Safety at your school/college/workplace

[OnFire]

So, today we had this training at college what to do if a shooter comes, and the police demonstrated how everybody can get to safety...we even have a new system with a code word and a robotic voice, really high-tech.

 

So, what about the place where you spend your time, is it guarded and do you think it is safe?

[youdotoo]

We have unarmed guards at our college campus. But my school has a police academy and if you have your concealed carriers license you can have a weapon on you. It's kind of a weird setup. We have 15 emergency button post (900,000). Also we have strong doors and defensively built classrooms.

[RangerDog]

Well, in my school there is totaly no guards or whatever, (in The Netherlands)  But we have a police station at about 500M, but there not always officers in there. So basicly said shooters were dead XD 

[Handsup!]

We have a team of around 10 overweight security guards whose main duties are to enforce campus ID badges.

 

I suppose it'd stop any flow of unruly characters provided they didn't leave one of the entrances completely exposed.

[xxnypdofficerxx]

my school has me, whats really good, you know, i can protect them all xD

[Ghost Graphic Designs]

About 10 unarmed (and awesome) security guards, but also a police and fire station about 3 minutes away. Security's pretty tight, not everyone has access to our facilities, so it would be very unlikely for something like that to happen.

[met police999]

Security got "up'ed" in schools in early 2000's after the Dunblane massacre although it's not guards all entrances are locked and some being thick metal doors all needing a keycard to open however at newer schools for example my old school almost all doors throughout the building need a keycard.

[Ace]

We have unarmed men and women as a security who has access to a wide variety of vehicles with lightbars

[miniboy349]

Well if it happends in norway..............we are dead most of our police force is not even armed so we are prety fked if something happends.................

[mariuswww]

Well if it happends in norway..............we are dead most of our police force is not even armed so we are prety fked if something happends.................

Thats not true. They used to be unarmed but they are not anymore. They have MP5s aswell as Glock 17. The MP5s stay in their vehicles while the Glock is in their belt. But they are not allowed to use it unless the commander in the field gives the green light.

 

But my university (and all others I've been to) has no protection what so ever. So you are probably right about the "prety fked if something happends................." part.

[miniboy349]

Thats not true. They used to be unarmed but they are not anymore. They have MP5s aswell as Glock 17. The MP5s stay in their vehicles while the Glock is in their belt. But they are not allowed to use it unless the commander in the field gives the green light.

 

But my university (and all others I've been to) has no protection what so ever. So you are probably right about the "prety fked if something happends................." part.

When did they start with that lol???? ive never seen a norwegian cop with a Glock 17 and never seen them use it.....

But they dont have securety at Schools here

[EmergencyFan97]

We have an armed School Resource Officer on campus whenever school is in-session, as well as a few unarmed security guards.

[Handsup!]

Thats not true. They used to be unarmed but they are not anymore. They have MP5s aswell as Glock 17. The MP5s stay in their vehicles while the Glock is in their belt. But they are not allowed to use it unless the commander in the field gives the green light.

 

But my university (and all others I've been to) has no protection what so ever. So you are probably right about the "prety fked if something happends................." part.

 

Sorry to reply to an older thread/post, but I'm guessing if a school shooting was to happen, and an officer had eyeball on the perp who was still shooting kids, could he fire upon him without authorization? 

[miniboy349]

Sorry to reply to an older thread/post, but I'm guessing if a school shooting was to happen, and an officer had eyeball on the perp who was still shooting kids, could he fire upon him without authorization? 

In norway the police needs to call in to the police chief  if they go to a call that is reported armed guy but if someones shot at Norwegian police they hould have premission to fire at them back.

[youdotoo]

Oh.... my college allows concealed carriers. A lot of people have guns on campus.

[mariuswww]

Sorry to reply to an older thread/post, but I'm guessing if a school shooting was to happen, and an officer had eyeball on the perp who was still shooting kids, could he fire upon him without authorization? 

Usually if they are responding to an active shooter they get permissions to use fire arms pretty easy.

[Handsup!]

Usually if they are responding to an active shooter they get permissions to use fire arms pretty easy.

 

But what I mean is if they were already on scene. As if they had no time to call for auth, etc

[miniboy349]

Usually if they are responding to an active shooter they get permissions to use fire arms pretty easy.

Well you are pretty rigth there but if the shoter shots at inno pepole or the police i think they ar allowed to shot back.

[Hoppah]

If one wants to do harm he can and will. Security won't help imo, and barely as a deterrent. They merely create a false sense of security. A determined and prepared shooter will take out the poorly trained guard(s) first and continue to spread maham. Responding police officers usually have to abide by the protocol to contain the situation (a perimeter) rather then intervene immediatly. Only specialized police units will intervene by engaging the shooter and that unfortunately takes a while. Enjoy the remaining time in school living in constant -and well maintained- fear. If ya'll want to enjoy the perks of the (imo immensively outdated) 2nd Amendment you gotta live with the consequences too. Freedom comes with a price and shootings will continue to happen, it is what it is.

[Hoppah]

Usually if they are responding to an active shooter they get permissions to use fire arms pretty easy.

Not really, unless its self-defense obviously. Responding police have to contain the situation by setting up a perimeter. Specialized police units like swat or hrt will actively engage the shooter(s).

[topfuzz]

Not really, unless its self-defense obviously. Responding police have to contain the situation by setting up a perimeter. Specialized police units like swat or hrt will actively engage the shooter(s).

