| Welcome to Livonianeighbors.com. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. To ensure your privacy, never use personal information in your screen name or email address ("janedoe@hotmail.com" or "Billysmom" for example). Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Board of Education Meeting; Monday, October 15, 2007 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 15 2007, 09:57 PM (3,907 Views) | |
| Deleted User | Oct 17 2007, 12:21 PM Post #41 |
|
Deleted User
|
I really like the idea of having the LPD hooked into all of the security cameras, so they can quickly assess any trouble before they even arrive on the scene. We would also have to give Westland PD access. Also make it available to the fire departments. And wouldn't it be just awesome to have security cameras outside running 24/7 to catch all of those vandal turds that have destroyed some schools.That alone would save alot of money. |
|
|
| Mrs.M | Oct 17 2007, 12:31 PM Post #42 |
|
Veteran
|
The BOE will continue to get questioned on every action it takes, or doesn't take. Every signature and purchase is scrutinized (and will continue to be) because of changes and implementations LPS has made, without consensus. Unfortunately our children's and community's safety may be improvised. As children we were told, once trust has been lost, it takes a long time to regain the confidence and same level of trust that was once there. |
| I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be WRONG. | |
![]() |
|
| Dad | Oct 17 2007, 02:35 PM Post #43 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Do you know how much you pay one person to watch the cameras for one building? Cameras with LPD access do nothing unless you are willing to take personnel off the streets and out of the community and have MANY of them sit and watch cameras 24/7. |
![]() |
|
| BoaterDan | Oct 17 2007, 03:40 PM Post #44 |
|
Veteran
|
I thought Jimid's post was pretty clearly talking about the PD accessing the cameras as part of a situation they were having to show up to deal with, not as a preventive measure (except to the extent it might act as a deterrent). |
![]() |
|
| LPS Reformer | Oct 17 2007, 08:54 PM Post #45 |
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
|
Experience is a dear teacher, but fools will learn at no other. Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790) |
|
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people.... ----Randy Liepa 8/9/12 | |
![]() |
|
| REB84 | Oct 17 2007, 09:34 PM Post #46 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I am new to this forum, but I am not new to blogging. I am also very familiar with what constitutes "state of the art" security technology. Be assured, the system tabled by the board of education is not modern technology. And there was no clearly articulated requirement and specification. However, the adequacy or inadequacy of the technology is a side show issue. There is a far more important point regarding school security, and the windows issue helps to illustrate it. We all need to be more aware of what is going on in our own back yards. Our children are far more likely to be injured in traffic accidents, schoolyard accidents, and assaults than they are from being abducted by a stranger. As Jimid makes so graphically (and redundantly) clear, school shootings are almost exclusively carried out by disgruntled, and marginalized students. No amount of technology (with the possible exception of high-end metal detectors and bomb sniffing dogs) will prevent a deranged, delusional student from reeking havoc. Therefore, Mark Shultz is right to emphasize the need to train LPS teachers and administrators in prevention and intervention techniques. I would argue that students should also be trained in security in an age appropriate manner. An educated and vigilant staff and student body is the best defense. Technology has its place, but it is only as effective as the planning that goes into it and the people who use it. The brief document linked here helps spell out a common sense approach to address threats in a clear and concise manner. http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/deputy/Documents...tchecklist.html |
![]() |
|
| chickmunk | Oct 17 2007, 09:53 PM Post #47 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hi Everyone! Disclaimer: This is just "food for thought" I am not advocating anything here... But lets not forget additional security measures (which would go against the idea of hiding in a corner "on lockdown"...) full article at http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2580664&page=1 " A group of Texas security experts with a company called "Response Options" has made instructional video tapes showing a gunman bursting into a classroom and being swarmed by students. The instructors tell students to throw their books, book bags, desk and chairs using everything and anything to disrupt and take down a gunman. Robin Browne, a major with the British Army, helped design the training course and says it is necessary for students and teachers to throw themselves into the line of fire. "This is not a burglar. This is not a bank robber," Browne said. "This is someone who has come onto school property with the express intention of using a deadly weapon to hurt and dominate people who cannot necessarily defend themselves." A person who enters a school, Browne said, "is in the same category as serial killers." "We are dealing with a predator here and a predator, when he is offered prey and the prey gives in will take advantage of that prey," he said. "What we are teaching here is for the children to not allow the predator to take control. … They actually become the superior the dominant party in the room, and it is actually the gunman who becomes the prey." |
![]() |
|
| Extra Olives | Oct 17 2007, 10:05 PM Post #48 |
|
Veteran
|
Well stated, REB84. Welcome! |
![]() |
|
