Chicago School Board

[reason10]

On 2/26/2024 at 7:40 PM, herbie said:

If you think police presence is required in schools you must be too dim to realize your society has already collapsed. Move to Gaza or Sudan where it's safer.

In Florida, the police present in schools are called "resource officers." Some are deputy sheriffs. Some are  police. They show up in full gear, with the bulletproof vests, mace, billy sticks, pistols, etc. Most of their work is pretty much mundane stuff (helping remove disruptive students from classrooms.) But they ALL (I suppose with the exception of those !diots in  Broward county) are prepared to put themselves between the students and gunfire.

Florida has better schools than Illinois. If Chicago's unions have gone full DEFUND THE POLICE and want to leave those students unprotected against violent crime (since Chicago is the MURDER CAPITAL of the United States) then the body count of kids shot to death just might serve as a wakeup call.

The voters of Chicago shouldn't be reproducing anyway.

[herbie]

29 minutes ago, reason10 said:

They show up in full gear, with the bulletproof vests, mace, billy sticks, pistols, etc

You give invent a different name for them and it's all copacetic, eh?

Why not just call them Teaching Assistants and pretend they're not armed goons even harder?

[Michael Hardner]

On 6/7/2024 at 12:59 AM, August1991 said:

Michael.

I disagree. Money (paper promises) matters

Have you watched The Time Machine yet?

[August1991]

38 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Have you watched The Time Machine yet?

Michael,

Please fork this thread.

a) I was surprised to learn that downtown Chicago was a walkable city.

b) Children learn in many ways.

[User]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Why not just call them Teaching Assistants and pretend they're not armed goons even harder?

Wow, the real truth always starts to come out. 

So, you hate Law Enforcement. 

You hate them so much you would rather see unsafe schools, unprotected children, and more deaths. 

[reason10]

5 hours ago, herbie said:

You give invent a different name for them and it's all copacetic, eh?

Why not just call them Teaching Assistants and pretend they're not armed goons even harder?

We're okay with resource officers. And in towns with gangs that sometimes like to enter the school grounds and create havoc, we're kinda fond of these "armed goons."

[reason10]

4 hours ago, User said:

Wow, the real truth always starts to come out. 

So, you hate Law Enforcement. 

You hate them so much you would rather see unsafe schools, unprotected children, and more deaths. 

Unfortunately it is the society we live in. During the time I was in school, cops were tall and thin and respected. I figured they were thin because they didn't have to wear a bulky bulletproof vest. Back then, people weren't such monsters as to imagine taking a shot at a cop.

We don't like this, but our world is dangerous. No school is really safe. None of us like having to put these domestic soldiers in institutions of learning, but they are needed. And they have a very precious cargo to protect.

Even Florida schools are unsafe, (especially those !diots in Broward County.)

But you know, I gotta wonder. If a liberal discovers someone is breaking into his house, does he dial 911 and plead "Please send some armed goons over here."

[impartialobserver]

We have extremely few SRO's in Washoe County School District. Hmm... and what has been the result? Two small scale school shootings.. neither connected by time or geography. So police presence in schools is not an absolute necessity. On a case by case basis, it could be. Oh.. and the poorest school in the state did not have the shooting nor does it have crime rates above that of the state averages. 

[User]

23 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

We have extremely few SRO's in Washoe County School District. Hmm... and what has been the result? Two small scale school shootings.. neither connected by time or geography. So police presence in schools is not an absolute necessity. On a case by case basis, it could be. Oh.. and the poorest school in the state did not have the shooting nor does it have crime rates above that of the state averages. 

My house has never burned down... so having a Fire Department is not an absolute necessity. 

What is your point here?

Of course, an SRO is not always going to be an absolute necessity, but the entire point of having one is to be there when it is. Because it is too late to need them at a school with a violent threat when the violent threat is already happening. Duh. 

It may not always be practical or affordable to have an SRO in every single school, no matter the size or risk... but that is a different kind of discussion than others are making here being opposed to them conceptually at all. 

 

[impartialobserver]

7 minutes ago, User said:

It may not always be practical or affordable to have an SRO in every single school,

Thanks for restating my point. I guess repetition can be good sometimes. 

[User]

4 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Thanks for restating my point. I guess repetition can be good sometimes. 

Well, you did not make this point... I did. 

[impartialobserver]

14 minutes ago, User said:

Well, you did not make this point... I did. 

A point can be made in different ways. Data on my behalf proves that it is not practical or necessary. Now if the shootings or crime was happening... then you bring the SRO on. 

[User]

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

A point can be made in different ways. Data on my behalf proves that it is not practical or necessary. Now if the shootings or crime was happening... then you bring the SRO on. 

Again, your point here is absurd. 

