Private University LEOs

[Excaliber]

In the case of the Va Tech shooter armed students and professors makes more sense than militarized cops who show up after the fact.

Absolutely right! These folks are the first responders and because of absurd state laws, they unarmed first responders. That's a recipe for disaster.

It amazes me that anti-gunners and some COPs can argue for full auto weapons on a school campus, yet argue that an adult student, teacher or professor with a handgun creates too large of a risk of collateral damage. When an argument is so devoid of any connection to reality, it is no longer a rationale for a position, it's a lie.

Chas.

I think it makes sence, a little anyway. A police officer wants to go into a shooting situation with full knowledge the bad person is the only person with a firearm. They don't want the waters muddied by other people having a firearm so they won't have to think about their response. Look at most of the targets they use. If it has a gun you shoot, not is the target pointing the gun. If it doesn't have a gun don't shoot. In a possible shooting situation they don't want to have think.

I disagree.

No responsible agency trains its officers to shoot anyone with a gun because guns are used by criminals, law abiding citizens, and LEO's. There are no shortcuts to using good judgment.

Letting lots of people get killed during the first 5 - 10 minutes of an incident so the responding officers won't be confused instead of allowing someone who is already on the scene solve the problem immediately and make the scene safe before officers can arrive doesn't make any sense at all.

[MeMelYup]

In the case of the Va Tech shooter armed students and professors makes more sense than militarized cops who show up after the fact.

Absolutely right! These folks are the first responders and because of absurd state laws, they unarmed first responders. That's a recipe for disaster.

It amazes me that anti-gunners and some COPs can argue for full auto weapons on a school campus, yet argue that an adult student, teacher or professor with a handgun creates too large of a risk of collateral damage. When an argument is so devoid of any connection to reality, it is no longer a rationale for a position, it's a lie.

Chas.

I think it makes sence, a little anyway. A police officer wants to go into a shooting situation with full knowledge the bad person is the only person with a firearm. They don't want the waters muddied by other people having a firearm so they won't have to think about their response. Look at most of the targets they use. If it has a gun you shoot, not is the target pointing the gun. If it doesn't have a gun don't shoot. In a possible shooting situation they don't want to have think.

I disagree.

No responsible agency trains its officers to shoot anyone with a gun because guns are used by criminals, law abiding citizens, and LEO's. There are no shortcuts to using good judgment.

Letting lots of people get killed during the first 5 - 10 minutes of an incident so the responding officers won't be confused instead of allowing someone who is already on the scene solve the problem immediately and make the scene safe before officers can arrive doesn't make any sense at all.

Look at the police responses to Newtown, and most other school/university shootings. How long were the police on site setting up before they entered the site? How many of the police organizations say that teachers and faculty should not be armed so there is no problem identifying the shooter? Saying that they don't want to shoot the wrong person because the person had a firearm.

[ronin]

In the case of the Va Tech shooter armed students and professors makes more sense than militarized cops who show up after the fact.

Absolutely right! These folks are the first responders and because of absurd state laws, they unarmed first responders. That's a recipe for disaster.

It amazes me that anti-gunners and some COPs can argue for full auto weapons on a school campus, yet argue that an adult student, teacher or professor with a handgun creates too large of a risk of collateral damage. When an argument is so devoid of any connection to reality, it is no longer a rationale for a position, it's a lie.

Chas.

Exactly right. If campus police need machineguns then students and faculty really need machineguns, because when seconds count it's the students and faculty who are there right now instead of some time later.

[EEllis]

I don't know about his school but you only have to look at the UT sniper and the Va tech shooting to think that something besides sidearms might be a good idea for cops at a school public or private.

Full auto weapons aren't a good match for either of those scenarios.

Full auto weapons are useful in battle against a large group of attacking enemy, or to lay down a large volume of covering fire. A semi-auto AR, for example, is just as useful as an M-16 (if not more useful) for any ordinary scenario against a handful of attackers. I say "if not more" because aimed fire is more effective than a "spray and pray" approach anyway.

Just my opinion, but unless we are talking platoon-size engagements , I see very little use for full auto weapons for law enforcement, including anti-terrorist action.

I will agree that in those 2 particular situations that might be the case, although an argument could definitely be made for covering fire on the sniper situation, but you can look to the Batman shootings to see where burst fire could be of use. I mean if you don't want to find something you wont but I find it had to believe that anyone can't see some utility in first responders having access to greater firepower. Now that doesn't mean that other considerations outweigh those benefits but lets not pretend they don't exist.

[EEllis]

Neither of your examples shows an instance of the police being "outgunned". I didn't say they should be limited to sidearms only...regular patrol units usually have a rifle and shotgun available in the vehicle. I just think that full auto weapons on campus are totally uncalled for, and pose much more danger to the students and faculty from "friendly fire".

