra
reply to post by 3mperorConstantinE

 

Trying to make a distinction between a wild animal and a human is like comparing apples to Pluto.

An active shooter is intent on accomplishing there goal, which is to kill specific people / large numbers of people. An animal attacking a human and a human attacking a human are not even compatible counter examples to each other.

What is seen more often in an emergency room ER?
Animal Attacks?
or ...

It happens more than you may think

With that said, I have no problem with anything you wrote, but – and keeping the goal posts in view – MCI preparatory exercises and medical triage planning for first responders isn't what this thread is about. The law enforcement officers in the article were not there to triage people. They were stepping on them in pursuit of the "active shooter". In other words, using the kids as moulage-covered props for their improbable field exercise.

Do the officers gain knowledge by participating in the aforementioned exercises? ... I would say unquestionably, "yes".
But, and this is the point, is that knowledge worth the cost?
Remember, those are kids involved, we are talking about them doing this mess in a school, FFS.

So, let's scare the bejeezus out of kids and their parents just because The TV has made it clear that in this country of 313 million, a handful of crazy wackos have opened fire on people in a public space.

Yes, it happens. However exactly like some sort of inverse lottery, it won't be happening to you.

—random # has always happened, it's called Life. If anyone is worried about school-shootings more than say, lightening strikes, or being mauled by a big cat —> then that's a sign to turn off The TV, IMHO.

~E.C.

PhoenixOD
No, taking guns away wont stop people from being violent. But its sure to reduce the number of school shootings which is a start.

How? are criminals, and other unsavory types suddenly going to turn them all in? or perhaps a new law will cause them to magically forget where they left them, or how to use them?

it astounds me how threads like this almost ALWAYS turn into a firearms debate, where we have the pro/anti-gun people arguing the pros and cons of ownership, and we always have our tea-drinking cousins across the pond chiming in, about how stupid we are for owning guns, and we should get rid of them all...

it astounds me how this always happens, and how it's ALWAYS the same goddamn argument, almost verbatim, every time....the same assumptions, lies, baseless assertions, and misrepresented numbers are always involved, and the most ludicrous assertions, ideas, and suggestions are almost always the result of knee-jerk-inspired, emotionally-driven, nonsensical beliefs on the part of the anti-gun folks.....they arrogantly believe they know what is best for everyone, and that if they like, or dislike something, that EVERYONE should like, or dislike that same thing, in that same way...they believe we should all think alike...it really is like watching a never-ending loop of the Piers Morgan show...

i don't personally subscribe to that brand of "groupthink" mentality...people should just leave people to their freedom, and stop trying to shame, or scare people into thinking like them, when there is no logical basis to do so....

why can't we do this?

Blackmarketeer

HomerinNC

Okay, tell me about ONE school shooting that an AR-15 or ANY kind of assault rifle that was used, or IED's for that matter
This is ALL a scare tactic, plain and simple

Sandy Hook involved a Bushmaster M4 assault rifle, based on the AR-15. Don't tell me you forgot about Sandy Hook already?

As far as IEDs, since you bring it up, Hawaii had a school bombing this past month involving IEDs. Not too mention, the Columbine shooters had also brought homemade bombs with them.

how can we remember it, when we're not allowed to talk about it?

i'd go into detail about allegations, inconsistencies, and whatnot, but since we're not allowed to talk about it, i'll stop here..

starviego
Most of the mass shooters are just MK-Ultra mind-controlled patsies, programmed to detonate by the covert operators. All to create anti-gun hysteria to destroy our civil liberties and get us defenseless before the New World Order. So yeah, the state has been systematically shooting the children of America for a long time already.

While MK-ULTRA was (and probably still is) a real thing, if you do the research, as i have, you'll find that very nearly ALL of the "mass shooters" are the result of the "Medical/Industrial-complex". Pharmaceutical companies offer incentives to doctors, to prescribe their products to patients. so then you have a situation where, instead of more traditional treatment for disorders, such as counseling/therapy, or hypnosis, etc, they'll simply write them a script.......a lot of these drugs have VERY bad side effects, in the worst case, they trigger within certain people, the compulsion to do the awful things we see in one of these events...

reply to post by Vaedur


So why is a total disregard for these kids concerning mental anguish and
trauma suddenly just fine if the G-D cops are doing it? Instead of some
nutcase retired state trooper or insensitive ignorant ATS member who's
just asking questions?

Believe me yet? You will before it's all over!

reply to post by 3mperorConstantinE


69 young adults involved, all volunteers from the schools drama department.

