Letter to the Editor
Threat reaction
Published Monday, November 17, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!Nov. 12, 2008
To the editor:
Why, why, why would children be kept in a building that has an “alleged” bomb threat in it? Why keep the children in it for two and a half hours? Even if it is alleged that there is a bomb in there, “get them out” is my first instinct.
We can put two and two together; we knew that it was a prank call to divert the attention of the local police. But that is beside the point. My child was held in a building that had the threat of a bomb! What’s that all about?
Those kids should have been put on buses and taken to a safe place. We do not understand this. Is there anyone that can make sense of this?
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
By all means! Get those kids out of the relative safety of their classrooms and march them right through all of the probable kill zones. Bunch them up to maximize casualties in the hallways and exits, and then put them right outside, waiting to/or boarding buses, right where a nutball would have the most access for the placement of a bomb.
Yes, by all means! Flush the children out into the open, where a nut hiding in a nearby building with a rifle can gun down some of them. The ensuing panic and confusion should give the nut time to reload multiple times and continue shooting. The kids will be scared and won't know what to do or where to go, giving the nut a large number of relatively stationary targets. Consider the possibility of several nuts, in a coordinated assault from several nearby buildings. The effort to move the children to 'safety' away from the school could yield a slaughter unmatched in recent history.
Sadly -
In today's world the 'nutball' is probably a student attending or recently expelled from the school and the most probable areas for a bomb are a locker or garbage can.
2 1/2 hours is an eternity for a parent whose child is locked inside a school when possible danger is lurking. With the shear number of police and other individuals, I would think a cleared 'safe' zone could have been quickly established to get the kids out of the building and back to the parents in a timely fashion -
The letter writer asks a valid question - was this delay planned or was it a result of poor implementation and confusion?
Yes, akguy, you're right ... the problem is often "a student attending or recently expelled from the school" ... however, the weapon used is almost always a firearm, not a bomb.
My memory may be faulty but I can't recall any significant domestic bombings since Oklahoma City.
On the other hand, people using firearms to injure or kill multiple people is an almost daily occurrence. Limiting the field to school-related shootings still yields depressingly frequent statistics.
The bottom line is the odds of someone successfully detonating a bomb is extremely low. The odds of someone using a gun approaches 100%. With that in mind, keeping the students inside the building and, ideally, locked in classrooms reduces the risk, both for individual students and the student body as a whole. Basically, the idea is to eliminate, or at least reduce, the availability of targets for one or more gunmen.
I understand the feelings of the parents -- I am both a father and a grandfather. But I would point out to those parents that a rash reaction might very well put their children directly in the path of danger, rather than keeping them out of harm's way.
As for the length of time, I think it was reasonable considering what all was going on at the time. Unlike many bank robberies, the cops did not quickly catch the robber. That leads me to believe the cops concentrated making sure the school was safe and made catching the robber a secondary concern.
The school IS the 'safe' zone and it takes time to ensure no danger is lurking in or around the school. I can understand the cops taking extra time and care, considering a nervous, possibly armed, bank robber might be hiding in the vicinity.
Ask any infantry soldier ... bunching the students up in a tight group increases the risk, both from gunfire and bombs. Keeping them spread out inside a stout building makes a successful attack much more difficult.
I've witnessed, and attended many "mass casualty" exercises. Including one just a few short months ago, held at Lathrop High School during the summer months.
That scenario involved "assailants" who opened fire inside of a school, and who had planted explosive devices inside as well.
The delays talked about here are NOT a result of "poor implementation and confusion" I can assure you.
Multiple agencies, law enforcement, emergency services, school district, etc. come together as one to combat the problem.
That happened last week in North Pole.
Alot was going on in a short period of time. Bomb threats at the middle school, at post offices and a credit union robbery.
Resources, it turns out, were purposely stretched thin in order to successfully rob the credit union.
I'm a parent too. I would've been sick wondering if my children were okay inside that school after some knucklehead called in a bomb threat.
But I trust school officials would do what they had to do to keep my children, and others safe.
And follow protocol that they were trained to follow.
This is not a situation that is solved in a few short minutes.
