I'm glad we are going about things the right way here in Ohio.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news...ff-proposes-armed-personnel-in-schools/nTzCX/
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news...ff-proposes-armed-personnel-in-schools/nTzCX/
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Armed substitute teachers in Ohio
- Thread starter coachteet
- Start date
It's just the beginning. Actually, our state allows the board of education for each district to permit concealed carry if they choose. Apparently, multiple districts already allow it. Buckeye Firearms Association has started a teacher training program:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8721
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8721
Money and training.I will give Ohio some points, but why only retired LEOs?
Sorry - I'm against the idea of vets doing security work in schools.I would also like to see military veterans get a crack at this
Possibly unarmed assistants - or - armed if their past military training includes dealing with the civilian population on a non-authoritive basis.
Possibly ex-MP - but - even there the ex MP's I've known have some "attitude" issues.
Our military is not/never should be a "police force".
Hal, veterans are not "the military," and using veterans does not in any way run afoul of Posse Commitatus.
Or do you want to limit volunteers to LE only?
I think most of us are thinking in terms of available, capable bodies (you know, such as teachers, custodians, etc on a voluntary basis). You may not be.
Or do you want to limit volunteers to LE only?
I think most of us are thinking in terms of available, capable bodies (you know, such as teachers, custodians, etc on a voluntary basis). You may not be.
I just simply don't feel that wearing a uniform at one time is any type of qualification.
Retired LEO's OTOH, have some past experience with dealing with the public.
I understand vet's aren't active military. That's not the issue at the moment.
It goes back to my first sentence up above.
Presently, the military has no training program in place for teaching civilian law enforcement.
If they had had such a program, then that would mean that vets did have some sort of training in that area.
It's sort of a catch 22.
In order for such an idea to work long term, then the military would have to institute some sort of civilian law enforcement training so future vets would be suited for the job.
The last thing I want is for the military to start training soldiers to be police.
Lord knows, there's way too much of the reverse going on right now - the police adapting military tactics, weapons and mannerisms...
Maybe with the right screening and training....
As far as janitors and/or teachers, I'm for it.
Both put up with more crap from kids daily than 90% of the population would stand for.
P.S. - I should add here also that I'm not dead set against the idea.
Matter of fact, it would be in my best financial interests if a voluntary staff could be used.
My first reaction to using vets is not a positive one though - for the reasons above.
P.P.S....
Ok after looking through the whole thing..
I can't find any reference to vets in the link -am I missing it?
#2 - and I believe this is why the proposal is only for LE/retired LE.
Ohio has a - bizarre (to put it kindly) way of hiring law enforcment.
You have to complete the Ohio Peace Officer Training Course before you can be hired.
The bizarre part is, to attend the Ohio Police Acadamy, you have to be a member of a law enforcment agency.
"The sheriff said he would swear in more retired officers as armed substitute teachers if they are certified officers and pass a background check."
So, what that boils down to is the Sheriff will swear in (i'm assuming he that he's going to make them deputies) people who have the Ohio Peace Officer Certification.
Retired LEO's OTOH, have some past experience with dealing with the public.
I understand vet's aren't active military. That's not the issue at the moment.
It goes back to my first sentence up above.
Presently, the military has no training program in place for teaching civilian law enforcement.
If they had had such a program, then that would mean that vets did have some sort of training in that area.
It's sort of a catch 22.
In order for such an idea to work long term, then the military would have to institute some sort of civilian law enforcement training so future vets would be suited for the job.
The last thing I want is for the military to start training soldiers to be police.
Lord knows, there's way too much of the reverse going on right now - the police adapting military tactics, weapons and mannerisms...
Maybe with the right screening and training....
As far as janitors and/or teachers, I'm for it.
Both put up with more crap from kids daily than 90% of the population would stand for.
P.S. - I should add here also that I'm not dead set against the idea.
Matter of fact, it would be in my best financial interests if a voluntary staff could be used.
My first reaction to using vets is not a positive one though - for the reasons above.
P.P.S....
Ok after looking through the whole thing..
I can't find any reference to vets in the link -am I missing it?
#2 - and I believe this is why the proposal is only for LE/retired LE.
Ohio has a - bizarre (to put it kindly) way of hiring law enforcment.
You have to complete the Ohio Peace Officer Training Course before you can be hired.
The bizarre part is, to attend the Ohio Police Acadamy, you have to be a member of a law enforcment agency.
"The sheriff said he would swear in more retired officers as armed substitute teachers if they are certified officers and pass a background check."
So, what that boils down to is the Sheriff will swear in (i'm assuming he that he's going to make them deputies) people who have the Ohio Peace Officer Certification.
Last edited:
But what if the janitor or teacher is a veteran? (Example, my uncle, before he retired, was a history teacher and vice principal, and a veteran with a couple Bronze Stars from 'Nam; he also shot a lot of competitive pistol. Would he meet your standards?)
You initially came across kind of anti-vet.
You initially came across kind of anti-vet.
Ok, so being a retired LE is enough to become an (armed) substitute teacher? Do these retired LE personnel have the appropriate training to be a substitute teacher?
