Posted on 05/11/2019 1:07:17 PM PDT by DoodleBob
When someone opens fire at a school, should students intervene?
It's a question being raised after two shootings in which students lost their lives after choosing to take action. Kendrick Castillo, 18, died in Tuesday's shooting at STEM School Highlands Ranch outside Denver. He was shot and killed when he tackled one of the shooters, giving other students a chance to flee.
Last week 21-year-old University of North Carolina Charlotte student Riley Howell met the same fate when he knocked a campus shooter off his feet.
"When we're talking about school shooters, almost always, if anybody's going to get shot, it's the intervener. That's why we put police officers in Kevlar vests," says Frank Zimring, a professor of law and criminal justice studies at the University of California Berkeley.
In the Colorado and North Carolina shootings, Zimring says each intervention likely saved lives.
One of the Colorado students who charged the Highlands Ranch shooter along with Castillo said at a press conference he had "no hesitation" about jumping into action to try to thwart the attack. Zimring, who studies gun violence and mass shootings, says teenage "machismo or heroic ambition" likely played a role in that decision. And while that bravery is admirable, Zimring says intervention is always the least-preferable option.
"From an authority or risk-management standpoint, it is only when contacts with authorities who are armed and trained, or escape or hiding, is not possible, when it really becomes a situation where intervention might be necessary," he tells Here & Now's Peter O'Dowd.
(Excerpt) Read more at wbur.org ...
Non-intervention didn’t work out well for the Jews ... just saying.
No, the adults present and responsible for school children ought to draw their concealed firearms and shoot the bastard dead....
Ooops, did I say .. Draw their firearms and shoot..., and you thought I was gonna apologize for the B word!
Lt.
Most will, in order: Run, 70%, Hide 24.9% Fight .1%.
Thank God for the .1%
Please report immediately to your nearest indoctrination...er...I mean reeducation center.
And in high school..thats just fine with me.
I've long thought maybe there is a problem with this - as the killer gets the same training. How do we counter that?
Near Ambush, violently charge the attacker. It’s standard immediate action
Perfectly started Mrs Don-o. You may drop the microphone
So which is it, aspirant or Tylenol?
It is so much better when a shooter(s) can unload all of his rounds into unarmed students lined up against a wall, and, he is arrested after the carnage. Besides, UpChuckie looks and sounds so much better when there are dead students around.
In aquatic lifesaving, if someone is drowning there are four levels of rescue: reach, throw, row, go. Swimming out to save the person could result in your own death. A measured approach is required.
In all of those cases, however, the lifeguard is not advised to sit on their hands. You DO YOUR JOB.
There are PLENTY of students who I would NOT recommend that they rush the shooter. They may be infirm, not of sound mind, and they may scream something like "leave everyone in the broom closet alone!"
To be sure, this article generally pushed a victim mentality. And in the end it is a personal choice. If someone comes in to my home they're dead meat. Candidly, I don't know what I'd do if I was in a mall and someone opened fire, especially with Mrs DoodleBob and youngsters dependent upon me. Maybe I'd rise to the occasion and maybe I'd seek cover. That said, to recommend that NOBODY rush the shooter is wreckless.
Forget a reasoned response.
This fellow is simply stupid.
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.