Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KDM" data-source="post: 466603" data-attributes="member: 314"><p>IMO, this is my opinion, only my opinion you see.&nbsp; If you want to secure a school, you have to bring in people that aren't looking to gain the students trust or gives two shits about who's who in the school. Don't care who their daddy is or if they are capt of the football team, chief nerd, president of the chess club, head cheerleader, or anything else.&nbsp; You need guys that will &quot;neutralize&quot; any POS looking to hurt the students regardless of their age, sexuality, race, gender, mental health issues, political views, or the price of rice in china.&nbsp; Teachers DON'T qualify. They tend to have emotional attachments to the students that may interfere with said &quot;neutralization&quot; should the need arise. Then you need to rotate these guys between the schools so it's less likely these guys will begin to develop student knowledge and or relationships.&nbsp; They have ONE job.&nbsp; Protect the students.&nbsp; Not to mentor, not to set a good example, not to guide them into adulthood.&nbsp; You armor them up and give them enough firepower to go up against any AK47 wielding dirtbag and have a better than average chance that when LE shows up, it's all over.&nbsp; Have teams of 3 on rotating 6 hour shifts that start an hour before classes and end an hour after extra curricular activities are finished.&nbsp; One open access point to the building during class hours manned at all times from protected cover and two rovers.&nbsp; 6 week assignments at each participating school and then you rotate.&nbsp; Draw from a pool of qualified personnel with standardized skills and training requirements, continuing proficiency quals, good insurances, and decent pay.&nbsp; Is it extreme?&nbsp; Probably.&nbsp; Will it happen?&nbsp; Probably not.&nbsp; However, IMO, this is a good framework to secure a school if one really wants it secured.&nbsp; Carry On!</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="KDM, post: 466603, member: 314"] IMO, this is my opinion, only my opinion you see. If you want to secure a school, you have to bring in people that aren't looking to gain the students trust or gives two shits about who's who in the school. Don't care who their daddy is or if they are capt of the football team, chief nerd, president of the chess club, head cheerleader, or anything else. You need guys that will "neutralize" any POS looking to hurt the students regardless of their age, sexuality, race, gender, mental health issues, political views, or the price of rice in china. Teachers DON'T qualify. They tend to have emotional attachments to the students that may interfere with said "neutralization" should the need arise. Then you need to rotate these guys between the schools so it's less likely these guys will begin to develop student knowledge and or relationships. They have ONE job. Protect the students. Not to mentor, not to set a good example, not to guide them into adulthood. You armor them up and give them enough firepower to go up against any AK47 wielding dirtbag and have a better than average chance that when LE shows up, it's all over. Have teams of 3 on rotating 6 hour shifts that start an hour before classes and end an hour after extra curricular activities are finished. One open access point to the building during class hours manned at all times from protected cover and two rovers. 6 week assignments at each participating school and then you rotate. Draw from a pool of qualified personnel with standardized skills and training requirements, continuing proficiency quals, good insurances, and decent pay. Is it extreme? Probably. Will it happen? Probably not. However, IMO, this is a good framework to secure a school if one really wants it secured. Carry On! [/QUOTE]

Verification

What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA