HHS tells Border Patrol agents to "run away and hide" if someone starts shooting

[Little-Acorn]

When I first saw this headline, I thought someone must have grossly exaggerated it. No way could the Dept of HHS be telling BORDER PATROL agents to "run away" and "hide".

I was wrong.

BTW, if the shooter becomes "really aggressive", the Border Patrol agent is allowed to "throw things" at him.

What wondrous things we are finding in this Brave New World the liberals running the government, are making for us.

--------------------------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/29/border-patrol-union-claims-homeland-security-safety-course-promotes/

Border Patrol union blasts Homeland Security instructions to 'run away' and 'hide' from gunmen

by Perry Chiaramonte
Published June 29, 2012

A pocket card handed out to Homeland Security employees in April detailing how they should handle an "active shooter" situation.

Border Patrol agents in Arizona are blasting their bosses for telling them, along with all other Department of Homeland Security employees, to run and hide if they encounter an "active shooter."

It's one thing to tell civilian employees to cower under a desk if a gunman starts spraying fire in a confined area, say members of Tucson Local 2544/National Border Patrol Council, but to give armed law enforcement professionals the same advice is downright insulting. The instructions from DHS come in the form of pamphlets and a mandatory computer tutorial.

“We are now taught in an ‘Active Shooter’ course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to ‘run away’ and ‘hide’", union leader Brandon Judd wrote on the website of 3,300-member union local. “If we are cornered by such a shooter we are to (only as a last resort) become ‘aggressive’ and ‘throw things’ at him or her. We are then advised to ‘call law enforcement’ and wait for their arrival (presumably, while more innocent victims are slaughtered)."


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

When I first saw this headline, I thought someone must have grossly exaggerated it. No way could the Dept of HHS be telling BORDER PATROL agents to "run away" and "hide".

I was wrong.

BTW, if the shooter becomes "really aggressive", the Border Patrol agent is allowed to "throw things" at him.

What wondrous things we are finding in this Brave New World the liberals running the government, are making for us.

--------------------------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/29/border-patrol-union-claims-homeland-security-safety-course-promotes/

Border Patrol union blasts Homeland Security instructions to 'run away' and 'hide' from gunmen

by Perry Chiaramonte
Published June 29, 2012

A pocket card handed out to Homeland Security employees in April detailing how they should handle an "active shooter" situation.

Border Patrol agents in Arizona are blasting their bosses for telling them, along with all other Department of Homeland Security employees, to run and hide if they encounter an "active shooter."

It's one thing to tell civilian employees to cower under a desk if a gunman starts spraying fire in a confined area, say members of Tucson Local 2544/National Border Patrol Council, but to give armed law enforcement professionals the same advice is downright insulting. The instructions from DHS come in the form of pamphlets and a mandatory computer tutorial.

“We are now taught in an ‘Active Shooter’ course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to ‘run away’ and ‘hide’", union leader Brandon Judd wrote on the website of 3,300-member union local. “If we are cornered by such a shooter we are to (only as a last resort) become ‘aggressive’ and ‘throw things’ at him or her. We are then advised to ‘call law enforcement’ and wait for their arrival (presumably, while more innocent victims are slaughtered)."


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

Thanks, just more of obama's hope and change. Hope to play coward and not get shot , change from law enforcement officer into a graven coward to give free reign to invaders, drug runners, kidnapppers and other assorted illegal GODS! Thanks obama for giving crash courses on how to be a lying ffing coward like you! -Tyr

[logroller]

That's ridiculous; this is about workplace violence-- which is the number cause of workplace fatalities for women. As required by law they must have plan in place and every employee needs to be aware of that policy. no way in hell an LE officer would be expected to run and hide if an opportunity to eliminate a known threat presented itself.

[Little-Acorn]

That's ridiculous; this is about workplace violence-- which is the number cause of workplace fatalities for women. As required by law they must have plan in place and every employee needs to be aware of that policy. no way in hell an LE officer would be expected to run and hide if an opportunity to eliminate a known threat presented itself.

Didn't read the article, did we?


DHS officials maintain that the Active Shooter course was designed for all employees—civilian and law-enforcement officers-- and no one should rush into a situation where they, or others around them, could get hurt.

“The Department of Homeland Security takes very seriously its responsibility to protect all of its employees from threats that may surface in the workplace,” U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Michael Friel said in a written statement to FoxNews.com

“CBP workforce training is designed to prepare all employees, including leaders, managers, supervisors, law enforcement personnel and non-law enforcement personnel, to understand their own roles and the roles of their fellow employees in responding to threats. In an active shooter scenario, employees are taught to take actions that keep them alive.”


