That is interesting (the a person can tell who a fed air marshal is when that seems counter to their intention), but with the way boarding works, most of the passengers will go past the cockpit when I am unable to see that interaction. Nearly always fly Southwest and don’t pay for early boarding so most people are on the plan before I get halfway down the jetway
1 Like
If anyone who can lawfully carry a firearm onto a commercial aircraft must inform the pilot in command that they are doing so. The operations and customer service agents will only know that individual by their name, itinerary, and the term PCFA, Passenger Carrying FireArm.
1 Like
Do they have to tell the PIC as they are boarding the plane with everybody else?
Seems strange that it’s seemingly so easy to identify the armed federal air marshal on a commercial flight
1 Like
Actually we would contact the pilots directly and tell them that they have a PCFA coming aboard their flight, the PCFA normally just says hello, tells them who they are and takes their seat.
Unless a passenger is actually looking for the meet and greet they will never notice it happen.
The education of our youth is so powerful that I think the people we put in charge of that should be so trustworthy that they’d be allowed to fly with a firearm or even be allowed unlimited carry access in any situation in any building or business. Let alone at their own jobs! If we can’t trust those people with firearms, imagine what they’d be capable of in how they educate our future! Scary stuff!
Not trying to reopen a debate, but this was an interesting story in light of the above discussion.
Questions I ponder:
-
What would this have looked like had this student rushed a teacher with a firearm either concealed or carried openly? Would the student have killed the para-educator and then turned the gun on other members of the class?
-
I’ve never thought about the Tueller drill in light of an armed staff situation. But if a student decided to rush, it seems like the staff member better be able to draw and fire in sufficient time with sufficient skill to not hit other students in the class. According to one source, common classroom sizes are 28’ x 30’, 30’ x 30’ or 32’ x 32’. Compare that to the 21` rule.
Again, not trying to debate. Just pondering and found this interesting.
2 Likes
Good luck getting your Nintendo in jail, kid.
2 Likes
Mostly peaceful protest
1 Like
I don’t think Tueller is likely to be valid in a school teacher situation. Is a teacher really going to be told to draw and fire for a single unarmed minor running towards them? Seems doubtful.
2 Likes
Seems relevant here. How close was this kid when he attacked her? Had the teacher been armed at what point would she have seen the imminence of the attack? Would she have had time to draw on this kid? If she had been open carrying as debated above would she have had time to protect that firearm? It seems relevant in my own mind even if in no one else’s. 
1 Like
I don’t know that it would be legally justified to draw and fire for his solo unarmed youth self running towards her, what I’m thinking. Time or not.
Open carry? Yeah as you recall I definitely don’t think open carry by teachers at school is the way to go which is probably why I can’t find a single example anywhere in the country (modern day)
1 Like
If the teacher were armed the coward would have never attacked her. The reason she was attacked was because she was perceived to be a weaker low risk target. Guys like that change their settings to easy😂so they can win all the time. Joking aside, I truly believe a bully like that wouldn’t even try it!
Armed teachers, including open carry, equals 1 negligent discharge and that was after hours and nobody was physically harmed. Everyone knows armed teachers equals zero, ZERO, incidents since Columbine and that’s just how far back this study goes. LOTS of teachers in Texas, Utah, Wyoming, Ohio, and several others open carry in schools everyday. Delaware and New Hampshire allow teachers to carry with no restrictions but that’s probably because it’s so hard to get a gun in those states to begin with. I just read a story that describes how teachers in Seattle are seeking the right to open carry. Meanwhile mass shootings at schools where teachers are not armed have increased. It’s clear and really in my eyes can not be argued intelligently. No need to rely on anyone else when you can rely on yourself.
1 Like
There was a huge disparity of force due to his size. The woman suffered severe bodily harm and could have easily been killed. The attacker apparently said he would kill her if she took his game away again. How would this have not been a justified self defense situation?
