Posted on 10/28/2009 6:13:12 AM PDT by grady
PLYMOUTH – Reports of a gunman walking across campus put Plymouth State University and the nearby Holderness School in a lockdown last night.
By 9:43 p.m., the lockdown was lifted after officials located and talked to the individual, who was not a student, and learned he was carrying a martial arts device that resembled a gun.
(Excerpt) Read more at unionleader.com ...
Even if it was confirmed to be a gun - so what? One would think that there would be some level of intermediate alert or caution before going to a lockdown. I guarantee that are many "men with guns" in the same location, legally, every day...no lockdown necessary.
Not necessarily true...
I was referring to the fact that no lockdown is necessary despite the common daily prevalence of guns in this neck of the woods. I acknowledge that that’s “not necessarily true” if circumstances so dictate. A simple report of man+gun, with nothing further, is not such a circumstance.
What a bunch of wussies we’ve become.
Lock the citizens in their cages for their own protection.
And there are people who think a revolution is coming. Ha.
Is the school campus a “gun-free zone” ? That might be the problem.
On the flip side, had it been a gun and some warning issued, but ignored; I would not like to be a one explaining to the parents why the school did not go into lock down.
This is one of those cases where it is better to be safe than sorry. Now if they throw the book at this guy, then I will defend his right to do what he did. It was not a gun or even an imitation one.
My concern is that this type of overreaction will invite people to ignore a legitimate threat. An unconfirmed report of something that appears to be benign and legal conduct might warrant letting students know to use caution while something suspicious is being investigated.
I think your fear of not wanting to explain the use of judgment is what leads to the instant lockdown, zero-tolerance mentality. We should be encouraging appropriate response levels, not panic mode "just in case."
We used to make Chinese stars in metal class, oh how times have changed.
By the way, is there a new PC term for a Chinese Star?
Absolutely. The nation is becoming more gutless... screaming in fear if someone even draws a picture of a gun. And it isn’t gonna change with that White House Weakling as an example to people.
No, not by law. I have no idea if PSU has a policy about it, but colleges are not off-limits by statute in NH.
Case in point: A driver with your kids stops at a stop sign. A car is close, coming from the other direction pretty fast. The driver has two choices.
1. Proceed to cross the road, because by law, he stopped and the other driver has too.
2. Use caution and wait until he/she KNOWS the driver has seen the Stop sign and is going to stop safely.
Common sense says wait and play it safe.
As for the comment “I think your fear of not wanting to explain the use of judgment is what leads to the instant lock down, zero-tolerance mentality.”
I will take exception to this: What do you know about the situation, were there armed security guard present, trained in swat team exercises?
I am not saying that the path they chose was the perfect one, but given the possible outcome, it worked.
Oh and I abhor the zero tolerance mentality
Better hide the vibrators and French ticklers.
LOL...I made a custom rifle stock in woodshop. The shop teacher told me I better bring the action in so we could make sure it was bedded properly!
Mr. A. was the archetype of the cool woodshop teacher, right down to his two missinger fingers.
PSU — When I read the headline I thought they were referring to Penn State University. Common problem when acronyms get used too much. Another pet-peeve is using ‘PA’ for Palestinian Authority. Probably works for most people that aren’t Pennsylvanians.
I was there. Plymouth, State Police and Grafton County Sheriff's deputies responded. I saw units responding from 20 miles away on my way home a full hour after the initial alert went out.
Word from local LEO is that the initial report was of a suspicious individual, possibly armed. As more students began receiving info that a lockdown was in effect, they began circulating more inaccurately exaggerated info to family and friends that a gunman was on campus.
Responding LEO never got panicked...the school and students did. That's why I think the lockdown promotes problems when the situation doesn't warrant it. The students appeared to be thinking "lockdown=shooter."
I respect your point about being cautious, but based on what I observed, the fear among the students was heightened by the lockdown response.
I have no idea what that might be. Guess I haven't watched enough kung fu movies.