As for vets being included in this, imho would because we should have all been trained in some basic security technics anged weapons handling. Which I would think is a desirable trait too become an armed substitute teacher. Obviously every candidate needs to have thorough background checks to say the least.
seabee78
As for vets being included in this, imho would because we should have all been trained in some basic security technics anged weapons handling. Which I would think is a desirable trait too become an armed substitute teacher. Obviously every candidate needs to have thorough background checks to say the least.
seabee78
loltraktor1918
New member
Good for Ohio. I like OH and have been a happy resident of this great state. However, I am looking to move away. I just do not trust the way it is leaning politically. I see myself moving further south in the not to distant future.
Operative word being - basic.As for vets being included in this, imho would because we should have all been trained in some basic security technics anged weapons handling
All LEO's in Ohio go through more than "basic" training.....and for a lot more than just "security".
Heck, I went through the basic 100 hour private police course in Ohio about 30 years ago.
How much more intensive is military security traing than that?
BTW..
All teachers and substitutes in Ohio have to go through the State BCI and FBI background checks so that's covered for subs..
Don't know/don't care....that's not up to me.Do these retired LE personnel have the appropriate training to be a substitute teacher?
That's up to whoever makes the requirments for a teacher to have a teaching certificate.
That's also sort of a silly thing to say since it would apply to a vet also -
Last edited:
I really don't believe that any if it is really up to you. And if anyone so desires to have further training to become a professional security substitute teacher then I would encourage it. Retired LE, Vets, civilian.
Basic training is a better foundation then none.
seabee78
Basic training is a better foundation then none.
seabee78
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
All LEO's in Ohio go through more than "basic" training.....and for a lot more than just "security".
The more I think about this the less I like the idea of instructors and administrators involved in discipline being armed. Makes a lot more sense to me to allow janitors and secretaries who aren't involved in discipline. I am not sure it lends to a great learning environment.
Making broad generalizations about police officers or vets having received training is pretty foolish. Many officers in Ohio have very limited firearms training. Not everyone in the military receives firearm training. My BIL was pulled out of basic the day they were sent to the range and he didn't go to infantry school, so he never received training. Of course, he spent his 5 years working on electronics.
Police in Ohio are required to shoot something like 56 rounds a year. 100 hours isn't really all that much, especially when half the class is not familiar with firearms.
I could also post some links to videos showing how terribly irresponsible some of Ohio's LEO are and a to the AGs report indicating they are the profession most responsible for human trafficking in Ohio.
Hal, so you know, any former US Army MP that entered in 2008 (the year the MP Corp became FLETC recognized) is also recognized as a federal law enforcement official. They are mandated to conduct an 80 hour recert every year to maintain that certification to include F.E.M.A. certifications. If they do not, you can no longer perform law enforcement duties until you get your certifications back in line.
As to your remark "Sorry - I'm against the idea of vets doing security work in schools.
Possibly unarmed assistants - or - armed if their past military training includes dealing with the civilian population on a non-authoritive basis."
They do receive training as being liaisons for the community that does not involve law enforcement authority and numerous joint training events are conducted with civilian L.E. agencies. They still however are court mandated reporters.
As to your remark "Possibly ex-MP - but - even there the ex MP's I've known have some "attitude" issues."
That would mainly be due to them never going any further than E-3, because they sucked and their recruiter lied to them {sarcasm}. But actually for the time they were in they were dirtbags and couldn't hack it, so they got out and are still disgruntled. You mainly find these type as DA cops now since they are Govt. Service employees and for the most part are still dirtbags!
As to all of the other MOS's/rates. Yes you correct in your remark(s).
As to your remark "Sorry - I'm against the idea of vets doing security work in schools.
Possibly unarmed assistants - or - armed if their past military training includes dealing with the civilian population on a non-authoritive basis."
They do receive training as being liaisons for the community that does not involve law enforcement authority and numerous joint training events are conducted with civilian L.E. agencies. They still however are court mandated reporters.
As to your remark "Possibly ex-MP - but - even there the ex MP's I've known have some "attitude" issues."
That would mainly be due to them never going any further than E-3, because they sucked and their recruiter lied to them {sarcasm}. But actually for the time they were in they were dirtbags and couldn't hack it, so they got out and are still disgruntled. You mainly find these type as DA cops now since they are Govt. Service employees and for the most part are still dirtbags!
As to all of the other MOS's/rates. Yes you correct in your remark(s).
Kreyzhorse
New member
I will give Ohio some points, but why only retired LEOs?
I heard the gentleman who is suggesting this on the radio a couple of days ago.
Essentially, retired officers are already trained to handle firearms (and are much more responsible with them than "civilians") and it would be cheaper for them to get teaching certificates than it would be to train a regular teacher.
While I don't have a problem with the proposal, I do get tired of the "police are the only ones sufficiently trained to handle this firearm" stuff.
The other thing is that they were only suggesting using them as substitute teachers. While I am for armed teachers, I am just not sure from one day to the next you could count on random sub situations providing enough security.
"I really don't believe that any if it is really up to you".
You're both right and wrong.
I've been approached to participate in such a program and have declined the offer - so you're right, none of it is up to me....@ this point anyhow.
Since my "no" to the offer was/is pretty concrete, unless a lot of things change, it won't be up to me @ any point.
Anyhow - I do applaud the efforts of some of the school systems for trying to find a workable solution to what's a very complex problem.
Regardlesss of my personal misgivings about using vets, I believe 100% they are on the right track.