For everyone insisting MCPS reinstate SROs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please go watch last night's episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and learn a little more about why SROs not only don't work but cause harm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgwqQGvYt0g

This was brilliant!

"The evidence for cops in schools deterring school shootings is not there, and the evidence for the damage they can do is significant". They went on to say that in 20 years of data, there were only two cases where SROs actually stopped a shooting; further, the study indicated that their presence increased the body count.

Well I hope those 2 cases included the SRO who helped stop the Clarksburg HS kid with the gun and the SRO who literally stopped a gunman at a MD HS after shots were fired. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html

In the story you link, a gunman with a specific target shot and killed that target and then shot and killed himself. Two lives were lost and no evidence to show that any additional lives were likely to be lost.

That's right. We'd never know if additional lives would've been lost but thank goodness this SRO responded to the scene in less than a minute to prevent that from happening. My biggest point is these studies you all refer to lose their sparkle when a simple 2-second google search provides numerous pieces of evidence to dispute it.

My point is that the "evidence" that you provided does not, in fact, dispute it.

Whatever you want to think is fine but it actually does. Sorry.

Sincerely, please help me understand. Two students died and one was injured. It is theoretically possible that more students could have been hurt, but we don't know (and the facts indicate that this was a targeted shooting, as opposed to random)

What we know is that the SRO's presence did NOT deter the shooter from entering the school with a gun and did NOT deter the shooter from firing shots resulting in two deaths.

How is this evidence that an SRO was successful in deterring or preventing anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please go watch last night's episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and learn a little more about why SROs not only don't work but cause harm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgwqQGvYt0g

The above piece provides an excellent overview of the impact of SROs.

SROs can be effective but only if they are trained correctly. This is the same argument about "defund the police".

If your neighborhood is riddled with crime what do you do? Do you just live with it, get a gun, put up barbed wire around your house? Would you feel less or more safe with the presence of cops who were trained and vetted properly?

Anyone can be effective if trained correctly. Having more people with guns in schools is a bad idea.

yes, having students with guns in school is a bad idea, but it happens, so having cops with guns in school is a valid deterrent. Or are you suggesting that Principals carry the gun?

Someone posted.."would you bring a knife to a gun fight"?

The data indicates it isn't at all in fact rarely has it been a deterrent and more often has resulted in greater casualties.

MCPS memo suggests otherwise. Section titled "Evidence Supporting School Resource Officer Programs"

https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/C2S2RR727C3F/$file/SRO%20Program%20210511.pdf

From the same memo:

"According to Schlosser (2014), schools with a regular police presence were 18% more likely to experience a violent incident and 13% more likely to experience a serious violent incident than schools without a regular police presence."

Maybe they have more violent incidents at those schools because they have more violence period. Maybe those schools without SROs don't have them because they don't have problem with violence in the schools.

From the same:

-Jennings et al. (2011) reported that the presence of an SRO had an adverse effect on increased prevalence of school-related violent crimes, suggesting that SROs functioned as an important a deterrent to in school crime.

- In a study of middle and high schools, Swartz et al. (2016) found that SROs had decreased criminal offenses by 17% at 27 middle and high schools.

The last point indicates a comparison of a school pre and post SROs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please go watch last night's episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and learn a little more about why SROs not only don't work but cause harm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgwqQGvYt0g

This was brilliant!

"The evidence for cops in schools deterring school shootings is not there, and the evidence for the damage they can do is significant". They went on to say that in 20 years of data, there were only two cases where SROs actually stopped a shooting; further, the study indicated that their presence increased the body count.

Well I hope those 2 cases included the SRO who helped stop the Clarksburg HS kid with the gun and the SRO who literally stopped a gunman at a MD HS after shots were fired. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html

In the story you link, a gunman with a specific target shot and killed that target and then shot and killed himself. Two lives were lost and no evidence to show that any additional lives were likely to be lost.

That's right. We'd never know if additional lives would've been lost but thank goodness this SRO responded to the scene in less than a minute to prevent that from happening. My biggest point is these studies you all refer to lose their sparkle when a simple 2-second google search provides numerous pieces of evidence to dispute it.

My point is that the "evidence" that you provided does not, in fact, dispute it.

Whatever you want to think is fine but it actually does. Sorry.