If you assume liberals "didn't really mean it" about restrictions they are imposing on groups, you will be sadly wrong - as wrong as the liberals themselves are.

This is what we voted for in 2008. And this is what we're getting.

Elections have consequences. When you elect pantywaist, wishful-thinking liberals and give them the power to make laws, the consequences are usually very bad.

BTW, about "workplace violence" - where do you think the Border patrol agents' workplace is? Hint: It's not some cushy, air-conditioned office with a water cooler and Internet access. It's the rocks and sand and burning sun and hardscrabble terrain of THE BORDER. Remember?

Keep in mind, too, that when some jihadi shot up Ft. Hood and murdered more than a dozen unarmed military personnel, this same HHS brushed THAT off, as "workplace violence".

It's hard to even keep count of the amount of harm liberals have done to this country and its people, since being elected. And with the recent Supreme Court ruling in hand, they have barely begun.

Is it November yet?

[logroller]

If you assume liberals "didn't really mean it" about restrictions they are imposing on groups, you will be sadly wrong - as wrong as the liberals themselves are.

This is what we voted for in 2008. And this is what we're getting.

Elections have consequences. When you elect pantywaist, wishful-thinking liberals and give them the power to make laws, the consequences are usually very bad.

BTW, about "workplace violence" - where do you think the Border patrol agents' workplace is? Hint: It's not some cushy, air-conditioned office with a water cooler and Internet access. It's the rocks and sand and burning sun and hardscrabble terrain of THE BORDER. Remember?

Keep in mind, too, that when some jihadi shot up Ft. Hood and murdered more than a dozen unarmed military personnel, this same HHS brushed THAT off, as "workplace violence".

It's hard to even keep count of the amount of harm liberals have done to this country and its people, since being elected. And with the recent Supreme Court ruling in hand, they have barely begun.

Is it November yet?
Didn't read the article, did we?

Right wing nuts are so blinded by rage, it'd be almost laughable if it weren't so serious an issue.

Here's a list of warning signs for workplace violence: (a few I see talked about by certain members here)



Increased use of alcohol and/or illegal drugs
Unexplained increase in absenteeism; vague physical complaints
Noticeable decrease in attention to appearance and hygiene
Depression / withdrawal
Resistance and overreaction to changes in policy and procedures
Repeated violations of company policies
Increased severe mood swings
Noticeably unstable, emotional responses
Explosive outbursts of anger or rage without provocation
Suicidal; comments about “putting things in order”
Behavior which is suspect of paranoia, (“everybody is against me”)
Increasingly talks of problems at home
Escalation of domestic problems into the workplace; talk of severe financial problems
Talk of previous incidents of violence
Empathy with individuals committing violence
Increase in unsolicited comments about firearms, other dangerous weapons and violentcrimes



But yeah, I read the Fox news article originating in Arizona in regards to immigration enforcement; grade A right-wing punditry at its finest. I also read the scanned image of the ACTUAL pamphlet. I also understand why employees are trained in the policy. I mean, if those agencies had trained personnel to respond to an active shorter in the workplace, they would respond (as stipulated in the pamphlet, 'Law enforcement is usually required to end an active shooter situation') Now, if they are not trained in this, they shouldn't take it upon themselves to act in a situation they aren't trained for. You wouldn't want a podiatrist giving you an appendectomy. As for Ft hood, I direct you to the above warning signs. The correct response is evacuate; if unable to leave, hide; and as a last resort, fight. Call 911 when safe to do, so law enforcement agents who are actually trained to diffuse that exact situation can address such threats, usually in teams of four-- that's how its done. Not because Obama said so, but because that's what results in the best outcome. I know many LE officers and, when confronted with an active shooter, they seek cover and concealment...because they don't want to get shot, then they'd be a casualty, more of a liability, and certainly, not any help to others.

Oh and BTW--The Dept of Homeland Security has over 240000 employees; who are mostly civilians and contractors, not law enforcement agents. So unless you think cyber security takes place outside, or immigration paperwork is processed in trucks along the border, or on-duty Secret Service and patrolling Border Agents or Coast Guard are expected to do their jobs absent situational awareness, then you need examine the facts, maybe use a little reason for crying out loud, and consider the actual intent of such policies--SAVING LIVES-- instead of yet another tired talking point applied to a situation which doesn't apply.