It was on a university campus, where it’s presumably a violation of state law to carry a gun (an unConstitutional state law, since it’s a state university supported by federal and state tax dollars). The whole situation is absurd, but I can’t blame police for responding to a call from someone saying they think they saw someone violating the law, and notifying campus officials that they’re responding to this call. The school “lockdown” craze is a bizarre phenomenon, but it’s driven as much by the general insane state of liability law in this country, as by pathological hoplophobia.
They aren't locking us up for our protection, they are locking us up to control us, but if they said that, who would go into the cages?
Not true...see post 10.
It will take 40 years in reverse. We spent 40 years letting the schools teach our children to act like little socialist, false self-esteeming brats. Now we pay the piper.
It's not Obama's fault. It's not the teachers fault. It's not Bush's fault. It's ours.
And the indicators were much earlier before Obama.
When we let the fedgov burn out Waco...regardless of whether they were child molesters or whatever drug dealers...doesn't matter. The Federal government proved they had us under the boot that day.
It will take 40 years in reverse. We spent 40 years letting the schools teach our children to act like little socialist, false self-esteeming brats. Now we pay the piper.
It's not Obama's fault. It's not the teachers fault. It's not Bush's fault. It's ours.
And the indicators were much earlier before Obama.
When we let the fedgov burn out Waco...regardless of whether they were child molesters or whatever drug dealers...doesn't matter. The Federal government proved they had us under the boot that day.
Rightwing Nazi Republican Bladed Assault Missile.
It is prohibited by university rules, and therefore appropriate for police to respond.
http://www.plymouth.edu/stulife/handbook/pdf/policies.pdf
WEAPONS, FIREARMS, and EXPLOSIVES
This policy pertains to items that would generally be considered dangerous on a university campus
and/or illegal such as but not limited to:
Firearms; guns (pellet, air, paint ball, tranquilizer, stun, spear, dart); slingshots; switchblades; knives
with a blade longer than 4 inches; combat and martial art type weapons (metal knuckles,
throwing stars, clubs, metal swords); bows; arrows; explosive devices or substances (grenades,
bombs, fireworks, ammunition).
1. The possession of any item referenced above is not allowed on campus property except with
the expressed permission of the Chief of University Police.
2. Use of any item referenced above is not permitted on campus property.
3. Transfer or sale of any of the items referenced above is not permitted on campus property.
4. If a replica/toy version of any weapon will be used for an on-campus class presentation,
project, or activity, the faculty/staff member overseeing the event and University Police must
be alerted prior to the event occurring.
Authorized items may be stored in the University Police Office.
Exceptions to this policy include pocket knives, general tools, utensils, or items not designed as
weapons unless the object is used in a way that would be considered dangerous.
School policies are not laws, therefore, no law was broken. The school can enforce it's policy against students as they see fit based on the students' acceptance of that policy upon enrollment. However, with respect to non-students, all they can do is ask an individual to comply with the policy or leave. If the individual then refuses to leave, he is trespassing - at that point it becomes a law enforcement issue.
That being said, because there was a possibility that a weapon was involved, I take no issue with the school calling in LEO to look into it, just to stay safe. But I can't see the rationale of going into a full lockdown based on a report of what is otherwise lawful conduct, that may be in contravention of school policies.
The lockdown thing is a national phenomenon, and driven by liability concerns. It’s easier to declare a lockdown until information about a possible danger is checked out, than to face dozens of lawsuits later after the danger turns out to be real and lots of people are hurt or killed. I’m sure the lockdown was also required by the school’s policies. It’s crazy, but until we 1) drastically change our liability laws, and 2) make it legal once again for schools and colleges (and every other organization) to “discriminate” against students and employees who are obviously mentally ill, it isn’t going to change. The Virginia Tech shooter, and many of the school and college shooters before him, obviously didn’t belong in school, but officials were powerless to remove him.