Well there are far more than just those two to pick from and I don't believe I used the word outgunned. Also the weapons available differ wildly between depts. Third while I agree there is limited need for full auto spray and pray type of tactics anywhere I will still advocate the utility in having the ability to fire 2 or three shot bursts even on a campus. I don't see how being on a collage campus so dramatically changes things from any other location. Isn't that why people here are clamoring for campus carry?

[EEllis]

In the case of the Va Tech shooter armed students and professors makes more sense than militarized cops who show up after the fact.

Absolutely right! These folks are the first responders and because of absurd state laws, they unarmed first responders. That's a recipe for disaster.

It amazes me that anti-gunners and some COPs can argue for full auto weapons on a school campus, yet argue that an adult student, teacher or professor with a handgun creates too large of a risk of collateral damage. When an argument is so devoid of any connection to reality, it is no longer a rationale for a position, it's a lie.

Chas.

How about someone who is pro campus carry and is just not concerned if a school with a sizable force, I'm not talking a 3 to 9 man force but 20 -30+ officers, has a couple of auto rifles in the armory or has a unit or two with patrol rifles that happen to have burst capabilities? Honestly I can't see auto rifles being a bigger risk on campus that in an apartment complex or downtown would be.

[mojo84]

In the case of the Va Tech shooter armed students and professors makes more sense than militarized cops who show up after the fact.

Absolutely right! These folks are the first responders and because of absurd state laws, they unarmed first responders. That's a recipe for disaster.

It amazes me that anti-gunners and some COPs can argue for full auto weapons on a school campus, yet argue that an adult student, teacher or professor with a handgun creates too large of a risk of collateral damage. When an argument is so devoid of any connection to reality, it is no longer a rationale for a position, it's a lie.

Chas.

I think it makes sence, a little anyway. A police officer wants to go into a shooting situation with full knowledge the bad person is the only person with a firearm. They don't want the waters muddied by other people having a firearm so they won't have to think about their response. Look at most of the targets they use. If it has a gun you shoot, not is the target pointing the gun. If it doesn't have a gun don't shoot. In a possible shooting situation they don't want to have think.

I disagree.

No responsible agency trains its officers to shoot anyone with a gun because guns are used by criminals, law abiding citizens, and LEO's. There are no shortcuts to using good judgment.

Letting lots of people get killed during the first 5 - 10 minutes of an incident so the responding officers won't be confused instead of allowing someone who is already on the scene solve the problem immediately and make the scene safe before officers can arrive doesn't make any sense at all.

Look at the police responses to Newtown, and most other school/university shootings. How long were the police on site setting up before they entered the site? How many of the police organizations say that teachers and faculty should not be armed so there is no problem identifying the shooter? Saying that they don't want to shoot the wrong person because the person had a firearm.

That's much of the problem, they stood outside getting ready to go in.

[nightmare69]

In the case of the Va Tech shooter armed students and professors makes more sense than militarized cops who show up after the fact.

Absolutely right! These folks are the first responders and because of absurd state laws, they unarmed first responders. That's a recipe for disaster.

It amazes me that anti-gunners and some COPs can argue for full auto weapons on a school campus, yet argue that an adult student, teacher or professor with a handgun creates too large of a risk of collateral damage. When an argument is so devoid of any connection to reality, it is no longer a rationale for a position, it's a lie.

Chas.

I think it makes sence, a little anyway. A police officer wants to go into a shooting situation with full knowledge the bad person is the only person with a firearm. They don't want the waters muddied by other people having a firearm so they won't have to think about their response. Look at most of the targets they use. If it has a gun you shoot, not is the target pointing the gun. If it doesn't have a gun don't shoot. In a possible shooting situation they don't want to have think.

I disagree.

No responsible agency trains its officers to shoot anyone with a gun because guns are used by criminals, law abiding citizens, and LEO's. There are no shortcuts to using good judgment.

Letting lots of people get killed during the first 5 - 10 minutes of an incident so the responding officers won't be confused instead of allowing someone who is already on the scene solve the problem immediately and make the scene safe before officers can arrive doesn't make any sense at all.

Look at the police responses to Newtown, and most other school/university shootings. How long were the police on site setting up before they entered the site? How many of the police organizations say that teachers and faculty should not be armed so there is no problem identifying the shooter? Saying that they don't want to shoot the wrong person because the person had a firearm.

That's much of the problem, they stood outside getting ready to go in.

Since ALERRT training was introduced in 2004 we are trained to go in upon arrival UNLESS there is another officer right around the corner. At least 2 officers go in at a time and no more than 5 but if you get there and no other officers near by, you go in alone.

[youtube][/youtube]

We will never get full auto assault rifles at the University. Yeah it would be a blast out at the range training on some M4s but its not going to happen.

I currently in a 2 day rifle course getting trained by the local LE SWAT sniper, Im loving this BTW. I meet an officer from Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General who is also taking this course today.

[mojo84]

Everybody wants to have their own police department.

The Texas board of foot doctors wanted its own police department. But that wasn't such a good idea, according to Hemant Makin, director of the Texas State Board of Podiatric Examiners.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =113805196" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I still believe the issues can be investigated and then turned over to the police or FBI to go make the arrest. Schools can contract with the city police department for dedicated officers to work the schools. This would work for both private and public schools.

[nightmare69]

Our students with CHLs can only have the firearm in their personal vehicle unfortunately. If I made the rules then the gun goes where the license holder goes. Unless campus carry passes it will be a F/3 if a student is caught with a firearm anywhere on university property other than the students own personal vehicle.

[mojo84]

Our students with CHLs can only have the firearm in their personal vehicle unfortunately. If I made the rules then the gun goes where the license holder goes. Unless campus carry passes it will be a F/3 if a student is caught with a firearm anywhere on university property other than the students own personal vehicle.

What's an F/3?

[nightmare69]

Our students with CHLs can only have the firearm in their personal vehicle unfortunately. If I made the rules then the gun goes where the license holder goes. Unless campus carry passes it will be a F/3 if a student is caught with a firearm anywhere on university property other than the students own personal vehicle.

What about students, 18+, without CHL's? Can they keep them in their cars?

No, the universities weapons policy is cut and dry, no weapons of any type. Now, would I bust some student who went deer hunting and had his rifle in the truck? Nope, I would just tell him get it off campus ASAP before any of my bosses find out.

F/3 is a 3rd degree Felony, 2-10 years in prison, 10,000 fine if my memory serves me correct.

[mojo84]

Our students with CHLs can only have the firearm in their personal vehicle unfortunately. If I made the rules then the gun goes where the license holder goes. Unless campus carry passes it will be a F/3 if a student is caught with a firearm anywhere on university property other than the students own personal vehicle.

What about students, 18+, without CHL's? Can they keep them in their cars?

No, the universities weapons policy is cut and dry, no weapons of any type. Now, would I bust some student who went deer hunting and had his rifle in the truck? Nope, I would just tell him get it off campus ASAP before any of my bosses find out.

F/3 is a 3rd degree Felony, 2-10 years in prison, 10,000 fine if my memory serves me correct.

Yeah, I answered my own question. It came to me about the time I hit send. I appreciate your discretion in dealing with it.

[mojo84]

Our students with CHLs can only have the firearm in their personal vehicle unfortunately. If I made the rules then the gun goes where the license holder goes. Unless campus carry passes it will be a F/3 if a student is caught with a firearm anywhere on university property other than the students own personal vehicle.

What about students, 18+, without CHL's? Can they keep them in their cars?

No, the universities weapons policy is cut and dry, no weapons of any type. Now, would I bust some student who went deer hunting and had his rifle in the truck? Nope, I would just tell him get it off campus ASAP before any of my bosses find out.

F/3 is a 3rd degree Felony, 2-10 years in prison, 10,000 fine if my memory serves me correct.

OK. I must need coffee. I was thinking that was a school code for expulsion or something. Better get off here and go get some caffeine.

[talltex]

Just thinking about campus police being armed with full auto weapons makes me cringe ( I hope your Chief resists that possibility). I don't know what private school you are working at, but has there EVER been an incident on campus that would have justified the campus police being equipped with full auto assault rifles? Is there any existing example of the criminals dealt with on campus, having a shootout with officers, where the criminals had superior firepower? I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, but it gets really old hearing that "we are being outgunned by the criminals" line used as justification for needing miltary grade weaponry. In my experience, that is an extremely rare occurence, and if there has been such a situation occur at your campus, I'd really like to read about it.

I don't know about his school but you only have to look at the UT sniper and the Va tech shooting to think that something besides sidearms might be a good idea for cops at a school public or private. With the current thinking on spree shootings being that you want to confront them as soon as possible I would want school cops to have access to weapons that make such a response reasonable if there is a heavily armed shooter on campus. Baylor, a private university, has what 16,000+ students. They cover a big area with lots of people so if they end up being a first responder I want them able to do the job. Now of course unlike Nightmares situation every Baylor University cop is also a reserve county cop but they still cannot work off campus extra jobs.

I used the word "outgunned"...you responded with the Whitman and Virginia Tech as examples.