[red states rule]

Given the libs running things right now, the criminals and illegals no longer have any fear of the US and the folks who are paid to enforce our laws

U.S. government immigration policies, and now law enforcment policies, are a joke and the world knows it.

[darin]

Dept of Army 'active shooter' guidance is in accordance to what i've read here:

First, secure your suborninates and self. Lock doors, hide if possible. If you are directly confronted, fight back with phones, monitors, staplers - do what you can to prevent dying.

Course, The Army is a buch of wussies right? We're completely chock-full of Liberal/progressive guidance it's NATURAL we'd hide from conflict right?


Look - it boils down to this: follow the money trail. Policies are driven to safeguard agencies from wrongful-death/injury lawsuits. However, yes, it's in the name of safety our guidance is preached; and I dont doubt the sincerety of those in charge - but...follow the money.

[red states rule]

Dept of Army 'active shooter' guidance is in accordance to what i've read here:

First, secure your suborninates and self. Lock doors, hide if possible. If you are directly confronted, fight back with phones, monitors, staplers - do what you can to prevent dying.

Course, The Army is a buch of wussies right? We're completely chock-full of Liberal/progressive guidance it's NATURAL we'd hide from conflict right?


Look - it boils down to this: follow the money trail. Policies are driven to safeguard agencies from wrongful-death/injury lawsuits. However, yes, it's in the name of safety our guidance is preached; and I dont doubt the sincerety of those in charge - but...follow the money.


Would it not be smart that if you are going to throw things at the bad guys it would be a good idea to make it lead pellets at about 1000 fps fired from a gun?

[logroller]

Would it not be smart that if you are going to throw things at the bad guys it would be a good idea to make it lead pellets at about 1000 fps fired from a gun?
And if you miss, striking a coworker...$$$$$$$$

[red states rule]

And if you miss, striking a coworker...$$$$$$$$


So let the bodies pile up to avoid a possible lawsuit? The inmates are now running the asylum

Funny how the anti gun nuts never want to talk about crimes prevented by people being armed

[logroller]

So let the bodies pile up to avoid a possible lawsuit? The inmates are now running the asylum

Funny how the anti gun nuts never want to talk about crimes prevented by people being armed
Did you miss the part about evacuating first?

[red states rule]

Did you miss the part about evacuating first?


It does not stop the fact if you can't and you are carrying a weapon legally, why not take to SOB out; save lives; and solve the problem?

Seems to me the idiots in government who came up with this brilliant idea seem to have a problem with shooting the bad guys and would rather have innocent people likked in the name of political correctness

Of course the more dead people there are the louder their calls for more gun laws will be

[darin]

Would it not be smart that if you are going to throw things at the bad guys it would be a good idea to make it lead pellets at about 1000 fps fired from a gun?


No, it would not be smart - mostly for the reasons I listed above.

First duty of commanders/leaders: Protect the workforce. Save lives.

[red states rule]

No, it would not be smart - mostly for the reasons I listed above.

First duty of commanders/leaders: Protect the workforce. Save lives.

So let me get this straight

If there is some nut shooting and killing people, you would take your men and hide and NOT take him out?

Or you stop a law abiding citizen from also taking the nut out with his gun?

Meanwhile the Undertaker gets his shop ready for a surge in business

[darin]

So let me get this straight

If there is some nut shooting and killing people, you would take your men and hide and NOT take him out?

Or you stop a law abiding citizen from also taking the nut out with his gun?

Meanwhile the Undertaker gets his shop ready for a surge in business


You are reacting to things - not thinking through. Google "Military Decision-Making Process".

That's the guide. I'll run like hell if doing so saves lives.

So easy...so easy to scream 'Take the guy out!'.

have you killed anyone, under any circumstances, RSR? Do you know what you'd do in such a panic? Have trained your weapon on another person knowing when you pull the trigger that person dies?

You guys are doing what is common - throwing out scenarios like this as a chance to prove bravery.

[red states rule]

You are reacting to things - not thinking through. Google "Military Decision-Making Process".

That's the guide. I'll run like hell if doing so saves lives.

So easy...so easy to scream 'Take the guy out!'.

have you killed anyone, under any circumstances, RSR? Do you know what you'd do in such a panic? Have trained your weapon on another person knowing when you pull the trigger that person dies?

