ALICE in Blunderland

[XLFD]

For some reason, stories like the following, with a video included, just have me shaking my head and trying to figure out why our authorities are trying to do things this way:

SCOTTVILLE — Students and staff at Mason County Central’s Scottville Upper Elementary School learned steps on what to do in case of an intruder at the school during a special day of training Monday, Oct. 26.

The students learned about ALICE, an acronym that stands for alert, lockdown, inform, counter and evacuate. Scenarios, taught by Mason County Sheriff’s Office sergeants Oscar Davila and Derrek Wilson, included barricading classroom doors, taking defensive measures and also evacuating the classroom through windows.

Currently, a fundraising campaign is underway to raise money to place a protective device in the threshold of every classroom and school office in Mason County. The device, known as The Boot, will become another step towards protecting students and staff, Mason County Sheriff Kim Cole said.

http://www.masoncountypress.com/2015/10/27/scottville-upper-element...

The video is condensed from a full days training, and you should note that I did truncate MCP's plug for the Boot, but here's some of the reasons I shake my head.  I did years on the fire safety program with the Ludington Fire Department, where we would do a few interactive things with kindergarten and second grade kids, like "stop, drop, and roll" and simulating waking up in the middle of the night with the house on fire by using a 'smokehouse'.   Good fun and good lessons for the kids even though the scenario of your clothes or house being on fire are scary when they do happen.

Here, it appears that the Mason County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) is doing a similar thing with an active shooter scenario by using ALICE (Alert Lockdown Inform Confront Evacuate)  protocols for their safety.  That can't be anything but good, right?

But looking at the video, I see a lot of conflict with a traditional lockdown drill and this 'improved' ALICE drill which has lockdown as a step.  Here's a quickly performed scenario of a lockdown drill:

Now from the MCSO video look at: 

(0:50 in) Teacher announces a lockdown to a bunch of 3rd graders because of a gunman in the building, then immediately goes to evacuation.  Lockdown procedures should have been implemented immediately, as seen in the above video.  If an active shooter came to this door in the several minutes it takes the kids to get out the two small windows without anybody locking the door, it would be a slaughter. 

Secure the door, hide away from portals, and pull the drapes-- and maybe the school should consider darker drapes than the light tan ones they have.  The teacher may want to hold down his voice as well during the evacuation, the kids were.  Evacuate when it's safe to do so.

(1:23 in) The 'gunman' holding a camera as he enters the classroom is pelted by thrown objects from kids sitting in their seats the Confront aspect of ALICE.  Again, where's the lockdown element?  The scenario portrays the class as having advance knowledge of the intruder, but they have the door unlocked, the drapes wide open, and the kids sitting in their seats.  What gunman wouldn't have extra incentive for shooting these kids after being hit with an apple?

It then shows the kids in a well lit room waiting near the door, with a kid with a baseball bat.  Yet he is two lengths away from the intruder when he comes through the door.  This is useless and dangerous training.

(2:00 in) The deputy does a round robin of what could be placed in front of the door to stop an intruder from entering the classroom, then they are trained to put these objects in front of the door, that opens towards the hall.  Presuming it's not sufficiently secured, putting all that crap in front of the door just wastes a minute and provides the shooter with more targets.  Once the door's open he can shoot over the threshold. 

As a final note, the scruffy beards on the deputies above (coincidentally the two MCSO deputies who tackled, tased, and re-tased innocent victim Joe McAdam) give them more of a sinister look, which is good when you may be playing the part of a crazed gunman in training situations like this.

I don't like seeing kids being put into dangerous situations when they don't need to be, like quickly clambering out these windows in these drills, throwing objects, swinging bats in a classroom, etc.  I would prefer them to be taught how to properly lockdown, period, and I would like the school to not restrict the staff from carrying heat if they show proficiency and common sense.

Teaching the kids all these things that are contradictory even to the ALICE program, as noted, will only backfire when given at this early age.  You don't know how many second graders responded to the question "What would you do if you woke up and heard the smoke detector going off?" with the answer "Stop, drop and roll."  Much of what they learned from this ALICE training will evaporate from their minds.  With all the misinformation, that could be a good thing.

Here's a great ALICE presentation that's appropriate for early elementary school kids and much better focused:

[Willy]

This is nuts. This only teaches fear and stresses out the kids. Kids have a better chance of being hit by lightning or a tornado than having a "shooter" roaming their hallways. Most of the "shooters" are "students" anyway and were "known".

What should be done is to institute a generic solution that covers all possible threatening situations. Since 1980, 35 years ago there have been 137 school shootings with 297 deaths while thousands upon thousands more died from the flu, thousands upon thousands died from auto accidents and thousands more from neglect and abuse. Responsible measures can be taken to secure schools without creating a panic for the kids. Instead we are instilling fear in our kids about something that is a rare occurrence. More kids have died from school related accidents or being killed by the school bus they ride in.