Sincerely, please help me understand. Two students died and one was injured. It is theoretically possible that more students could have been hurt, but we don't know (and the facts indicate that this was a targeted shooting, as opposed to random)

What we know is that the SRO's presence did NOT deter the shooter from entering the school with a gun and did NOT deter the shooter from firing shots resulting in two deaths.

How is this evidence that an SRO was successful in deterring or preventing anything?

This is the same logic that gun nutters use for why we shouldn't have stricter gun controls -- gun controls don't work, we still have mass shootings, so why have more gun control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please go watch last night's episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and learn a little more about why SROs not only don't work but cause harm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgwqQGvYt0g

This was brilliant!

"The evidence for cops in schools deterring school shootings is not there, and the evidence for the damage they can do is significant". They went on to say that in 20 years of data, there were only two cases where SROs actually stopped a shooting; further, the study indicated that their presence increased the body count.

Well I hope those 2 cases included the SRO who helped stop the Clarksburg HS kid with the gun and the SRO who literally stopped a gunman at a MD HS after shots were fired. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html

In the story you link, a gunman with a specific target shot and killed that target and then shot and killed himself. Two lives were lost and no evidence to show that any additional lives were likely to be lost.

That's right. We'd never know if additional lives would've been lost but thank goodness this SRO responded to the scene in less than a minute to prevent that from happening. My biggest point is these studies you all refer to lose their sparkle when a simple 2-second google search provides numerous pieces of evidence to dispute it.

My point is that the "evidence" that you provided does not, in fact, dispute it.

Whatever you want to think is fine but it actually does. Sorry.

Sincerely, please help me understand. Two students died and one was injured. It is theoretically possible that more students could have been hurt, but we don't know (and the facts indicate that this was a targeted shooting, as opposed to random)

What we know is that the SRO's presence did NOT deter the shooter from entering the school with a gun and did NOT deter the shooter from firing shots resulting in two deaths.

How is this evidence that an SRO was successful in deterring or preventing anything?

This is the same logic that gun nutters use for why we shouldn't have stricter gun controls -- gun controls don't work, we still have mass shootings, so why have more gun control.

So....do you want to help me understand how this is an instance of successful deterrent and prevention, or no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please go watch last night's episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and learn a little more about why SROs not only don't work but cause harm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgwqQGvYt0g

This was brilliant!

"The evidence for cops in schools deterring school shootings is not there, and the evidence for the damage they can do is significant". They went on to say that in 20 years of data, there were only two cases where SROs actually stopped a shooting; further, the study indicated that their presence increased the body count.

Well I hope those 2 cases included the SRO who helped stop the Clarksburg HS kid with the gun and the SRO who literally stopped a gunman at a MD HS after shots were fired. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html

In the story you link, a gunman with a specific target shot and killed that target and then shot and killed himself. Two lives were lost and no evidence to show that any additional lives were likely to be lost.

That's right. We'd never know if additional lives would've been lost but thank goodness this SRO responded to the scene in less than a minute to prevent that from happening. My biggest point is these studies you all refer to lose their sparkle when a simple 2-second google search provides numerous pieces of evidence to dispute it.

My point is that the "evidence" that you provided does not, in fact, dispute it.

Whatever you want to think is fine but it actually does. Sorry.

Sincerely, please help me understand. Two students died and one was injured. It is theoretically possible that more students could have been hurt, but we don't know (and the facts indicate that this was a targeted shooting, as opposed to random)

What we know is that the SRO's presence did NOT deter the shooter from entering the school with a gun and did NOT deter the shooter from firing shots resulting in two deaths.

How is this evidence that an SRO was successful in deterring or preventing anything?

This is the same logic that gun nutters use for why we shouldn't have stricter gun controls -- gun controls don't work, we still have mass shootings, so why have more gun control.

So....do you want to help me understand how this is an instance of successful deterrent and prevention, or no?

I think you just have to connect the dots. SROs have been present more often than not at these schools shootings and have rarely had a positive impact. If you are concerned about guns the answer isn't putting more guns in school but gun reforms. I know it's not what the NRA wants but it does make a lot more sense than guys with guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please go watch last night's episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and learn a little more about why SROs not only don't work but cause harm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgwqQGvYt0g

This was brilliant!

"The evidence for cops in schools deterring school shootings is not there, and the evidence for the damage they can do is significant". They went on to say that in 20 years of data, there were only two cases where SROs actually stopped a shooting; further, the study indicated that their presence increased the body count.