Just doesn't work that way.
"Establishing a quick and clear safe zone" is a good idea, but officials (police) have to think of their own safety before entering that big building.
Bringing the children out of the school into a possible line of fire is another concern.
Imagine those same parents seeking a quick resolution and reunion with their child watching their children slaughtered right in front of them by some fool lying in wait for officials to bring kids out of the building.
Then everyone would be screaming "Why didn't they just keep them IN the building?"
Not criticizing any of the previous comments here, but I've seen all of these agencies in action..together..training for just this type of event and others.
It's taken very serious.
But its also common knowledge that some will be pleased with the way its implemented, while others will have problems with it.
All in all...the children were safe.
That's the most important part of it all.
I agree, I think that our police and other agencies responded appropriatly. But I also understand how difficult it can be to understand WHY they kept those children inside. I was wondering the same thing at the time. Maybe they could have secured the perimeter a little faster and evacuated the students/teachers. I just think that parents need to be informed of they routines used during a bomb threat or any other threat to the school/students/teachers. They have reason for doing the things they do. This sounds like a concerned parent, so maybe provide information and not sarcastic mean comments. (:
Columbine started off with bombs. There were 2 propane bombs in the cafateria and they had pipe bombs that they were throwing. THEN they started shooting people.
Police had a room full of possible suspects too. I'm sure till their 100% sure it wasn't a student they're not going to release them.
Agreed "FbksRN."
When that dumbass fugitive Robert Gentleman holed up for hours in a Baranof Street residence in October, forcing police to bring in a SWAT team, and causing a lockdown at both Ladd Elementary AND Tanana Middle School, I saw the "Mama Bear" mentality at full tilt.
A flood of women wanting to get TO Ladd to get their children, and being told "No!" by a police officer almost turned ugly.
Especially when the officer told one worried mother "don't make me arrest you."
I thought all those women, some already very emotional, would group together and claw his eyes out.
All in all, law enforcement and the school district did a great job funneling Ladd students along a back trail to Tanana in order to get them to their parents.
Although police were looking out for the safety of many that day, the old saying still applies......
"Coming between a mama and her cubs....."
I think you all know the rest.
Unless you know all the facts, then assuming the students would be safer outside the school is a poor conclusion. What if... the threat was a car bomb, a backpack left in a common area, something on a bus? The authorities know how important your kids are to you and know that there are more than one possible outcome to any scenario. You assume that the building will somehow collapse when in truth the teachers have much more control over the kids than you give them credit and they can keep the kids calm safe and out of the way while the threat is assessed, and reduced. Until it is safe to do otherwise, the kids should stay put.
Being a parent does not make one an expert in all areas. There is a bomb threat plan, developed by folks that have some training. My question to the letter writer: What was the compelling reason to give up the cover and concealment offered by the building?
If standard procedure is a lockdown, a "planning" badguy will realize that the school immediately turns into a secure environment, minimizing his ability to inflict as much harm as possible.
If standard procedure is evacuate and fill the hallways and take them outside, a "planning" badguy has a turkey shoot. No security, no locked doors, everyone in the hallways and streaming outside into huge groups trying to ask each other whats going on.
This also simplifies what the students have to be aware of. If anything goes wrong at school, it's a lockdown and they know the drill. On the other hand, an evacuation that no one's ever done before.... How would it be done without making a huge group of vulnerable kids, while making it simple enough that everyone could do it perfectly, and making sure every kid is accounted for?
I don't think the students and teachers have much of a problem with it, but parents rightly feel anxious. I dont think that sentiment should go so far as to potentially compromise the safety of everyone at the school.
Being a parent does make you an expert on YOUR child. School officials, law enforcement agencies, and SWAT teams do not have the right to keep a parent's child from them. Remember it's the parent's who excuse their children from school not the school's administration. Any parent should have had the right to go in that school and get their kid, at any time...bomb threat or not!
As far as I'm concerned this was a kidnapping by the school, plain and simple. Thank God for home schooling.
And Oldskool, what gives you the right to publicly call Robert Gentleman a dumbass? Did you use that line in your news report too?
sourdoughdiablo, I am actually dumber from reading your response. The third sentence is the only one that is correct.
