BORELLI CONSULTING: Recommended Reading

School Resource Officers' Next Millennium
By: Frank Borelli

A few decades back, School Resource Officers didn't even have such a name. They were generally cops assigned to a High School to assist the school faculty and staff with maintaining the peace among sometimes hot-headed and rowdy teenagers. Across the years the School Resource Officers (SROs) found their duties expanding to cover drug enforcement in the school environment (with attention to the special conditions that exist in an educational facility full of minors), crowd control at games and assemblies, and more. As we're about half-way through our seventh year of the new millennium, SROs have to face the reality of their duties expanding again - and this time in a way that potentially presents a larger threat to the school, economy and country than they've ever dealt with before: terrorist acts.

Not that long ago I served on a citizen advisory committee for a county school board. When I brought up the topic of potential terrorist attacks on schools the first reaction I received was, "It can't happen here." Yeah, I know that place: it exists all over the country: "It Can't Happen Here, USA". That was the name of another place called... what was it? Oh, yeah: Columbine.

First and foremost we have to recognize reality: IT CAN HAPPEN HERE. And the rate at which it is happening has accellerated in the past decade.

The next challenge I ran into was when I suggested putting deputies in the schools. It was very quickly explained to me that I was quite off-base. Here's why (as it was explained to me by the Superintendent of the school board in question):

1) ONE deputy armed only with a handgun certainly wasn't enough to stop several armed terrorists, so why even put him there just to sacrifice his life?

2) By putting an armed deputy in each school we would introduce a gun into the educational environment and history had proven that isn't a good thing.

3) There are too many questions about chain of command and control when a deputy works in a school. After all, in the school, his boss has to be the principal, but most Sheriffs won't surrender such control.

4) Finally, and maybe most important, by putting a uniformed authority figure in the school who was responsible for some measure of safety, we would be sending a bad message to the students: we'd be telling the students that they were no longer responsible for their own safety and actions.

My eyes are brown but even I'M not that full of it.

Let me address those issues one at a time. Bear in mind as you read all these responses, they are an expression of my opinion - albeit backed by the same opinion of several nationally and internationally recognized experts on school security and terrorism.

1) One armed deputy certainly won't be sufficient to stop and defeat several terrorists... at least we don't THINK so. But that one armed deputy, with proper training and a warrior outlook, will certainly slow those terrorists down enough to allow some of the school students, staff and faculty to "lock down and shelter in place" or perhaps even escape out an exit at the other end of the school. Let's remember something: terrorists like media attention and the kind of attention they want comes with big numbers. The more students we can get out of the school before the terrorists take over, the less successful the terrorist siege will be.

2) I'm not familiar with a single incident where the gun of a law enforcement officer assigned as a School Resource Officer mysteriously just discharged by itself. Further, I'm not familiar with any incident where the gun, through whatever mystic forces it controls, turned the SRO into an evil student killer who went on a rampage. Anyone who is please advise. Guns are tools. In the hands of a skilled craftsman (likening police officers with guns to carpenters with hammers) they serve a purpose. In the hands of a ner-do-well, they are tools of mayhem (just like the hammer). They are inanimate objects and are not to be feared except by those who remain intentionally ignorant of them.

3) Policies and protocols are easy to write. It happens all the time. In a NON-violent situation, the SRO can very easily answer to the principal and support the school community as necessary. However, once the situation calls on the deputy / officer to act in his professional capacity as a contemporary warrior (i.e. active shooter, terrorist attack, etc), then the principal needs to start taking advice from the SRO. After all, one is trained to administrate in a peaceful school setting; the other is trained to respond to, achieve control over, and de-escalate crisis situations by force if necessary. Guess which one is which.

4) This is psychobabble mumbo-jumbo. Saying that putting a uniformed deputy into a high school lowers the students' level of responsibility is like saying that putting a state trooper on the side of a highway lowers the drivers' level of responsibility. In my experience that just isn't correct. Usually, when the guy in the uniform is around, people tend to make sure they are acting legally. By using the School Superintendent's logic, we could lower the rate of speeding violations by taking all state troopers and highway patrolman off the roads.