Well I hope those 2 cases included the SRO who helped stop the Clarksburg HS kid with the gun and the SRO who literally stopped a gunman at a MD HS after shots were fired. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html

In the story you link, a gunman with a specific target shot and killed that target and then shot and killed himself. Two lives were lost and no evidence to show that any additional lives were likely to be lost.

That's right. We'd never know if additional lives would've been lost but thank goodness this SRO responded to the scene in less than a minute to prevent that from happening. My biggest point is these studies you all refer to lose their sparkle when a simple 2-second google search provides numerous pieces of evidence to dispute it.

My point is that the "evidence" that you provided does not, in fact, dispute it.

Whatever you want to think is fine but it actually does. Sorry.

Sincerely, please help me understand. Two students died and one was injured. It is theoretically possible that more students could have been hurt, but we don't know (and the facts indicate that this was a targeted shooting, as opposed to random)

What we know is that the SRO's presence did NOT deter the shooter from entering the school with a gun and did NOT deter the shooter from firing shots resulting in two deaths.

How is this evidence that an SRO was successful in deterring or preventing anything?

This is the same logic that gun nutters use for why we shouldn't have stricter gun controls -- gun controls don't work, we still have mass shootings, so why have more gun control.

So....do you want to help me understand how this is an instance of successful deterrent and prevention, or no?

I think you just have to connect the dots. SROs have been present more often than not at these schools shootings and have rarely had a positive impact. If you are concerned about guns the answer isn't putting more guns in school but gun reforms. I know it's not what the NRA wants but it does make a lot more sense than guys with guns.

After 20 something 5/6 years olds were murdered in school, there were no additional real gun reforms. I would be happy with strict gun control, but that's not going to happen with the gun nutters and 2A hardliners. So absent gun reforms, SROs makes sense.

Once there is measurable gun reforms, then we can talk about removing SROs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please go watch last night's episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and learn a little more about why SROs not only don't work but cause harm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgwqQGvYt0g

This was brilliant!

"The evidence for cops in schools deterring school shootings is not there, and the evidence for the damage they can do is significant". They went on to say that in 20 years of data, there were only two cases where SROs actually stopped a shooting; further, the study indicated that their presence increased the body count.

Well I hope those 2 cases included the SRO who helped stop the Clarksburg HS kid with the gun and the SRO who literally stopped a gunman at a MD HS after shots were fired. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html

In the story you link, a gunman with a specific target shot and killed that target and then shot and killed himself. Two lives were lost and no evidence to show that any additional lives were likely to be lost.

That's right. We'd never know if additional lives would've been lost but thank goodness this SRO responded to the scene in less than a minute to prevent that from happening. My biggest point is these studies you all refer to lose their sparkle when a simple 2-second google search provides numerous pieces of evidence to dispute it.

My point is that the "evidence" that you provided does not, in fact, dispute it.

Whatever you want to think is fine but it actually does. Sorry.

Sincerely, please help me understand. Two students died and one was injured. It is theoretically possible that more students could have been hurt, but we don't know (and the facts indicate that this was a targeted shooting, as opposed to random)

What we know is that the SRO's presence did NOT deter the shooter from entering the school with a gun and did NOT deter the shooter from firing shots resulting in two deaths.

How is this evidence that an SRO was successful in deterring or preventing anything?

This is the same logic that gun nutters use for why we shouldn't have stricter gun controls -- gun controls don't work, we still have mass shootings, so why have more gun control.

So....do you want to help me understand how this is an instance of successful deterrent and prevention, or no?

I think you just have to connect the dots. SROs have been present more often than not at these schools shootings and have rarely had a positive impact. If you are concerned about guns the answer isn't putting more guns in school but gun reforms. I know it's not what the NRA wants but it does make a lot more sense than guys with guns.

After 20 something 5/6 years olds were murdered in school, there were no additional real gun reforms. I would be happy with strict gun control, but that's not going to happen with the gun nutters and 2A hardliners. So absent gun reforms, SROs makes sense.

Once there is measurable gun reforms, then we can talk about removing SROs.

This. At the end of the day, if your child was in the vicinity of the shooter at that Maryland HS, would you have preferred to have or not have the SRO? I know what I would choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please go watch last night's episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and learn a little more about why SROs not only don't work but cause harm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgwqQGvYt0g

This was brilliant!

"The evidence for cops in schools deterring school shootings is not there, and the evidence for the damage they can do is significant". They went on to say that in 20 years of data, there were only two cases where SROs actually stopped a shooting; further, the study indicated that their presence increased the body count.

Well I hope those 2 cases included the SRO who helped stop the Clarksburg HS kid with the gun and the SRO who literally stopped a gunman at a MD HS after shots were fired. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html

In the story you link, a gunman with a specific target shot and killed that target and then shot and killed himself. Two lives were lost and no evidence to show that any additional lives were likely to be lost.

That's right. We'd never know if additional lives would've been lost but thank goodness this SRO responded to the scene in less than a minute to prevent that from happening. My biggest point is these studies you all refer to lose their sparkle when a simple 2-second google search provides numerous pieces of evidence to dispute it.

My point is that the "evidence" that you provided does not, in fact, dispute it.

Whatever you want to think is fine but it actually does. Sorry.

Sincerely, please help me understand. Two students died and one was injured. It is theoretically possible that more students could have been hurt, but we don't know (and the facts indicate that this was a targeted shooting, as opposed to random)

What we know is that the SRO's presence did NOT deter the shooter from entering the school with a gun and did NOT deter the shooter from firing shots resulting in two deaths.

How is this evidence that an SRO was successful in deterring or preventing anything?

This is the same logic that gun nutters use for why we shouldn't have stricter gun controls -- gun controls don't work, we still have mass shootings, so why have more gun control.

So....do you want to help me understand how this is an instance of successful deterrent and prevention, or no?

I think you just have to connect the dots. SROs have been present more often than not at these schools shootings and have rarely had a positive impact. If you are concerned about guns the answer isn't putting more guns in school but gun reforms. I know it's not what the NRA wants but it does make a lot more sense than guys with guns.

After 20 something 5/6 years olds were murdered in school, there were no additional real gun reforms. I would be happy with strict gun control, but that's not going to happen with the gun nutters and 2A hardliners. So absent gun reforms, SROs makes sense.

Once there is measurable gun reforms, then we can talk about removing SROs.

This. At the end of the day, if your child was in the vicinity of the shooter at that Maryland HS, would you have preferred to have or not have the SRO? I know what I would choose.

Not have, especially if the SRO starts shooting off rounds that will most likely hit my child or any child around or near or behind the shooter.

I prefer SWAT be called in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please go watch last night's episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and learn a little more about why SROs not only don't work but cause harm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgwqQGvYt0g

This was brilliant!

"The evidence for cops in schools deterring school shootings is not there, and the evidence for the damage they can do is significant". They went on to say that in 20 years of data, there were only two cases where SROs actually stopped a shooting; further, the study indicated that their presence increased the body count.

Well I hope those 2 cases included the SRO who helped stop the Clarksburg HS kid with the gun and the SRO who literally stopped a gunman at a MD HS after shots were fired. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html

In the story you link, a gunman with a specific target shot and killed that target and then shot and killed himself. Two lives were lost and no evidence to show that any additional lives were likely to be lost.

That's right. We'd never know if additional lives would've been lost but thank goodness this SRO responded to the scene in less than a minute to prevent that from happening. My biggest point is these studies you all refer to lose their sparkle when a simple 2-second google search provides numerous pieces of evidence to dispute it.

My point is that the "evidence" that you provided does not, in fact, dispute it.

Whatever you want to think is fine but it actually does. Sorry.

Sincerely, please help me understand. Two students died and one was injured. It is theoretically possible that more students could have been hurt, but we don't know (and the facts indicate that this was a targeted shooting, as opposed to random)

What we know is that the SRO's presence did NOT deter the shooter from entering the school with a gun and did NOT deter the shooter from firing shots resulting in two deaths.

How is this evidence that an SRO was successful in deterring or preventing anything?

This is the same logic that gun nutters use for why we shouldn't have stricter gun controls -- gun controls don't work, we still have mass shootings, so why have more gun control.

So....do you want to help me understand how this is an instance of successful deterrent and prevention, or no?

I think you just have to connect the dots. SROs have been present more often than not at these schools shootings and have rarely had a positive impact. If you are concerned about guns the answer isn't putting more guns in school but gun reforms. I know it's not what the NRA wants but it does make a lot more sense than guys with guns.

After 20 something 5/6 years olds were murdered in school, there were no additional real gun reforms. I would be happy with strict gun control, but that's not going to happen with the gun nutters and 2A hardliners. So absent gun reforms, SROs makes sense.

Once there is measurable gun reforms, then we can talk about removing SROs.