Secondly, as I stated before, law enforcement is not going to be in a normal mode. Stepping over kids is going to happen and in the vent of a real shooter the concern is stopping the threat and not making sure we don't step on kids fingers / hands.

Should students be involved? Absolutely.

Why?

What happens if they are outside of their class when something starts?
What exactly do students do when a teacher is shot and killed, or fellow students are being mowed down.

The line of thought I see from some (and no disrespect is intended) is along the following -

People are stupid when it comes to an election.

when in reality

People are treated like they are stupid when it comes to elections.

If an incident occurs, the first responders are not the first people involved.. It will be school resource officers (if they have them), administrators, teachers and.....

students.

Why in the world would we not include them in a drill where the information they receive could very well save their lives?

The mindset of restricting guns will result in a decrease in school shootings is insane. That type of gun control argument fails as it does not take into account that criminals are criminals because they break the law. All the restrictions on guns does nothing except placing the law abiding citizen at a disadvantage.

The first line of defense is going to be the person immediately involved, not law enforcement.


People drink and drive....

why is there not a push to outlaw motor vehicles? After all its the vehicle itself that is the weapon.

Oh.. wait... nevermind...

A motor vehicle does not kill people, the actions of the person in control does.
Guns do not kill people, the person pulling the trigger does.

reply to post by Xcathdra

What happens if they are outside of their class when something starts?
What exactly do students do when a teacher is shot and killed, or fellow students are being mowed down.

Please for the love of humanity, tell me you aren't suggesting a proper
line of procedure and student protocols to be followed in event of what
is becoming our daily police state incursion enough already?

Xcathdra
reply to post by 3mperorConstantinE

 

Should students be involved? Absolutely.

Then we will have to agree to disagree on that.
Schools are for learning, not for interacting with the damned police, of which whom they'll see plenty of later on, thanks.

Xcathdra
What happens if they are outside of their class when something starts?
What exactly do students do when a teacher is shot and killed, or fellow students are being mowed down.


Why in the world would we not include them in a drill where the information they receive could very well save their lives?

For the same reason why we don't waste time and $$$ training kids in Louisiana to defend against crocodile attacks.
It could save their lives, but realistically it won't save their lives.

FACT: 99.99999% of children will get through school just fine without being involved in an active shooter situation.

As I wrote earlier:

Doing drills based on a false perception is essentially a manifestation of emotionally-biased thinking; ergo, not logic

There's a word that comes to mind when seeing that these types of "live action" drills are being "performed" in our nation's schools, and that word is: politicization.

randyvs
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

What happens if they are outside of their class when something starts?
What exactly do students do when a teacher is shot and killed, or fellow students are being mowed down.

Please for the love of humanity, tell me you aren't suggesting a proper
line of procedure and student protocols to be followed in event of what
is becoming our daily police state incursion enough already?

What I am suggesting is the ability to give an edge to students in the event of something horrific.

I don't see people complaining about fire drills...
I don't see people complaining about Tornado drills...
I don't see people complaining about earthquake drills...
I don't see people complaining about students learning CPR...

Simply ignoring a possibility with the logic of it will never happen here is a set up for failure.

As for the comment about police state incursion - please explain that comment with what we are discussing.

Contrary to popular belief when kids are at school they fall under the legal term "in loco parentis".

3mperorConstantinE
Then we will have to agree to disagree on that.
Schools are for learning, not for interacting with the damned police, of which whom they'll see plenty of later on, thanks.

Its not a demand when the school sets it up. Its not a demand when students volunteer to participate, as the op article states. Its ok to teach students unless it involves something that might be useful with the hopes it never happens. As I stated in my above post, we teach students CPR. The chances of them using that skill is slim to none, just as an active shooter. However, if it does happen the students who have gone thru those drills might retain knowledge that will allow them to survive the encounter where as students who aren't might not survive.

Why would we not do all we can to limit loss of life?

I am going to assume your argument is based on some dislike for law enforcement?

3mperorConstantinE
For the same reason why we don't waste time and $$$ training kids in Louisiana to defend against crocodile attacks.
It could save their lives, but realistically it won't save their lives.

You do understand that education in this country is a state and local requirement and not one big federal program right?
How are you coming to your conclusion that it would not help?

3mperorConstantinE

FACT: 99.99999% of children will get through school just fine without being involved in an active shooter situation.

Fact - you have absolutely no way of supporting that statement as fact. Simply using the word fact does not make it so.
Secondly, the it will never happen here mentality is a serious issue that usually bites us in the ass after the fact.