It is the same thing as saying... we don't need a fire department because no houses have burnt down. But when a house does catch on fire, then we should bring on the fire department... except, you don't have one and now half your neighborhood burns down. 

It is too late to say bring on the SRO, AFTER a shooting starts happening. 

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, User said:

Again, your point here is absurd. 

It is the same thing as saying... we don't need a fire department because no houses have burnt down. But when a house does catch on fire, then we should bring on the fire department... except, you don't have one and now half your neighborhood burns down. 

It is too late to say bring on the SRO, AFTER a shooting starts happening. 

Except that fires do happen and at a far higher rate than school shootings in the state. Data proves it. Your acceptance of this data is not necessary. What practical justification is there for an SRO at a school where there has never been a school shooting (keep in mind that there are 114 schools with the first one opening in 1869). For the other 112... zero but lets stretch the already thin budget to bring on an SRO because it MIGHT happen. Unlike you, I do not view predictions as evidence. 

[User]

Just now, impartialobserver said:

Except that fires do happen and at a far higher rate than school shootings in the state. Data proves it. Your acceptance of this data is not necessary. What practical justification is there for an SRO at a school where there has never been a school shooting (keep in mind that there are 114 schools with the first one opening in 1869). For the other 112... zero but lets stretch the already thin budget to bring on an SRO because it MIGHT happen. Unlike you, I do not view predictions as evidence. 

Except... school shootings do happen too. As does general violence in school. The issue is not if fires happen more frequently than school shootings, it is your absurd logic in when SRO's are needed. 

What practical justification is there for a fire department in a city or town without a fire yet? -> Same dumb argument.

Where did I view a prediction as evidence? What are you even talking about. 

 

[impartialobserver]

13 minutes ago, User said:

Except... school shootings do happen too. As does general violence in school. The issue is not if fires happen more frequently than school shootings, it is your absurd logic in when SRO's are needed. 

What practical justification is there for a fire department in a city or town without a fire yet? -> Same dumb argument.

Where did I view a prediction as evidence? What are you even talking about. 

 

except that fires happen in every city/town and have done so since the state (Nevada) since it came into existence. This is apples to oranges. But hey lets hire an SRO at a given school in NV where there has never been a school shooting or any major crime?

[User]

33 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

But hey lets hire an SRO at a given school in NV where there has never been a school shooting or any major crime?

But hey, lets not worry about little kids getting killed until AFTER it happens... 

[reason10]

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

Except that fires do happen and at a far higher rate than school shootings in the state. Data proves it. Your acceptance of this data is not necessary. What practical justification is there for an SRO at a school where there has never been a school shooting (keep in mind that there are 114 schools with the first one opening in 1869). For the other 112... zero but lets stretch the already thin budget to bring on an SRO because it MIGHT happen. Unlike you, I do not view predictions as evidence. 

Unfortunately, folks, the toothpaste is out of the tube. The shit is out of the horse. There's no way of putting it back.

Yeah, I went to school with ZERO police or deputy sheriff presence because it never would have occurred to anyone to shoot up a school. Columbine became the first evidence that some parents clearly weren't doing their job. Just THAT school shooting by itself justified resource officers at EVERY school in the country, 
The worst monsters of society are that way because it actually occurs to them to be that way.

Two major points here:

1. You can tell if the resource officer idea is working if there is NEVER EVER an attempt by a student or an adult to shoot up a school or even bring a firearm to school. That means the system is a success.

 

2. You can tell if the system is a failure if even now some animal sneaks a firearm on the campus and starts blasting. That means the deterrent did not work. But in that instance it's better to have armed police officers to stand between the animals and the students.

 

3. I'd like to think of this in the same light as health insurance for someone who has the healthiest lifestyle of all. Yes, it's probably going to be a colossal waste of money (with Democrats making insurance premiums higher and higher) but I would LOVE to say I paid all those insurance premiums and never once had to use it. That's a victory.
 

My friend, it's the world we live in. It's not our fault, but the children have to be protected.

 

[impartialobserver]

2 hours ago, User said:

But hey, lets not worry about little kids getting killed until AFTER it happens... 

Case by Case as I said. You honestly think that by putting an SRO in every school that you would prevent what is exceedingly rare already. Well.. practicality and rationality are not your strong suits. 

2 hours ago, reason10 said:

You can tell if the resource officer idea is working if there is NEVER EVER an attempt by a student or an adult to shoot up a school or even bring a firearm to school. That means the system is a success.

what is your explanation then for when there is no SRO and has never been and yet there have been no shootings (attempted or followed through). Oh... and these schools with zero shootings are not all are in rural country. Most of which are in the city limits.

[User]

15 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Case by Case as I said. You honestly think that by putting an SRO in every school that you would prevent what is exceedingly rare already. Well.. practicality and rationality are not your strong suits. 