Correct. And furthermore, preventing school shootings are not the only reason why people are advocating for SROs. It's overall student behavior and discipline. And when we're dealing with teenagers who are doing very adult things like bringing weapons to school, robbing each other, taking drugs and sexual assault, all of which are adult-level charges, you can see the case for a consistent law enforcement presence.

Or MCPS has to deputize some of its security staff for this, in the way universities do with campus police. One or the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please go watch last night's episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and learn a little more about why SROs not only don't work but cause harm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgwqQGvYt0g

This was brilliant!

"The evidence for cops in schools deterring school shootings is not there, and the evidence for the damage they can do is significant". They went on to say that in 20 years of data, there were only two cases where SROs actually stopped a shooting; further, the study indicated that their presence increased the body count.

Well I hope those 2 cases included the SRO who helped stop the Clarksburg HS kid with the gun and the SRO who literally stopped a gunman at a MD HS after shots were fired. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html

In the story you link, a gunman with a specific target shot and killed that target and then shot and killed himself. Two lives were lost and no evidence to show that any additional lives were likely to be lost.

That's right. We'd never know if additional lives would've been lost but thank goodness this SRO responded to the scene in less than a minute to prevent that from happening. My biggest point is these studies you all refer to lose their sparkle when a simple 2-second google search provides numerous pieces of evidence to dispute it.

My point is that the "evidence" that you provided does not, in fact, dispute it.

Whatever you want to think is fine but it actually does. Sorry.

Sincerely, please help me understand. Two students died and one was injured. It is theoretically possible that more students could have been hurt, but we don't know (and the facts indicate that this was a targeted shooting, as opposed to random)

What we know is that the SRO's presence did NOT deter the shooter from entering the school with a gun and did NOT deter the shooter from firing shots resulting in two deaths.

How is this evidence that an SRO was successful in deterring or preventing anything?

This is the same logic that gun nutters use for why we shouldn't have stricter gun controls -- gun controls don't work, we still have mass shootings, so why have more gun control.

So....do you want to help me understand how this is an instance of successful deterrent and prevention, or no?

I think you just have to connect the dots. SROs have been present more often than not at these schools shootings and have rarely had a positive impact. If you are concerned about guns the answer isn't putting more guns in school but gun reforms. I know it's not what the NRA wants but it does make a lot more sense than guys with guns.

After 20 something 5/6 years olds were murdered in school, there were no additional real gun reforms. I would be happy with strict gun control, but that's not going to happen with the gun nutters and 2A hardliners. So absent gun reforms, SROs makes sense.

Once there is measurable gun reforms, then we can talk about removing SROs.

Correct. And furthermore, preventing school shootings are not the only reason why people are advocating for SROs. It's overall student behavior and discipline. And when we're dealing with teenagers who are doing very adult things like bringing weapons to school, robbing each other, taking drugs and sexual assault, all of which are adult-level charges, you can see the case for a consistent law enforcement presence.

Or MCPS has to deputize some of its security staff for this, in the way universities do with campus police. One or the other.

Incorrect, SROs are the NRAs answer instead of gun reform. It doesn't help just ask the kids at Parkland or Uvalde.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please go watch last night's episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and learn a little more about why SROs not only don't work but cause harm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgwqQGvYt0g

This was brilliant!

"The evidence for cops in schools deterring school shootings is not there, and the evidence for the damage they can do is significant". They went on to say that in 20 years of data, there were only two cases where SROs actually stopped a shooting; further, the study indicated that their presence increased the body count.

Well I hope those 2 cases included the SRO who helped stop the Clarksburg HS kid with the gun and the SRO who literally stopped a gunman at a MD HS after shots were fired. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html

In the story you link, a gunman with a specific target shot and killed that target and then shot and killed himself. Two lives were lost and no evidence to show that any additional lives were likely to be lost.

That's right. We'd never know if additional lives would've been lost but thank goodness this SRO responded to the scene in less than a minute to prevent that from happening. My biggest point is these studies you all refer to lose their sparkle when a simple 2-second google search provides numerous pieces of evidence to dispute it.

My point is that the "evidence" that you provided does not, in fact, dispute it.

Whatever you want to think is fine but it actually does. Sorry.

Sincerely, please help me understand. Two students died and one was injured. It is theoretically possible that more students could have been hurt, but we don't know (and the facts indicate that this was a targeted shooting, as opposed to random)

What we know is that the SRO's presence did NOT deter the shooter from entering the school with a gun and did NOT deter the shooter from firing shots resulting in two deaths.