Cool, I guess I missed you being there.
No problem. I totally value and respect your opinion too. I will stand by your account.
Thanks
But it’s not fair to blame the individuals who are carrying out the policies, or even the administrators/management who are making the policies. The people carrying out the policies are just people who don’t want to get fired from the jobs they need to support themselves and their families. And the people making the policies are relying on sound information from legal experts as to what the actual results can be if they don’t adopt these policies. In many cases, the policies are being adopted at the insistence of insurers, who will simply cancel policies if the organizations in question don’t adopt the policies that the insurers’ legal experts have determine are necessary in order to minimize liability risk. Again, the insurers aren’t at fault, because they certainly aren’t responsible for the insane judgements awarded by courts and juries, against parties who had no direct part in causing the harm in question. We need some wholesale changes in the elga structure, which can probably only be accomplished by one or more sweeping Supreme Court decisions.
Do you think the majority of them would support the reforms you're talking about, or would they lobby tooth and nail against them, lest they become responsible for the consequences of their decisions, whether they be right or wrong?
I'm afraid all I see are administrators defending the non-discretionary policies that force their actions, not complaining about them.
I think the necessary political support for such reforms will ultimately come from the average people who end up paying for them. There’s only so much of the insane liability awards that can be avoided by these nutty policies. An awful lot end up getting awarded and paid anyway, not just by institutions, but by individuals (the latter often being bankrupted by inability to pay the judgements). And insurance rates for everyone — including homeowners and personal auto policies — are driven up by the current legal framework of liability law.
True. But what are your thoughts on the administrators and policy makers? Do they want to be free to use their noggins and succeed/fail on the wisdom of their decisions, or do they want the protective cocoon of non-discretion?
I've seen little reason to believe it's the former.
The types of personalities that are prevalent in the ranks of administrators and policy-makers, especially of large organizations, are largely the result of the “cocoon of non-discretion”. Though not just where liability is concerned. Independent decision-making is largely absent from all large organizations, for general business reasons, as well as liability reasons. Risk-takers work elsewhere. This is one of the reasons that the impetus for change in liability law will need to come more from the rank-and-file citizens.
Just this week an architectural grad. student at Arizona State University brought a handgun on campus and after talking to a professor in his department, the student shot himself right there in the professor's office. This turned out as well as could be expected. Only the shooter was killed. But, had he decided to take some faculty with him, they were guaranteed to be disarmed by university policy. It would have been like shooting fish in a barrel (cf. Virginia Tech).
Which is better? Expulsion/firing? Or having a fighting chance?
Who is this us that you speak of. It surely does not include me, and I doubt if it includes you either. So who is us?
So, what was it? No pictures?
Probably a stick of some sort. Maybe even a stick painted evil black. (I’m thinking baton-type thingy).
AND, What is the liability of a school that locks up their students who are then killed by a nutjob? I would think that actively removing their ability to save themselves would INCREASE their liability.
No kidding huh.. a nation of scared little sheep that need to be locked down when something bad happens.. instead of .. oh I don’t know.. GETTING THE HECK out of the area.
I will never respect lock-downs.. God help the person who tells me I am “locked down” in the same place where there is shooting going on or a man with a gun.. lol
It was cold and wet and I had my flags wrapped in green plastic. Some Ahole, as I walked by City Hall reported a man with a rifle, me, I was surrounded by cops with guns pointed.
It was an anus tighting event as the slides hit home, Portland Sucks, there are people in York County who will be redeemed but not many.
maybe a kubatan key chain.
No law was broken. If the (non) gun carrier was detained, terry stopped, ID’d or otherwise seized then he should file a section 1983 lawsuit against the school and the PD.
Legally the police can not do anything but ask to speak with him, which he could refuse, because they don’t have any RAS of a crime being commited.
or items not designed as
weapons unless the object is used in a way that would be considered dangerous.
Guess that means I’ll leave the rock in a sock at home then.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.