Students, Rights Groups Not Interested In More Police In Schools

Remember, the NRA and other plans aren’t necessarily about putting more police in school: the best plan would be to use one or two people at a time just to hang out at the school with a gun, like a retired military member or someone’s grandpa, or even an armed security service, there simply to be there as a discouragement to nutjobs, not to act as law enforcement. Likewise, having a few school employees armed would work the same in simply providing a deterrent

(USA Today) As post-Newtown proposals aimed at making U.S. schools safer take shape, civil rights groups are taking an unusual stand, saying “no thanks” to more police in school.

Several groups have already told Congress that more armed officers in schools won’t necessarily make students safer. On March 28, a coalition of young people from across the nation announced its opposition to “the deployment of additional armed guards” in schools.

“We don’t need more guns,” said Judith Brown Diannis of the Advancement Project, a coalition of civil rights groups that supports the students. “We need people who can build relationships with young people.”

Right, because that’s going to protect them how, exactly? Oh, wait, I forgot, this is the era of squishy progressivism, where Kumbayaism will Save Us All or something.

Hers and others are pushing for schools to hire more counselors and social workers, saying the threat from outside intruders like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., is exceedingly rare. “Unfortunately, when these tragedies happen, we never make the choices that are about the long-term solutions,” she said.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, did they just say “f*** it, things like this happen”?

The national group that represents school police officers notes that the rise of SROs in the early 2000s coincided with a 17% decline in juvenile arrests and a 13% decline in violent crime. But civil rights groups point to recent statistics in places like Florida that suggest cops in school led to more arrests for minor, often routine disciplinary disturbances, often tied to district “zero-tolerance” policies for violence, drugs and weapons. These arrests, they say, send kids down a path of school suspension, expulsion and delinquency, worsening what they call the “school-to-prison pipeline.”

So, these groups aren’t interested in having more police in schools because they might arrest kids for criminal violations of the law like violence, drugs, and weapons? These groups would prefer that juveniles are allowed to continue on with their drugs, violence, and weapons. Great. I guess they will need the social workers, who will be able to hopefully place these future convicted felons into minimum wage jobs.

Again, how about simply having a school employee or two (or as many as want to) carrying a gun on property? Require that they attend training course on weapons usage and safety. They aren’t there to act as a law enforcement officer, just to deter wackjobs from coming to a “gun free zone” for an easy kill rate.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “Students, Rights Groups Not Interested In More Police In Schools”

  1. gitarcarver says:

    Ain’t it funny how “educational professionals” pushed for “zero tolerance” policies and now that the policy causes more problems, they want to blame others for enforcing the policies.

  2. john says:

    And let’s arm all the bus drivers.

  3. john says:

    oh and lets arms all the school crossing guards

  4. john says:

    and the mail men

  5. gitarcarver says:

    As usual, your premise is false. It is not “arming” anyone. It is allowing people to exercise their God given, natural rights.

    Why shouldn’t a teacher, bus driver or mail carrier be denied the ability to defend themselves?

    If you don’t want to carry a weapon, that is your choice. But why are you against law abiding citizens protecting themselves? Why do you insistnon creating more victims?

  6. If, as Obama says, it can save just on child, OK then

  7. Gumball_Brains says:

    Several groups have already told Congress that more armed officers in schools won’t necessarily make students safer.

    “We don’t need more guns,” said Judith Brown Diannis of the Advancement Project, a coalition of civil rights groups that supports the students. “We need people who can build relationships with young people.

    Yes, because when Adam Lanza came to that school, if just one school counselor had met him at the door, he could have felt a connection there to that person Lanza never met before, thus avoiding all of the anger and vengeance.

    If, there can just be more counselors to make strangers to a school not hate.

    Why the hate?

    Because confrontation and patronization always disarm nutjobs bent on mass killings.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6411 access attempts in the last 7 days.