How is this evidence that an SRO was successful in deterring or preventing anything?

This is the same logic that gun nutters use for why we shouldn't have stricter gun controls -- gun controls don't work, we still have mass shootings, so why have more gun control.

So....do you want to help me understand how this is an instance of successful deterrent and prevention, or no?

I think you just have to connect the dots. SROs have been present more often than not at these schools shootings and have rarely had a positive impact. If you are concerned about guns the answer isn't putting more guns in school but gun reforms. I know it's not what the NRA wants but it does make a lot more sense than guys with guns.

After 20 something 5/6 years olds were murdered in school, there were no additional real gun reforms. I would be happy with strict gun control, but that's not going to happen with the gun nutters and 2A hardliners. So absent gun reforms, SROs makes sense.

Once there is measurable gun reforms, then we can talk about removing SROs.

This. At the end of the day, if your child was in the vicinity of the shooter at that Maryland HS, would you have preferred to have or not have the SRO? I know what I would choose.

Not have, especially if the SRO starts shooting off rounds that will most likely hit my child or any child around or near or behind the shooter.

I prefer SWAT be called in.

Everyone will be dead before SWAT gets there. It's an extremist view to not want to have an SRO in a building that has an actives shooter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please go watch last night's episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and learn a little more about why SROs not only don't work but cause harm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgwqQGvYt0g

This was brilliant!

"The evidence for cops in schools deterring school shootings is not there, and the evidence for the damage they can do is significant". They went on to say that in 20 years of data, there were only two cases where SROs actually stopped a shooting; further, the study indicated that their presence increased the body count.

Well I hope those 2 cases included the SRO who helped stop the Clarksburg HS kid with the gun and the SRO who literally stopped a gunman at a MD HS after shots were fired. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html

In the story you link, a gunman with a specific target shot and killed that target and then shot and killed himself. Two lives were lost and no evidence to show that any additional lives were likely to be lost.

That's right. We'd never know if additional lives would've been lost but thank goodness this SRO responded to the scene in less than a minute to prevent that from happening. My biggest point is these studies you all refer to lose their sparkle when a simple 2-second google search provides numerous pieces of evidence to dispute it.

My point is that the "evidence" that you provided does not, in fact, dispute it.

Whatever you want to think is fine but it actually does. Sorry.

Sincerely, please help me understand. Two students died and one was injured. It is theoretically possible that more students could have been hurt, but we don't know (and the facts indicate that this was a targeted shooting, as opposed to random)

What we know is that the SRO's presence did NOT deter the shooter from entering the school with a gun and did NOT deter the shooter from firing shots resulting in two deaths.

How is this evidence that an SRO was successful in deterring or preventing anything?

This is the same logic that gun nutters use for why we shouldn't have stricter gun controls -- gun controls don't work, we still have mass shootings, so why have more gun control.

So....do you want to help me understand how this is an instance of successful deterrent and prevention, or no?

I think you just have to connect the dots. SROs have been present more often than not at these schools shootings and have rarely had a positive impact. If you are concerned about guns the answer isn't putting more guns in school but gun reforms. I know it's not what the NRA wants but it does make a lot more sense than guys with guns.

After 20 something 5/6 years olds were murdered in school, there were no additional real gun reforms. I would be happy with strict gun control, but that's not going to happen with the gun nutters and 2A hardliners. So absent gun reforms, SROs makes sense.

Once there is measurable gun reforms, then we can talk about removing SROs.

This. At the end of the day, if your child was in the vicinity of the shooter at that Maryland HS, would you have preferred to have or not have the SRO? I know what I would choose.

Not have, especially if the SRO starts shooting off rounds that will most likely hit my child or any child around or near or behind the shooter.

I prefer SWAT be called in.

Everyone will be dead before SWAT gets there. It's an extremist view to not want to have an SRO in a building that has an actives shooter.

So you prefer everyone and the SRO. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please go watch last night's episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and learn a little more about why SROs not only don't work but cause harm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgwqQGvYt0g

This was brilliant!

"The evidence for cops in schools deterring school shootings is not there, and the evidence for the damage they can do is significant". They went on to say that in 20 years of data, there were only two cases where SROs actually stopped a shooting; further, the study indicated that their presence increased the body count.

Well I hope those 2 cases included the SRO who helped stop the Clarksburg HS kid with the gun and the SRO who literally stopped a gunman at a MD HS after shots were fired. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html

In the story you link, a gunman with a specific target shot and killed that target and then shot and killed himself. Two lives were lost and no evidence to show that any additional lives were likely to be lost.

That's right. We'd never know if additional lives would've been lost but thank goodness this SRO responded to the scene in less than a minute to prevent that from happening. My biggest point is these studies you all refer to lose their sparkle when a simple 2-second google search provides numerous pieces of evidence to dispute it.

My point is that the "evidence" that you provided does not, in fact, dispute it.

Whatever you want to think is fine but it actually does. Sorry.

Sincerely, please help me understand. Two students died and one was injured. It is theoretically possible that more students could have been hurt, but we don't know (and the facts indicate that this was a targeted shooting, as opposed to random)

What we know is that the SRO's presence did NOT deter the shooter from entering the school with a gun and did NOT deter the shooter from firing shots resulting in two deaths.

How is this evidence that an SRO was successful in deterring or preventing anything?

This is the same logic that gun nutters use for why we shouldn't have stricter gun controls -- gun controls don't work, we still have mass shootings, so why have more gun control.

So....do you want to help me understand how this is an instance of successful deterrent and prevention, or no?

I think you just have to connect the dots. SROs have been present more often than not at these schools shootings and have rarely had a positive impact. If you are concerned about guns the answer isn't putting more guns in school but gun reforms. I know it's not what the NRA wants but it does make a lot more sense than guys with guns.

After 20 something 5/6 years olds were murdered in school, there were no additional real gun reforms. I would be happy with strict gun control, but that's not going to happen with the gun nutters and 2A hardliners. So absent gun reforms, SROs makes sense.

Once there is measurable gun reforms, then we can talk about removing SROs.

This. At the end of the day, if your child was in the vicinity of the shooter at that Maryland HS, would you have preferred to have or not have the SRO? I know what I would choose.

Not have, especially if the SRO starts shooting off rounds that will most likely hit my child or any child around or near or behind the shooter.

I prefer SWAT be called in.

You prefer SWAT be called in and show up 8-10 minutes later vs the SRO who was their in ONE?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please go watch last night's episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and learn a little more about why SROs not only don't work but cause harm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgwqQGvYt0g

This was brilliant!

"The evidence for cops in schools deterring school shootings is not there, and the evidence for the damage they can do is significant". They went on to say that in 20 years of data, there were only two cases where SROs actually stopped a shooting; further, the study indicated that their presence increased the body count.

Well I hope those 2 cases included the SRO who helped stop the Clarksburg HS kid with the gun and the SRO who literally stopped a gunman at a MD HS after shots were fired. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html

In the story you link, a gunman with a specific target shot and killed that target and then shot and killed himself. Two lives were lost and no evidence to show that any additional lives were likely to be lost.

That's right. We'd never know if additional lives would've been lost but thank goodness this SRO responded to the scene in less than a minute to prevent that from happening. My biggest point is these studies you all refer to lose their sparkle when a simple 2-second google search provides numerous pieces of evidence to dispute it.

My point is that the "evidence" that you provided does not, in fact, dispute it.

Whatever you want to think is fine but it actually does. Sorry.

Sincerely, please help me understand. Two students died and one was injured. It is theoretically possible that more students could have been hurt, but we don't know (and the facts indicate that this was a targeted shooting, as opposed to random)

What we know is that the SRO's presence did NOT deter the shooter from entering the school with a gun and did NOT deter the shooter from firing shots resulting in two deaths.

How is this evidence that an SRO was successful in deterring or preventing anything?

This is the same logic that gun nutters use for why we shouldn't have stricter gun controls -- gun controls don't work, we still have mass shootings, so why have more gun control.

So....do you want to help me understand how this is an instance of successful deterrent and prevention, or no?

I think you just have to connect the dots. SROs have been present more often than not at these schools shootings and have rarely had a positive impact. If you are concerned about guns the answer isn't putting more guns in school but gun reforms. I know it's not what the NRA wants but it does make a lot more sense than guys with guns.

After 20 something 5/6 years olds were murdered in school, there were no additional real gun reforms. I would be happy with strict gun control, but that's not going to happen with the gun nutters and 2A hardliners. So absent gun reforms, SROs makes sense.

Once there is measurable gun reforms, then we can talk about removing SROs.

This. At the end of the day, if your child was in the vicinity of the shooter at that Maryland HS, would you have preferred to have or not have the SRO? I know what I would choose.

Not have, especially if the SRO starts shooting off rounds that will most likely hit my child or any child around or near or behind the shooter.

I prefer SWAT be called in.

Everyone will be dead before SWAT gets there. It's an extremist view to not want to have an SRO in a building that has an actives shooter.

So you prefer everyone and the SRO. Got it.

DP.. why are you being so obtuse?

Having an SRO is an extra measure for safety. Yes, SRO would call for backup if there is a shooter. Cops do this regardless if it's in a school setting or not.

Having an SRO when that kid was shot in Damascus (or was it Sherwood) recently would've made the response time for backup faster. Why? Because the security guard and admins didn't realize it was a gunshot wound nor did they understand the seriousness of the situation.

Cops are better trained to handle situations that involve violence with weapons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please go watch last night's episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and learn a little more about why SROs not only don't work but cause harm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgwqQGvYt0g

This was brilliant!

"The evidence for cops in schools deterring school shootings is not there, and the evidence for the damage they can do is significant". They went on to say that in 20 years of data, there were only two cases where SROs actually stopped a shooting; further, the study indicated that their presence increased the body count.

Well I hope those 2 cases included the SRO who helped stop the Clarksburg HS kid with the gun and the SRO who literally stopped a gunman at a MD HS after shots were fired. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html

In the story you link, a gunman with a specific target shot and killed that target and then shot and killed himself. Two lives were lost and no evidence to show that any additional lives were likely to be lost.

That's right. We'd never know if additional lives would've been lost but thank goodness this SRO responded to the scene in less than a minute to prevent that from happening. My biggest point is these studies you all refer to lose their sparkle when a simple 2-second google search provides numerous pieces of evidence to dispute it.

My point is that the "evidence" that you provided does not, in fact, dispute it.

Whatever you want to think is fine but it actually does. Sorry.

Sincerely, please help me understand. Two students died and one was injured. It is theoretically possible that more students could have been hurt, but we don't know (and the facts indicate that this was a targeted shooting, as opposed to random)

What we know is that the SRO's presence did NOT deter the shooter from entering the school with a gun and did NOT deter the shooter from firing shots resulting in two deaths.

How is this evidence that an SRO was successful in deterring or preventing anything?

This is the same logic that gun nutters use for why we shouldn't have stricter gun controls -- gun controls don't work, we still have mass shootings, so why have more gun control.

So....do you want to help me understand how this is an instance of successful deterrent and prevention, or no?

I think you just have to connect the dots. SROs have been present more often than not at these schools shootings and have rarely had a positive impact. If you are concerned about guns the answer isn't putting more guns in school but gun reforms. I know it's not what the NRA wants but it does make a lot more sense than guys with guns.

After 20 something 5/6 years olds were murdered in school, there were no additional real gun reforms. I would be happy with strict gun control, but that's not going to happen with the gun nutters and 2A hardliners. So absent gun reforms, SROs makes sense.

Once there is measurable gun reforms, then we can talk about removing SROs.

This. At the end of the day, if your child was in the vicinity of the shooter at that Maryland HS, would you have preferred to have or not have the SRO? I know what I would choose.

Not have, especially if the SRO starts shooting off rounds that will most likely hit my child or any child around or near or behind the shooter.

I prefer SWAT be called in.

Everyone will be dead before SWAT gets there. It's an extremist view to not want to have an SRO in a building that has an actives shooter.

So you prefer everyone and the SRO. Got it.

DP.. why are you being so obtuse?

Having an SRO is an extra measure for safety. Yes, SRO would call for backup if there is a shooter. Cops do this regardless if it's in a school setting or not.

Having an SRO when that kid was shot in Damascus (or was it Sherwood) recently would've made the response time for backup faster. Why? Because the security guard and admins didn't realize it was a gunshot wound nor did they understand the seriousness of the situation.

Cops are better trained to handle situations that involve violence with weapons.

What "backup" are you referring to? Medical or law enforcement?

The security personnel who responded was trained and effectively used a kit to stop the bleeding and called 911 informing them that the student was "bleeding profusely from the abdomen". What exactly do you think an SRO would have done differently? And how was this not "understanding the seriousness of the situation"?

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/education/magruder-high-school-shooting-report-offers-further-details/65-bab4f64e-e626-4b60-aebe-d4a6dfbc5155