TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.local2544.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

06-20-12 In another nauseating series of "Virtual Learning Center" brainwashing courses that Border Patrol agents are forced to sit behind a computer for hours and endure, we are now taught in an "Active Shooter" course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to "run away" and "hide". If we are cornered by such a shooter we are to (only as a last resort) become "aggressive" and "throw things" at him or her. We are then advised to "call law enforcement" and wait for their arrival (presumably, while more innocent victims are slaughtered). Shooting incidents cited in the course are Columbine, the Giffords shooting and the Virginia Tech shooting.

You can't make this up. Nobody would believe you.

This is from the Border Patrol Union's website, so I assume it's factual.

Not surprising. This is even going on in the military. The CBT (computer based training) that came out after the Fort Hood shooting tells you to lock yourself in a room and hide. Only if you are discovered should you attempt to resist. This is the society that we live in today.

Yep, took an "Active Shooter" CBT from FEMA as required and hide and wait. (I am not at FEMA, the CBT was produced by them).

When we have taught all armed responders (the BP are armed) to run and hide, Armageddon will be upon us. Then let the killin' begin. When people who are supposed to be the first line of defense are no longer allowed to perform that role, people are going to start taking matters into their own hands.

AndyC wrote:

baldeagle wrote:We are then advised to "call law enforcement" and wait for their arrival (presumably, while more innocent victims are slaughtered).

"Call law enforcement, quick!"

"Ummmm.... aren't we law enforcement?!?"

Beat me to it again Quick Draw. My thoughts exactly!

donkey wrote:Not surprising. This is even going on in the military. The CBT (computer based training) that came out after the Fort Hood shooting tells you to lock yourself in a room and hide. Only if you are discovered should you attempt to resist. This is the society that we live in today.

Which service put out that CBT? No one on an Air Force Base is armed except the Security Forces and OSI, pretty much, so I could see them having a CBT like that. Not saying I agree with it, but I can see it...

Heartland Patriot wrote:

donkey wrote:Not surprising. This is even going on in the military. The CBT (computer based training) that came out after the Fort Hood shooting tells you to lock yourself in a room and hide. Only if you are discovered should you attempt to resist. This is the society that we live in today.

Which service put out that CBT? No one on an Air Force Base is armed except the Security Forces and OSI, pretty much, so I could see them having a CBT like that. Not saying I agree with it, but I can see it...

I think the idea of disarming military men and women is the most absurd policy one could possibly dream up.

Heartland Patriot wrote:
Which service put out that CBT? No one on an Air Force Base is armed except the Security Forces and OSI, pretty much, so I could see them having a CBT like that. Not saying I agree with it, but I can see it...

It was an Air Force CBT. The best part of it was being sent to an active shoot response class and then being required to sit down and do that CBT that told us to do the exact opposite of what we learned in the class.

You are correct that generally only Security Forces and OSI are armed on AFBs, but that changes at deployed locations where most personnel are armed. The lack of useful training can have severe repercussions such as in the case of the Afghan pilot who opened fired on base in Afghanistan and killed nine Americans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat ... story.html

The Air Force is very lucky that Captain Nylander did the opposite of what the official USAF CBT trained him to do or more Americans would have been killed that day.

donkey wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:
Which service put out that CBT? No one on an Air Force Base is armed except the Security Forces and OSI, pretty much, so I could see them having a CBT like that. Not saying I agree with it, but I can see it...

It was an Air Force CBT. The best part of it was being sent to an active shoot response class and then being required to sit down and do that CBT that told us to do the exact opposite of what we learned in the class.

You are correct that generally only Security Forces and OSI are armed on AFBs, but that changes at deployed locations where most personnel are armed. The lack of useful training can have severe repercussions such as in the case of the Afghan pilot who opened fired on base in Afghanistan and killed nine Americans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat ... story.html

The Air Force is very lucky that Captain Nylander did the opposite of what the official USAF CBT trained him to do or more Americans would have been killed that day.

You know what makes me sick? That we have politically correct leadership, at MANY LEVELS, who seem to believe that playing little patty-cake games and being extra nice and not saying "boo" to any of those folks will make them LOVE us and then we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbaya". Yeah, good on Capt. Nylander...sorry he didn't make it, I truly am...bad business.

This poster comes to mind..

What was it one of the mayors stated? “We don’t need vigilantism.”

MeMelYup wrote:What was it one of the mayors stated? “We don’t need vigilantism.”

So armed BP officers reacting to a violent criminal is vigilantism? Those mayors deserve exactly the city that attitude will create, and so do the dumbasses who elect them.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:What was it one of the mayors stated? “We don’t need vigilantism.”

So armed BP officers reacting to a violent criminal is vigilantism? Those mayors deserve exactly the city that attitude will create, and so do the dumbasses who elect them.

It has amazed me over the last several years how political LE agancys overall are becoming. What happened to the whole it's our agancy's job to protect. We need to get back to the good old days and let officeres make the call on what needs to be done for the safty of the public. Seems like the poloticians are makeing it harded and harder for the LEO's to protect people when they need to.