Advice to Colleges on Attacks--Fight Back

[Texian]

Is this encouraging or disgusting?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26410431/

Colleges confront shootings with training
Training program instructs professors and students to fight back

updated 6:19 p.m. ET Aug. 26, 2008

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Hundreds of colleges across the nation have purchased a training program that teaches professors and students not to take campus threats lying down but to fight back with any "improvised weapon," from a backpack to a laptop computer.

The program — which includes a video showing a gunman opening fire in a packed classroom — urges them to be ready to respond to a shooter by taking advantage of the inherent strength in numbers.

It reflects a new response at colleges and universities where grisly memories of the campus shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University are still fresh.

"Look at your environment through the lens of survival," said Domenick Brouillette, who administered the course at Metropolitan Community College, which serves more than 20,000 students. "Survivors prepare themselves both mentally and emotionally to do what it takes. It might involve life-threatening risk. You may do something you never thought you were capable of doing."

Nearly 300 professors at Metropolitan Community College were shown the video as part of a training exercise before the first day of classes on this downtown campus. The training, produced by the Center for Personal Protection and Safety, a for-profit firm based in Spokane, Wash., is also available for the school's students.

'Survival mindset'

The training drills teachers and students in a "survival mindset," said Randy Spivey, a former U.S. Department of Defense hostage negotiator who is executive director of the center. The center's roster includes retired FBI agents and others with federal law enforcement experience.


"There are two extremes. On the one hand is paranoia, and on the other is oblivion," he said. "We're just trying to get people to keep this on their radar."

The training discourages cowering in a corner or huddling together in fear, Brouillette emphasized at the Kansas City session.

Instead, Metropolitan Community College faculty members were taught to be aware of their surroundings and to think of common classroom objects Å\ such as laptops and backpacks Å\ as "improvised weapons."

The program has been bought by nearly 500 colleges, which tailor the company's safety messages--- laid out in instructional videos and other training guides---to craft localized violence prevention programs. Spivey expects that by year's end that number will have grown to about 1,000 schools.

Schools may provide the training to students as well as staff, as at Metropolitan, or limit it to instructors or security personnel.

Campus safety experts interviewed by The Associated Press said they are not aware of any similar survival training courses marketed specifically to college campuses.

"It's a dark subject," Brouillette said. "But we can't say 'It's never going to happen again.' It's 'When is it going to happen?' And we have to be prepared to survive that."

Some troubled by approach

The sort of aggressive survival response cited by Brouillette troubles school violence researcher Loren Coleman, a retired University of Southern Maine professor.

Showing students violent images of school shootings could trigger post-traumatic stress or other reactions that resident advisers, graduate assistants and similarly untrained workers would be unequipped to handle, Coleman said.

And the techniques shown in instructional videos such as "Shots Fired" could provide inspiration for troubled students considering their own acts of violence, Coleman suggested.

"You more or less are giving them a blueprint for how to avoid law enforcement," he said.


At the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, officials are looking for ways to incorporate the training as part of the school's "Alert Carolina" program. Campus police chief Jeff McCracken said the school may offer hands-on training to students and faculty, or simply post a link on the university Web site.

Despite the relative rarity of deadly violence on campus, colleges can no longer assume that they are immune from such problems, McCracken said.

"I do think it's important that we talk to our folks and give them some guidance on how to protect themselves and others," he said. "It's not something that 10 years ago we thought we'd be talking about. But unfortunately, it's something we need to do now."

Todd Bowdish, a Metropolitan Community College life sciences professor who participated in the recent training session, agreed that today's classroom climate requires extreme caution.

"It's a really basic thing," Bowdish said. "We have drills for fires and tornadoes. This is just another tool for the toolbox."

[brianko]

The scariest part?

The training drills teachers and students in a "survival mindset," said Randy Spivey, a former U.S. Department of Defense hostage negotiator who is executive director of the center. The center's roster includes retired FBI agents and others with federal law enforcement experience.

So these so-called "experienced" ex-LEOs are calling for the blocking of bullets with fists and backpacks?

This is beyond stupid. And it definitely doesn't reflect well on the LE community either.

[boomerang]

Even if all you have is improvised weapons, "Let's Roll!" is a better philosophy than "Let's roll over and play dead."