So, is it your contention that school shootings and school violence are of no level to be of any concern, then?

Case by case doesn't mean anything. You keep saying to do something after the fact. 

[impartialobserver]

7 minutes ago, User said:

So, is it your contention that school shootings and school violence are of no level to be of any concern, then?

Case by case doesn't mean anything. You keep saying to do something after the fact. 

Hmmm... reading comprehension fails you again.. I have specified the geography a number of times.... If this was Inglewood, CA.. different place, different story. I know that is too complex for you. Exceedingly rare and random events can't be predicted... at least I can admit to that. 

[User]

5 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Hmmm... reading comprehension fails you again.. I have specified the geography a number of times.... If this was Inglewood, CA.. different place, different story. I know that is too complex for you. Exceedingly rare and random events can't be predicted... at least I can admit to that. 

What geography did you specify that has anything to do with this argument? You certainly didn't in the comment I just responded to. 

Where was it a point of contention about predicting rare and random events? Where have I failed to admit to this?

 

 

[reason10]

2 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Case by Case as I said. You honestly think that by putting an SRO in every school that you would prevent what is exceedingly rare already. Well.. practicality and rationality are not your strong suits. 

what is your explanation then for when there is no SRO and has never been and yet there have been no shootings (attempted or followed through). Oh... and these schools with zero shootings are not all are in rural country. Most of which are in the city limits.

I'm not going to ask the location of this district, because you have the right to  privacy. (And you have the right to your opinion as well.) Like I said earlier about Florida's superior public schools, most decisions are decided at the County level. If a county decides NOT to have armed police officers in a school and it is safe, I have no problem with that. (Another reason I haven't asked you the location of this district is because it's better if fewer people know about, since you and both know there are nuts out there who will jump at the chance to make history by seeking out such a school for a shooting. And you and I both HATE the fact that our society has become so SICK that something like that is possible.)

I remember a school board election debate, in which the Republican candidate actually suggested taking down the fences surrounding the schools because they make the schools look like a prison. (You may remember a while back when I said that a LOT of my views on education will p!ss off a lot of conservatives here, but I work in the system as a substitute and I see a lot. I guess it helps that I work at the best schools in the country.)  Over the last six months, my newest sub assignments had me walking through metal detectors (at every school). Everything is locked. It is state law that each classroom has to be locked at ALL TIMES. And once in a while we'll have a Code Red drill, (I actually went through a REAL Code Red in Orlando, due to a drive by shooting just up the street. I heard the shots. Almost sh!t myself. )

To answer your first point, school shootings are rare because a potential school shooter (one who is saner, at least) realizes that it's harder to get onto the campuses and there are armed cops on campus. I believe the deterrent is real and effective.

 

[impartialobserver]

18 hours ago, reason10 said:

I'm not going to ask the location of this district, because you have the right to  privacy. (And you have the right to your opinion as well.) Like I said earlier about Florida's superior public schools, most decisions are decided at the County level. If a county decides NOT to have armed police officers in a school and it is safe, I have no problem with that. (Another reason I haven't asked you the location of this district is because it's better if fewer people know about, since you and both know there are nuts out there who will jump at the chance to make history by seeking out such a school for a shooting. And you and I both HATE the fact that our society has become so SICK that something like that is possible.)

I remember a school board election debate, in which the Republican candidate actually suggested taking down the fences surrounding the schools because they make the schools look like a prison. (You may remember a while back when I said that a LOT of my views on education will p!ss off a lot of conservatives here, but I work in the system as a substitute and I see a lot. I guess it helps that I work at the best schools in the country.)  Over the last six months, my newest sub assignments had me walking through metal detectors (at every school). Everything is locked. It is state law that each classroom has to be locked at ALL TIMES. And once in a while we'll have a Code Red drill, (I actually went through a REAL Code Red in Orlando, due to a drive by shooting just up the street. I heard the shots. Almost sh!t myself. )

To answer your first point, school shootings are rare because a potential school shooter (one who is saner, at least) realizes that it's harder to get onto the campuses and there are armed cops on campus. I believe the deterrent is real and effective.

 

It is washoe county school district (northern nevada). So then why are there are so few shootings and yet no deterrent. You can expand the geography to all of northern nevada along with eastern oregon and you find zero shootings (besides the two exceptions in Reno). Its all situational. If this was south central LA.. different story. There is a demonstrated need that one can back up with data. Pershing county, Nevada.. no demonstrated need. 

[User]

14 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

It is washoe county school district (northern nevada). So then why are there are so few shootings and yet no deterrent.

There were no shootings in Sandy Hook before there was one. There were no shootings in Uvdale before there was one...

Again, your point is absurd.