What would the student have done if he found the staff member had a gun during his attack or if she had drawn it and he took it? What if she had fired in self defense? I can imagine the anti gun media headlines. These are the situations that may arise with firearms in a classroom which is why I believe additional training is vital with an emphasis on when and how to use force, retention, deescalation and physical defense techniques in order to avoid resorting to a firearm when possible.
1 Like
Because it’s still tough to argue that a single unarmed (and minor-aged) attacker running towards you is an imminent deadly threat that needs to be shot and possibly killed. I can only imagine the things the prosecution would say at trial the child was doing while simply running and nothing else and then the teacher shot him to death.
In this specific case, this student is indeed huge, that is a big dude, and she looks to be on the smaller end even for female teachers, making it about the biggest disparity of force I can realistically imagine for a youth/teacher combination…but still…ahead of time would we be, as a general course of action, teaching teachers ‘tueller’ type draw and fire right now for unarmed children running at them?
Remember that if she draws and fires and takes him down while imitating a Miculek, the imagery and result of the injury she suffered in this case wont’ be there to further the argument. It’s a lot harder to argue use of lethal force when you don’t have a single scratch on you and your attacker was unarmed.
If all else was equal but she had shot the student, this would be HUGE right now.
In reality, probably, carrying concealed, the gun would have been a complete non factor in this situation, never drawn. No time even if she was willing to kill an unarmed student
2 Likes
The kid snapped and went ballistic over a game. I’m not willing to bet he would suddenly be rational because she had a gun on her hip. He could have focused his efforts on rushing to get the gun or been the type to sit there and fume until he saw her walk by to help another student and then made a grab for it.
Inner city classrooms and even most suburban ones are not the same as rural areas where kids grow up using and respecting firearms for the tools they are. Most kids do not grow up around firearms and are not taught what they are for or how to handle them safely. They learn about them from movies and video games and many kids end up fetishizing and fantasizing about the power they will have if they can get their hands on a real one.
2 Likes
This case clearly shows how a single unarmed attacker is a deadly threat. Especially when they are larger than you. But lets imagine this happened out on the street.
A large but obviously school age male goes into a sudden rage and charges at you. You may not see a weapon but this is happening very fast. He could easily have one in his hand you haven’t noticed or one he can quickly access. Even if he doesn’t all he has to do is knock you down and hit your head against the concrete or kick you in the head to kill you. If you have a firearm and the skill to deploy it in time do you not draw and just let him make contact with you and hope he doesn’t kill you? Then you are in a close contact struggle where the attacker could get their hands on your firearm and even if they don’t they could get one hit in that knocks you out and then start kicking you while your down. Or they may have friends you didn’t notice who could join in.
The human body is very fragile. Even a smaller attacker can kill a person without a weapon. More people are killed with hands and feet than with rifles in the US. Any time someone attacks you for no justified reason it is a potential deadly force encounter. A jury might not agree but your life is on the line whenever someone strikes at you. Given the number of deadly attacks being committed by teenagers these days I don’t think age is relevant anymore if it ever was. Using potentially lethal force in self defense is justified when the attacker presents the imminent threat of death or severe bodily harm and has the opportunity and ability to do so. This kid obviously met all of those factors. The woman is lucky to be alive.
2 Likes
Stats have been recorded! It’s not complicated. ZERO INCIDENTS! Seriously, it’s frustrating. I am not guessing when I say the student would not have tried anything. Imagine him growing up with teachers open carrying his whole life! He probably wouldn’t have had the switch to begin with. I’ll repeat, zero incidents over a long period of time with LOTS of sample both open and concealed with my opinion being that open is more effective at creating the intended result.
A single unarmed attacker may be an imminent deadly threat. Generally, they won’t be.
The choices should be more than the binary of shooting him or letting him make contact and hoping. That whole if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail thing.
I would also like to point out that “running towards you” and “attacks you” might not necessarily be synonyms.
You are right, a jury might not agree (because the law doesn’t agree) that your life is on the line anytime someone moves towards you.
2 Likes