[Xander]

Is this encouraging or disgusting?

It's encouraging. Yes, it's a tentative baby step, but it's a baby step in the right direction as more folks are realizing that they're responsible for their own self-defense, and rejecting the hide-and-wait-for-the-cavalry philosophy as a failure. As a society, the more comfortable we become with the understanding and acceptance that life is risky, that our next breaths aren't guaranteed, and that actively fighting to preserve life is in fact a better strategy than leaving the decision in the hands of one who would do us harm, the more willing we will be to pragmatically consider the most effective means for protecting ourselves. It is then that as a society we will be comfortable with carrying purpose-built weapons wherever we may find harm, instead of simply allowing that we may have to improvise weapons after harm finds us.

[flintknapper]

The scariest part?

The training drills teachers and students in a "survival mindset," said Randy Spivey, a former U.S. Department of Defense hostage negotiator who is executive director of the center. The center's roster includes retired FBI agents and others with federal law enforcement experience.

So these so-called "experienced" ex-LEOs are calling for the blocking of bullets with fists and backpacks?

This is beyond stupid. And it definitely doesn't reflect well on the LE community either.

As usual...you have gotten it wrong.

What is being said is this:

not to take campus threats lying down but to fight back with any "improvised weapon," from a backpack to a laptop computer.

These items (along with numbers of students) could absolutely be effective weapons.

But lets "go with" your statement...just for fun. Take some old books or magazines (dry), stack them, shoot them with any common handgun cartridge and let me know what you find. A couple of thick books will stop many handgun cartridges (or absorb nearly all of it's energy). My daughter's backpack is probably 20" thick (virtually packed with books), not very likely you'd shoot through that.

So, the only challenge is to effectively use it as a shield. You also seem to scoff at the idea that "fists" can make good weapons. Have you ever actually been "hit" HARD by someone? And you think these folks are "beyond stupid".

[brianko]

I always see these types of proclamations as falling short of the real solution: Being armed. Anything less is simply a "feel good" measure designed to appeal to the unarmed citizen.

It's much like the recommendations that came from Virginia Tech: A lot of talk about "interfaces" and "infrastructures," but nothing that suggested the solution to the problem would be armed faculty, staff, and students.

To me, it's rather cut and dry: If you want to fight fire, bring on the flamethrowers, and leave the candles at home.

[flintknapper]

I always see these types of proclamations as falling short of the real solution: Being armed. Anything less is simply a "feel good" measure designed to appeal to the unarmed citizen.

It's much like the recommendations that came from Virginia Tech: A lot of talk about "interfaces" and "infrastructures," but nothing that suggested the solution to the problem would be armed faculty, staff, and students.

To me, it's rather cut and dry: If you want to fight fire, bring on the flamethrowers, and leave the candles at home.

I tend to agree.

And this was much better put than the first post.

[Excaliber]

Is this encouraging or disgusting?

It's encouraging. Yes, it's a tentative baby step, but it's a baby step in the right direction as more folks are realizing that they're responsible for their own self-defense, and rejecting the hide-and-wait-for-the-cavalry philosophy as a failure. As a society, the more comfortable we become with the understanding and acceptance that life is risky, that our next breaths aren't guaranteed, and that actively fighting to preserve life is in fact a better strategy than leaving the decision in the hands of one who would do us harm, the more willing we will be to pragmatically consider the most effective means for protecting ourselves. It is then that as a society we will be comfortable with carrying purpose-built weapons wherever we may find harm, instead of simply allowing that we may have to improvise weapons after harm finds us.

I agree.

When one thinks through all the implications of using hand to hand techniques and improvised weapons, one quickly comes to realize that these options require defenders to be really close and really exposed. The thoughtful man also realizes that, even though these may be the best options for unarmed potential victims in a really bad situation, there are likely to be serious and fatal casualties among the defenders before the situation is brought under control.

When this all sinks in, even anti firearms folks (who are no more anxious to die than the rest of us) start to reexamine their positions and find enlightenment when they are educated on how profoundly and positively a competent individual with a firearm can change both the incident dynamics and the survival rates - e.g. the New Life Church incident in Colorado Springs.