Now that we've addressed the lunacy that mandates our children remain viable unprotected targets for terrorists, let's take a look at what today's SROs need to be thinking about and training for.

To even begin evaluating the needs of today's SRO in America, we need to look around the world and see what experiences have been had with terrorist sieges in schools. Let's see... Beslan comes to mind as the biggest and (to date) worst. More than 1,200 hostages were taken at Beslan, Russia by 49 terrorists. The terrorists pulled up in several large trucks, unloaded their equipment and immediately began herding students, teachers and families INTO the school from the courtyard. Once inside, the terrorists went on to achieve total control over the hostages and began to fortify their positions. Fortification included LOTS of improvised explosive devices and two belt-fed machine guns in the main hallway, each pointing in the opposite direction. Approximately three days later, the assault on the school started quite unexpectedly as the result of the detonation of some explosives the terrorists hadn't handled properly. Once started it took more than nine hours to get the school back. More than 300 hostages had been killed, 186 of them children.

Is it realistic to think that a terrorist group operating here in America could even get 49 terrorists together for such an event? While some experts say no, I wonder. In the news recently we've seen repeated stories about how many illegal immigrants are entering our country through both the Mexican and Canadian borders. How many among them might, just MIGHT, be terrorists? Accepting that there may potentially be hundreds of terrorists already in the United States planning a school siege, how possible is it that they can get 49 together for an attack? That's actually the challenge. We Americans are nosy people. Even the most shy among us will pick up the phone and call 9-1-1 when we see a dozen or more middle-eastern appearing men and women all living in a two-bedroom house, coming and going at weird times and acting like they're hiding something.

So, as one expert says, let's assume that they can't get 49 together for a single attack. Most likely it'll be two, three or four school sieges committed in a coordinated fashion and timed together. Let's say they CAN get 45 terrorists, but not all together. If they want to do three school sieges, that gives them fifteen terrorists per school. As a reasonable starting point, the School Resource Officer who takes his job seriously has to consider what he / she will do when three truckloads of terrorists pull up in the parking lot and start unloading with AK74s or SKS assault weapons.

First, the whole school had better have a code word or catch phrase that IMMEDIATELY and WITH NO DOUBT alerts the entire staff and faculty to what is happening FAST. Upon hearing that codeword / catch phrase every teacher should be locking their door and starting the shelter-in-place procedure. The SRO should be moving toward the front of the school as quickly as possible, recognizing that he/she may be in some first grade classroom giving a presentation on the danger of drugs. The SRO has to mentally "switch gears" on the run and be ready to fight for not only his own life, but the lives of every innocent in that school. As I said, it is a warrior mindset that leaves no room for doubt or hesitation. I'd be willing to bet that many SROs today were selected because of their friendly demeanor and understanding attitudes. That's great when working with children and teachers, but it sucks when you're fighting against an armed terrorist. Maybe we need to rethink that?

Second, the SRO shouldn't focus on downplaying his authoritative image: he should be working on pumping it up. As has been reported by the FBI across the years during investigations with criminals: cops who LOOK professional and on-their-guard are less likely to be attacked by a criminal. Why? Because the criminal doesn't want a fight: he wants a victim. Terrorists have the same outlook: they don't want a fight: they want victims. They want hostages. They want lots and lots of media attention and the last thing they want on the news is that five or ten of them were killed by a single motivated well-trained well-armed aggressive cop. This makes me think of another line I recently heard: "Terrorists aren't afraid of America; they ARE afraid of Americans." - John Giduck.

Well said. ONE armed SRO putting on a good fight from a position of cover will most certainly present a challenge to the terrorists as they try to take control of the school. After all, if it's done correctly, they may not even be able to get all the way in the doors. So, the SRO should definitely be presenting him (or her) self as a competent professional, properly equipped, properly trained and highly motivated.

Third, what's "properly equipped"? Not that long ago I was arguing on a discussion forum that cops didn't NEED to be carrying more than two spare magazines of ammo. In a common 9mm (or even .40S&W) handgun, a loaded gun plus two spare magazines means 45+ rounds of ammo. What could possibly happen that would mandate more? Well, a terrorist siege is one answer. Now, while I'm not sure that the SRO needs to have six spare magazines on his belt, I am pretty sure that he'll need a lot more than 45 rounds to take on fifteen rifle-toting goons. What's the answer?

One that I would suggest is the Rapid Deployment Body Armor Bag (RDBAB). Certainly, safe storage with quick access would be a challenge, but the RDBAB would allow the SRO to grab ONE bag and immediately find himself armed with a rifle (or shotgun), four spare magazines, two more pistol magazines, and BODY ARMOR TRAUMA PLATES. That last part is very important.

So, consider this: you're an SRO with your handgun (using a Glock 22 .40S&W as the example) and two spare magazines on your gunbelt, and wearing your usual concealed body armor, Level IIIA. Something ugly happens and you can grab this bag. Thirty seconds later you can have a rifle in hand (30 rounds), with four magazines for it (120 more rounds), and after that you can switch over to your handgun (16 rounds in it, and four spare magazines - two on your belt and two in the bag - for a total of 76 more rounds). That gives you a fighting chance (at least) with 226 rounds of ammo. What's more is, because the RDBAB will hold trauma plates and transforms into wearable external body armor after you've unzipped it, your body armor will now at least stop the bullets that will be coming your way.

I would highly recommend that every SRO have an RDBAB handy (but safely stored) and that each RDBAB also include at least one "blow out" kit. Under no circumstances can the SRO stop fighting against a terrorist siege attempt. That one deputy that the School Superintendent so cavalierly dismissed (as described above), IF he puts on a strong enough defense, may just keep the terrorists from taking over THAT school on THAT day.

Now I can hear / feel some of the more liberal academic readers having heart attacks at the very idea of allowing a rifle into the school setting. To make matters worse, I'm going to make an even more hated suggestion: start training your teachers who volunteer, and ARM them. How many teachers today are service veterans? Even among those who aren't, how many have the fighting spirit? This isn't about the political argument that will always rage over gun control: this is about PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN. If the teachers are willing, TRAIN them and ARM them.

Israel learned the hard way that having guns in the right hands in schools is far better than allowing children to be slaughtered. We can learn that lesson the hard way ourselves or we can simply look at the lesson they learned, recognize that it CAN happen here, and start proactively preparing against it. I don't know how many of you readers are parents, but think about this: we all try to teach our children not to do some things because OUR experience has shown us that it's a bad idea. WE learned the hard way and we hope our children won't have to. When they DO insist on learning for themselves... the HARD way... we shake our heads, feel sympathy for them, help them recover and move on knowing that NOW they've learned. "Stubborn kid," we think. "Got spirit though," we mentally add. Right now, AMERICA is that stubborn kid. Lessons have been learned the hard way all around the world, but we keep insisting on learning them for ourselves. The price we, collectively as a national populace, will unfortunately have to pay, will be the lives of innocent children, staff and faculty at some school(s). We simply cannot allow that to happen and we have to start fighting against it today.

So, if you're a School Resource Officer, start making a nuisance of yourself. Start asking about terrorist response training; better equipment; additional SROs; etc. If you're a parent, start questioning your school board about their response plans and policies for a terrorist siege event. Don't accept being given the run around. Demand answers. Ask how often the School Superintendent and Chief of Police or County Sheriff (or all three if appropriate) meet and discuss options, challenges, and issues. Find out what they are planning. Volunteer to play whatever roll your skill sets will support. Most important, set aside the debate of gun control. That's a (largely) political debate that won't be solved in our lifetime. But focusing on the gun control debate will distract you from what is really important: protecting our children from those who would harm them. This is YOUR duty as parents, cops, deputies, security guards, and in general AMERICANS.

As I did with a previous article, I leave this thought with you: the Russian Special Forces' motto is, "If not me, who?" I ask every cop in the country today from every Chief to the most rookie new boot patrol cop: IF NOT YOU, WHO? Ask that when you look in the mirror. IF NOT ME, WHO?

BE SAFE!

I have a comment on this article.

New American Truth eMagazine
Dedicated to ALL citizens who oppose terrorism and injustice.
Subscribe Today!

Subscribe To New American Truth