| REB84 | Oct 17 2007, 10:27 PM Post #49 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Great post Chipmunks. I had not heard of that technique, but it makes sense. It reminds me of the advise the kids in the old neighborhood were given by their parents back in the day. When someone is bullying you, "kick his ass." Most bullies back down when challenged. Unfortunately, sometimes, the bully was a tough as he tried to appear and we took our lumps. Still, we did not die!!! A student shooter is not only a hunter in search of prey, he is an irrational individual acting out a fantasy. Aggressive confrontation will throw this fantasy off track, and may likely lead to panic and break the spell. Likely many lives will be saved. The attacks should be defused far more quickly. This in turn will enable first responders to treat gunshot wounds and other injuries. This has the benefit of saving lives. While no amount of planning will keep a determined shooter out of schools, planning, training, and effective use of IP networked, software driven, internet accessible, up-to-date cameras can help teachers, administrators, and first responders assess a situation before they take action or call for more help. In a crisis, knowledge is power. That is why cameras should be installed before card access readers. The first thing law enforcement asks for is information. They need to quickly understand what they are dealing with before they take action. After a course of action is determined, police and fire officers need reliable communications. Mark Schultz has ensured that LPS and public service workers can communicate. As one of his first investments, Mark deployed dependable two way radios so that emergency communications continues (even in a blackout). It is too bad Mr. Schultz didn't plan the communications for NYC under Giuliani. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...earch&plindex=2 |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Oct 18 2007, 10:56 PM Post #50 |
|
Deleted User
|
Exactly. The more aware we all are the better. The more prepared we are to deal with these situations the better. The more help we can give law enforcement, emergency medical services, and fire protection the better. And not just for these worst case scenarios. I bet everyone in the stories I posted said they thought it could never happen to them. |
|
|
| responseoptions | Oct 19 2007, 07:57 AM Post #51 |
|
Newbie
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hey folks, my name is Greg Crane, I am one of the founders of the company "Response Options." I am posting here at the request of one of your members who requested comment on the school safety issue. Our experience as SWAT officers during the 90's, and having dealt with a school shooting just prior to Columbine, exposed our biggest weakness in these events: We could not be there in time to prevent the carnage. With that in mind, we looked at the ability of security and deterrence measures to STOP the event. Of course, we found no magic technology that would really interfere with the determined attacker. Almost every school that has been attacked has had camera systems, the ability to lock doors, some have had metal detectors, and several have had on-campus police officers. None of the above stopped the event. We do not build schools to keep people out during the school day. And who would want to go to school at a Fort Knox-like structure? But this does lead to the fact that if a determined attacker wants in, he's getting in. What we found is the real issue in defending against these attacks is the passive, static actions of the targets of opportunity. By policy, schools require the staff and students to lock themselves in the danger area with the bad guy. And if their secure area is breached, or if they are unable to reach a secure area, they are given no training or information on what they can do. That is where we have focused our efforts, with a priority being escape. Shooting is a physical skill. The level of skill required to hit the target is directly related to the difficulty level of the target. When you relate that reality with what schools traditionally have been telling our kids to do, it starts to make sense why just one or two attackers are able to achieve such abnormal casualty rates. It is not that they are highly trained tactical operators, it is the fact that they are able to engage passive, static, unarmed targets at point blank range- How good do they have to be? Unarmed should not mean incapable. We show schools low-cost infrastructure changes that facilitate escape. We advise on policy changes that authorize and enable the school occupants to make good, informed decisions as to what is their best option at the moment. And we teach very simple strategies that greatly increase the skill level required to accurately engage them as targets. Common sense stuff, just not common knowledge. The police will be there and engage as quick as they can. And normally as soon as contact is made, the shooter kills himself. We have to train the kids in strategies that will frustrate the shooter and/or keep him busy for just a short amount of time. But if he's allowed to control the situation, we've seen too often the results that can occur in just the minutes in takes for law enforcement arrival. I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments. More information is available on our website, www.roseminars.com. |
![]() |
|
| Vanna White | Oct 19 2007, 09:24 AM Post #52 |
|
Veteran
|
What you say makes perfect sense to me. Training teachers adminstrators and kids how to handle a situation that involves an armed attacker would give them skills that may be useful both in and out of school. Most people would understandably be paralyzed with fear when a gun is pointed at them, but in some situations, failure to act appropriately (and thus giving all the control to the attacker) means almost certain death. |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Forum · Next Topic » |








![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