3mperorConstantinE
As I wrote earlier:

Doing drills based on a false perception is essentially a manifestation of emotionally-biased thinking; ergo, not logic
There's a word that comes to mind when seeing that these types of "live action" drills are being "performed" in our nation's schools, and that word is: politicization.

The false perception is the mindset that anything law enforcement / government related is somehow connected to some super secret plot against society. That perception is just as dangerous and extremely ignorant.

Its not a good idea for people to bury their heads in the sand and take a position against a training scenario simply because the person has issues with government / law enforcement.

Think before you respond on this one because your posts to date in this thread very much relay your personal opinion towards law enforcement, which seems to be getting in the way of the benefits of training scenarios.

In the event some disaster occurs, regardless of what it is, the first group of people to deal with it will be teachers / students when it comes to school environment.

Contrary to popular belief law enforcement cannot be every where at once.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst and educate in between.

reply to post by Daedalus

How? are criminals, and other unsavory types suddenly going to turn them all in? or perhaps a new law will cause them to magically forget where they left them, or how to use them?

But its never the career criminals that go crazy and shoot up schools and theaters full of people. Its always so called responsible gun owners that just lose the plot one day.

It always amazes me that the pro gun people come up with the argument that if we cant stop all violent crime at the same time the we shouldn't try to stop innocent children and people from being shot to death. With that way of thinking maybe we shouldn't tackle any crime at all.

Xcathdra



Why would we not do all we can to limit loss of life?

I am going to assume your argument is based on some dislike for law enforcement?



The false perception is the mindset that anything law enforcement / government related is somehow connected to some super secret plot against society. That perception is just as dangerous and extremely ignorant.


Its not a good idea for people to bury their heads in the sand and take a position against a training scenario simply because the person has issues with government / law enforcement.


In the event some disaster occurs, regardless of what it is, the first group of people to deal with it will be teachers / students when it comes to school environment.


Hope for the best, prepare for the worst and educate in between.

Bump!

reply to post by PhoenixOD

violent crime at the same time the we shouldn't try to stop innocent children and people from being shot to death.

No that's cool if you think it's neccessary knock yourself out.
But first things first. The silly believers as I refer to those that blindly
believe that kids died at Sandy Hook, have to understand that there is a whole
population of people who don't believe that. And for damn good reasons that
no one has any answers for. You can't just divide yourself from them and write
them off as nut jobs. Because the only thing that really has to happen, is obvious.
Just run a drill like this one and pass it off to the public as a real event.
Not to far fetched if you ask me. And what I would say to all silly believers is this.
Who should I trust more than you people? You are obviously the intended targets
of this unprecedented new standard of deeption that I believe is being practiced?

randyvs
reply to post by PhoenixOD

 

violent crime at the same time the we shouldn't try to stop innocent children and people from being shot to death.

The silly believers as I refer to those that blindly
believe that kids died at Sandy Hook, have to understand that there is a whole
population of people who don't believe that. And for damn good reasons that
no one has any answers for.

Whoa! Sounds crazy, but this is the first and only time I have ever heard that someone or anyone, does not believe children died at Sandy Hook. Can you provide some info for me so I can chek this out? A link or something?

reply to post by StarlightNine


I did a search exaustive on something that just came to my mind.
I decided to find out which contractor was employed to clean up
Sandy Hook. Start there. Newtown police dept. should have the
name and it should be unoffensive public knowledge ready
available for the asking. I found nothing and I could not get an
answer. I did find someone else who had been looking for the same thing tho. Now it seems they have several up on the web, but
just a few weeks ago there were none.

reply to post by randyvs


2 things...

The conspiracy theory on Newton does stem from some awkward information.

In addition to your post I would add in the weird 911 tapes where a dispatcher can be heard stating is was a drill. She is then removed from the line by a supervisor.

As for the comment about contractors.

The Police wont have that information. You would need to check with the School District or city government (planning / zoning etc). If the new school is outside of city limits check with the county government.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I've thought about my argument plenty and contrary to the emotion-based logic you seem intent on using, I can absolutely back up what I am saying with hard facts and figures:
If you want exact numbers —>
55,200,000 children in K-12 in the U.S.
Now, using data from both the FBI and USDoJ, we can calculate the odds of any particular K-12 student being shot in a school shooting as:
1 in 7,800,000 (i.e. 0.000000128205128%)

=> Meaning that 99.99999987179487% of students will not be involved in an "active shooter in a school" scenario.

So, a figure of 99.9999999% would be FACT.