[XLFD]

It does foster unreasonable fear in the kids, and psychologically speaking it may help breed the very thing the sheriff's office is trying to protect the kids from. 

As the last video shows, you can present ALICE concepts in a non-threatening way without mongering fear, the video previous to that shows the few simple steps for a lockdown.  If the MCSO could have done similar things, it may have not been a total waste of time and resources that left our kids scared, anxious, and misinformed. 

[Jasper]

This exercise led by Mason County's finest ..."serve and protect" officers from the MCSO was beyond unbelievable among many other adjectives that will be left from my comment!  WTH were they thinking????  Scaring and traumatizing young innocent children with their BS!

Seriously???? Placing desks, garbage cans, etc...in front of a door that swing outward???  LMAO!!!  Arming a 9-10 year old with a bat???LMAO!!!!  Throwing fruit, etc at a potential mass gunman????  LMAO!!!

Even funnier, these cops helping students by holding these kids hands going through the window as demonstrated by the video....Yeah friggin' right like they are going to be there! 

It all was silly, except for the potential emotional scars that were possibly forever imbedded in these young kids minds!  

WTH was Kim Cole even thinking???

[AQUAMAN]

I guess Sheriff Cole needs another publicity stunt to put his name back in the LDN's front page. Personally, I think a lot of this is all BS in nature, and won't work if the situation presents itself. How many times have we had shooters in any Mason County schools, ever? NONE! That's why we don't need to do all this stuff, and make kids more paranoid and stressed out than they already are by school events and attendance. I understand fire drills, and I understand other emergency drills that are useful. But, this is over the top and completely unnecessary for our kids in Mason County. It may just give some an idea to commit something of this nature to try to gain attention and popularity, and also test the system. NO KIDS have done anything like this, and probably never will in our small county. Quit vying for attention and admiration MCSO, and DO YOUR DUTIES HIRED FOR! 

[XLFD]

Speaking of publicity stunts (and lest we forget that in one year the county sheriff comes up for reelection) Sheriff Kim Cole came up with an op-ed article in the Mason County Press on the presumptive parole bill currently being considered in the Michigan Senate after passing in the House.  It is full of undocumented stats and emotional appeals, here is the letter to MCP from Cole:

Letter to the editor by Mason County Sheriff Kim Cole.

Some facts about those sentenced to prison:

• Only 10% of those convicted of a felony offense actually are sentenced to prison.
• 69% are paroled within the first 6 months of their early release date (ERD)
• 82% are paroled with the first year of their ERD.
• 23% re-offend within one year of parole (in other words, victimize again).

Michigan has an effective parole board in place and for those who “We the People” sent to Lansing to ensure our safety, through legislation, to actually think “presumptive parole” will make Michigan communities safer is shocking.  To save money at the risk of public safety is sad.  Having children of my own, I’m troubled with the thought of felons, convicted of violent crimes, being released to the streets for the sake of saving money.

For those unfamiliar with “presumptive parole”, let me give you the “Readers Digest” version; it basically means a Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) inmate (felon) shall be released upon his/her ERD if they pose an “average risk” to society, effectively taking the legs out from under the parole boards and turning them into a “shall parole” board.  

Please understand, it’s not necessarily what crime the criminal actually committed but rather what he/she pled to.  For example, a person commits a criminal sexual conduct first degree (rape), pleas to CSC third degree and is sentenced to the MDOC for a term of 2-10 years would serve 2 years if they are a “model” prisoner and only serve an “average risk” to society.  You see, in court victims hear “10 years” while the convicted hears “2 years” and, under “presumptive parole”, would serve the 2 years only.     

What’s not talked about in this bill is what crimes are considered for  “presumptive parole”: second degree murder, manslaughter, CSC 1, 2, and 3, armed  and unarmed robbery, carjacking, elder abuse, child abuse 1, assault  with intent, assault while armed, home invasion first and second, prisoner hostage, child enticement, kidnapping, and child sexually abusive activity, to name a few.

I’m not opposed to paroling individuals who are incarcerated; if they have served their time, been vetted through the parole board, can (or at least are willing to) contribute to society, and the victim’s voice is heard.  I’m all for a person receiving a second chance.  But as Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette pointed out, let’s not have “cruise control parole.”  

http://www.masoncountypress.com/2015/10/30/sheriff-questions-the-lo...

Sheriff Cole fails to cite his statistics, which seem to be greatly off.  He says 10% of felony convictions get lodged in prisons, but that has has traditionally been around 40-50% nor does there appear to be any agency that reports on one year recidivism (repeat offending), but three year and five year stats are available.  He then puts his own biased definition of presumptive parole out and spends most of his time appealing to the public's innate fear of convicts.

A Novi law firm gives a two-sided review of the actual facts of presumptive parole with links to both sides of the debate.  After reading both sources, what do you think about presumptive parole? Do you think that inmates should be paroled once they’ve served their minimum sentence? Is it a great way to save Michigan tax payers money? Or will it be responsible for more crime on our streets?