You guys are doing what is common - throwing out scenarios like this as a chance to prove bravery.

Just asking Darin

I guess now the US military will replace weapons training with Harsh Language Training

And instead of ranting I was clear to stress law adididing citaens and your MEN - all of whom are TRAINED in the use of the weapon

May I suggest some de-caf for you this morning? It seems you have more anger toward me for asking a question then the nut with a gun who is killing people in my scenario

[darin]

Just asking Darin

I guess now the US military will replace weapons training with Harsh Language Training

And instead of ranting I was clear to stress law adididing citaens and your MEN - all of whom are TRAINED in the use of the weapon

May I suggest some de-caf for you this morning? It seems you have more anger toward me for asking a question then the nut with a gun who is killing people in my scenario

Terry - first...
What the fuck are you talking about now? I have more than 20 years working for Dept of Army; I have a solid understanding on what drives policy-making; i'm attempting to explain that here. I'm trying to explain coorprate Active Shooter policies. Perhaps I'm failing because you reply with hyperbole or wild accusations like above.

Secondly.

Dude - any anger you infer is your own. Simmer down.

[red states rule]

Terry - first...
What the fuck are you talking about now? I have more than 20 years working for Dept of Army; I have a solid understanding on what drives policy-making; i'm attempting to explain that here. I'm trying to explain coorprate Active Shooter policies. Perhaps I'm failing because you reply with hyperbole or wild accusations like above.

Secondly.

Dude - any anger you infer is your own. Simmer down.

Darin, I conside it stupid to tell wel trained and armed enforcement agents to run and hide fromt he bad guys. there have been many instances where law abiding citizens have stopped crimes and deaths by taking out the bad guy

You may be trying to expalin the "logic" of this policy but it sounds more like you agree and would run rather then try to save lives and take out the bad guy

I hope that is not the case because if the policy is now for those who are to enforce laws and prtcet the citizens is to run like rabbits - we are really screwed

And your anger came thru very clear Darin

[darin]

And your anger came thru very clear Darin

Keep repeating a claim, and people will believe it.


I'm not going to spend time fixing the fallacies here.

[red states rule]

Keep repeating a claim, and people will believe it.


I'm not going to spend time fixing the fallacies here.

OK, so you retreat on a debate board - I hate to see what you do when facing the bad guys with the new policies

Have a good day Darin

[jimnyc]

OK, so you retreat on a debate board - I hate to see what you do when facing the bad guys with the new policies

Have a good day Darin

I wouldn't call walking away from a discussion where either party is considered to be angry to be retreating at all. In fact, I call it a breath of fresh air compared to so many other discussions that fully evolve into anger and flaming.

[red states rule]

I wouldn't call walking away from a discussion where either party is considered to be angry to be retreating at all. In fact, I call it a breath of fresh air compared to so many other discussions that fully evolve into anger and flaming.

I asked a question and asked why well armed and trained enforcement agents (or law abiding citizens) would not take the bad guy out and allow more innocent people to die

If DMP does not want to answer so be it but it is a stupid policy that could end up costing people their lives

[ConHog]

So let me get this straight

If there is some nut shooting and killing people, you would take your men and hide and NOT take him out?

Or you stop a law abiding citizen from also taking the nut out with his gun?

Meanwhile the Undertaker gets his shop ready for a surge in business

Ever been inside say an Army recruiting station? They don't exactly keep an armory on hand. Same with Border Patrol. Most of the time soldiers and agents aren't even armed.

Someone invades a BP Special Response Team building, or an Armory, they will probably end up eating lead regardless of policy. However The Army, and the Border Patrol or largely a bureaucracy and most personnel aren't even armed, so yes the wise move is to get you and your people out of harm's way if at all possible.

[jimnyc]

I asked a question and asked why well armed and trained enforcement agents (or law abiding citizens) would not take the bad guy out and allow more innocent people to die

If DMP does not want to answer so be it but it is a stupid policy that could end up costing people their lives

I was solely referring to the "angry" part and the "retreating". Regardless of his reasoning, I'm just happy to see someone not push the issue when tempers flare, to walk away instead of aggravating the situation, that's all.

[fj1200]

You may be trying to expalin the "logic" of this policy but it sounds more like you agree and would run rather then try to save lives and take out the bad guy

Do you think it is wise to tell employees who don't have a gun that their best response is to "shoot the bad guy"?

Here is a link to the actual course.

http://emilms.fema.gov/IS907/AS01summary.htm