Being a parent makes YOUR child YOUR priority, but does not make you an expert on all things related to the child.
Sourdough, do you really think being a parent makes anyone an "expert" on anything? Maybe you should remember that your "rights" end when they threaten the health and safety of another. Does your parenting expertise override the safety and wellbeing of every other parent's child in the school?
For the sake of an argument, what if there had been a bomb and it was rigged to a door? Armed with their parental rights, the expert parent marches up to retrieve their child from the school and sets off the bomb. You tell me, who was wrong? Who would get the blame in that situation?
For the record, yes, I think most people with half an ounce of common sense would aggree that Gentleman was pretty much as described.
I know this is off the subject, but I had to respond.
Sorry Diablo...I appreciate your comments, but I've known of this obviously troubled young man and his illegal activities for quite sometime....I stand by my words. That's my personal opinion, which I am entitled to.
Ask one of our neighborhood chiropractors, Dr. McAfee how he feels about this young man, who nearly killed his daughter while driving recklessly in North Pole, then skipped out of the hospital before authorities could arrest him.
Ask the residents in the Sandvik Apartments who had their lives disrupted when police finally caught up with the fugitive weeks later.
Ask the UAF Police officer who he alleged pointed a gun at along Geist Road earlier this year, or any number of parents and children who had their lives disrupted by his activities along Baranof Street last month.
That's just a few things I know about Mr. Gentleman "Diablo."
What do you want me to call someone who purposely has no regard for the law or who he affects with his actions?
Misunderstood?
Blazer, I agree that sourdoughdiablo's comment might have been a little too fanatical, but the base concept has some merit. I'm more inclinded to support Oldskoolnook42's response. Logic just isn't going to apply for a mother in a situation like that. I was not involved in any of the lockdowns (thank goodness!!) so I can only theorize how I would react. I'd like to think I'd be rational and understand that the law enforcement officer was only doing their job getting in between me and my child. It's not a theory I'd like to test because I highly doubt it would have a good outcome for anyone involved.
And sourdoughdiablo ... Robert Gentleman may or may not be a dumbass (I would tend to side with Oldskool on this one, too) but his behavior that day certainly put him in that category.
Thanks guys, you made my day!
There is generally no one best response as the criminals will just take that “ideal” response part of their plans. Advising the parents, but letting them make their own decision is the best choice and keeps them from going crazy or blaming others if something does go wrong. Telling a mother that she can take her child out of the school but that it will place the child in additional danger and that they have to sign a release form, would calm them down and convince a lot of them to leave their children in the safer area.
Jeez! I thought I was being so smart in our vulnerability assessment exercises. I got to be on the T-team (the bad guys). I guess it must be obvious that to make a really good scenario that really stands up you need multiple threats at diverse locations unfolding at pretty much the same time.
Well, I guess its back to blind phone chess with fundamentally dishonest people.
I would like to think that at least part of the reasoning behind the actual response included the desire to not bring more victims to the incident. And no, people do not have an inherent right to add danger and confusion to an already chaotic or dangerous situation just by virtue of parenthood. They don't have to like it but they do have to abide by it.
This policy is very questionable "Bomb threat" Get out of the area where the bomb is reported to be, seems correct. Get everyone in one room in the building threatened, seems not such a good idea. If there are more factors after that then the next decision will use the new factors. No schools anywhere in the country where there have been incidents have had real good luck at stopping them. Usually it is one or two courages people who really affect the outcome....
While probable danger zones are exits and hallways, I know I can buy enough ammmonium nitrate at Wal-Mart in a day to level Wal-Mart without showing ID. You just have to walk in three differant times, and see three differant cashiers.
Awful nice of them to sell explosive fertilizer, right next to the 5 gallon gas cans I would use to buy the gas to mix with it to make a Oklahoma City style bomb.
And people say America learns from thier mistakes?
Proceedure should be to secure the hallways and common areas, and then pull classes out of the building one at a time, under a human wall of cover from law enforcement personel, so as to avoid a target-rich enviroment for snipers.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.