[Commander Cody]

Kind of like Big gun vs. small gun. Use what is available and do the best of your ability to use it right. Use what is available, and use it well.

[Purplehood]

This reminds me of the 9/11 flight over Pennsylvania where the passengers fought the hi-jackers...you have to fight with what you have.
Our society always seems to work like a pendulum. It swings from one extreme to another. In todays society we seem to have taught our youngsters how to be non-confrontational and generally not stand up for themselves (kids Soccer-leagues come to mind). Now that our High Schools and Colleges are seeing a rash of nutzoids come out of the woodwork (which actually has been happening since the dawn of mankind, but we have short memories as a general populace), the pendulum swings the other way.
I think that we should be teaching students how to TRY and cope with a situation like this. I don't expect every single student/teacher to carry a handgun for self-defense, but I would hope that they try to be proactive in taking measures that would discourage a would-be attacker from getting his/her jollies-off by massacring others.
It appears to me that this training is a step in the right direction, and helps change the mindset of society in general.

[anygunanywhere]

People must be responsible for their own safety and take whatever steps are necessary.

Anygunanywhere

[tallmike]

I think its a great step in the right direction. This 1 step did not get us where we need to be (armed) but this is academia finally coming to grips with the fact that 911 doesnt solve the problem fast enough and you have to act on your own behalf. Steps like this will eventually get us where we need to be because the next question from here is "if Im supposed to protect myself why cant I do it with a gun instead of a book?"

[Texian]

I did not want to answer my own question in the OP, but now I will. This is not by any means "disgusting." It is disappointing in that it does not admit of the wisdom of legally armed people to defend against school shootings, but it is a beginning. Actually it is a "sea change" in attitude toward deadly threats and certainly welcome even if very tardy in its arrival.

[mr.72]

AFAIK if you are a college student, prof or other employee, then you are stuck in a "gun free zone" no matter what.

Sure it's better to be armed. But you can't!

I have often marveled at how hundreds of people allowed a handful of guys armed with only box cutters to take over airplanes and fly them into skyscrapers in NY without putting up an effective fight. Now maybe they tried but you know what? 10 guys with box cutters are not a match for 150 people armed with laptops, handbags, fists and other improvised weapons. Maybe a couple of people get cut, maybe a couple get killed ,but thousands would be saved. It's just unimaginable to me.

Turning this backwards and looking from that angle, we often have discussions on this very forum about how skrewd you are if you face multiple assailants even if you are armed. Flip it around, and you have to figure that the armed bad guy facing dozens of assailants (would-be victims) stands no better chance of success than the lone victim of an attack who is armed against multiple assailants.

On a college campus, you have the choice of moving up the scale of force and also encountering legal risk:

1. go in armed with a gun, risk getting caught, arrested, etc. but improve your odds of making it out of a disaster alive. "judged by 12/carried by 6" argument. I would guess on most college campuses, you are guaranteed to find yourself judged by 12 in this case, and then get kicked out of school, so then your problem of being stuck in a gun-free zone goes away.
2. go in armed with whatever non-gun legal weapons are available. Knives, baseball bats, OC spray, etc. I don't understand why more college students don't use these tools to fight back. Victim mentality I guess. But this right now is the best legal solution
3. find yourself surprised when under attack and have to improvise weapons to fight back, as the article suggests. Books, laptop computers, and other hard 2+ lb items can be thrown at an attacker and will at LEAST take him off guard for a few seconds. Trust me, if you get hit in the face with a laptop computer, you will notice. Most of these things are 8 lb or more. Throw it like a frisbee and you will probably hit what you were aiming for. I bet someone taking a head shot from one of these is knocked out cold. Same goes for a myriad of other things that are sitting in any typical classroom or lab in a college.
3. hide under your desk and pray. This has zero chance of success

I really think it is mostly about your mentality.

I like the "Let's Roll vs. Let's Roll Over" point.

We have to fight back. I still shake my head over why people don't fight back. Is there no more fight left in Americans? Have we lost our edge? Do we really not value our own lives?

When are we going to quit teaching people to submit to violence and placate aggressors?

I guess maybe when we quit voting for Presidential candidates who condone submission to violence and placation of aggressors.

[Xander]

I really think it is mostly about your mentality.