 

I dont think so, if there is an active shooter there is no need to set up a perimeter because you know where the suspect is and hes not going anywhere because hes shooting people. After Columbine Law Enforcement changed their training and tactics so they dont wait outside waiting for swat while people are being killed. Every officer should be  trained for this type of scenario now they may wait for a few more units to arrive so they can engage the shooter in groups which makes sense but you cant wait 30 minutes to an hour for the swat team to be called and hope for the best. And most officers carry rifles in their vehicles so im sure they are equipped to handle most situations. 

 

Ill give you an example the Shooting that recently happened at FSU that shooter was killed by patrol officers from the University's police department along with Tallahassee PD. In active shooter situations time is of the essence because you have to save as many lives as possible and i think because of their quick response they saved lives.

 

 http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/20/us/fsu-incident/

[MikeyPI]

Seen these types of topics before, and I have to say that security is but an illusion.  In free societies you can't have places locked down as would be required to "secure" them, even then you have even odds one of the security personnel are in fact the shooter themselves (see military base shootings for examples of that).  Even the white house has been breached recently, the cost of access is security, and in the end that makes security a deterrent for some, but a highly motivated individual (which in most cases intends to die in the process of their actions) is nearly impossible to prevent from doing their actions.  Only thing you can do is train people to respond to the scenario.  Thank god we don't have alot of zealot terrorists roaming around doing their deeds, otherwise there would be no actual protocol to prevent/deter them that would be effective within acceptable means by our society.  (see russian responses to hostage scenarios for what they had to do with their terrorism issues).

 

It's a trade-off to be free to do what you will, you have to be willing to give up some of the security blanket that could be provided in lieu of convenience, that convenience comes at a cost that in alotta cases you won't have the security requirements met to address the higher end incidents that can occur.  Malls are a great example of a place where someone can do quite a bit of damage prior to response being anything to hamper them.  Unarmed guards sadly don't have the clout to stop an active shooter scenario.

[Hoppah]

I dont think so, if there is an active shooter there is no need to set up a perimeter because you know where the suspect is and hes not going anywhere because hes shooting people. After Columbine Law Enforcement changed their training and tactics so they dont wait outside waiting for swat while people are being killed. Every officer should be  trained for this type of scenario now they may wait for a few more units to arrive so they can engage the shooter in groups which makes sense but you cant wait 30 minutes to an hour for the swat team to be called and hope for the best. And most officers carry rifles in their vehicles so im sure they are equipped to handle most situations. 

 

Ill give you an example the Shooting that recently happened at FSU that shooter was killed by patrol officers from the University's police department along with Tallahassee PD. In active shooter situations time is of the essence because you have to save as many lives as possible and i think because of their quick response they saved lives.

 

 http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/20/us/fsu-incident/

 

Well it depends on the situation obviously, but I hope to god it won't become SOP. Officers may be equipped, but they aint trained like HRT to deal with active shooters, especially when it comes to tactics (the T in SWAT). Imagine an active shooter in a big school or mall with plenty of exits and the first 5 cops armed with AR15's running inside within the first 15 minutes or so, trying to be all heroic. It's asking for a bloodbath. Especially if the situation is not anything like a suicidal lonewolf, which at that point isn't even known yet. You HAVE to have intel before you go in. Schools and malls are great for ambushes. 

 

A school shooting cannot be handled the same way as firemen running into a burning building like on tv.

 

There is definately a need to setup a perimeter.

[CCCXLII]

I dont think so, if there is an active shooter there is no need to set up a perimeter because you know where the suspect is and hes not going anywhere because hes shooting people. After Columbine Law Enforcement changed their training and tactics so they dont wait outside waiting for swat while people are being killed. Every officer should be  trained for this type of scenario now they may wait for a few more units to arrive so they can engage the shooter in groups which makes sense but you cant wait 30 minutes to an hour for the swat team to be called and hope for the best. And most officers carry rifles in their vehicles so im sure they are equipped to handle most situations.

Accurate.

I can't find a good, definitive source for the policy but these will have to do (scroll down to 'what to expect from police officers'):

http://www.northwestern.edu/up/crime/awareness/activeshooter.html

https://protect.iu.edu/police/active-shooter

 

If you look around the web, you can find active shooter instructional videos that say the same thing. Personally I think it's a change for the better, but sometimes you will get incidents of police responding to a 'shooter' that doesn't exist (try searching SWATTING for an example).

 

Malls are a great example of a place where someone can do quite a bit of damage prior to response being anything to hamper them.  Unarmed guards sadly don't have the clout to stop an active shooter scenario.

 

Some cities actually place police substations inside malls.

 

http://www.wsmv.com/story/22674393/goodlettsville-police-to-open-substation-at-rivergate-mall

 

I get what you're saying, and this is why I feel like awareness, training and carrying is important for all citizens, no matter the country. In my opinion, the police and other emergency services aren't 'First Responders', but rather you and anyone in the surrounding area are.

[MikeyPI]

Round these parts some convenience stores have substations for police as well.. Doesnt mean they don't get robbed just the same  Problem is gotta have them where they need to be when ya need em, in real life application most people are smart enough to strike when they have the best advantage... Every little bit helps but for the most part it's a perception of security that makes people feel safe, not an actual situation.  Such is why crime exists, you're asking a relatively small populace to cover a very large area, malls, schools, theaters, concerts are all target-rich environments where security may be present, but you're still asking them to cover a relatively large area.  It doesnt take long to open fire into a crowd and do pretty devastating levels of damages... Anywhere that people congregate is realistically a target that could be exploited.  Ya dun really see people who are suicidal running amok in police stations, pity at least then it'd be more of a challenge, but it doesnt happen.