Border Patrol Agents reject instructions to "run and hide" from active shooters.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Border Patrol Agents reject instructions to "run and hide" from active shooters.

Posted: 6/29/2012 9:59:49 PM EDT

..."But members of Local 2544 say they are obligated to protect the public in such a situation, whether they are on duty or not."...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/29/border-patrol-union-claims-homeland-security-safety-course-promotes/?fb_action_ids=10151056879067354&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline

Posted: 6/29/2012 10:28:38 PM EDT

[#1]

Well at least they called them out on it. That is stupid advice even for "civilians". You can run and hide and probably get killed or actually try and stop the guy.

Posted: 6/29/2012 10:35:34 PM EDT

[#2]

Good grief

Posted: 6/29/2012 11:01:32 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Well at least they called them out on it. That is stupid advice even for "civilians". You can run and hide and probably get killed or actually try and stop the guy.

It is the standard lawyer CYA crap, that gets pushed down all the time. I had to do a work place violence class once, part of the class listed the danger of employees bringing fire arms to work........ the .gov issued me a firearm, and all of my coworkers

Posted: 6/30/2012 12:08:09 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Good grief

That's about all I got, too.

Posted: 6/30/2012 3:00:53 AM EDT

[#5]

That's about right. Our .gov doesn't want ANYONE taking responsibility for their own safety or the safety of those around them. "Call Big Brother, and he'll save you". Yeah. Right. It's all part of the government ideal of making everyone completely dependant on the government for absolutely everything. Whatever happened to the idea that a man should stand on his own two feet? This sort of thing makes me sick to my stomach. Armed and trained agents should step aside and wait for the highly trained SWAT (or other .gov tactical stormtrooper) to save the day. And count the bodies and draw chalk outlines.

Posted: 6/30/2012 4:33:11 AM EDT

[#6]

Why do they have age limit of 37 for hire if they only encourage you to sit on your ass and do absolutely nothing?

Posted: 6/30/2012 5:50:54 AM EDT

[#7]

As I've pointed out in the GD threads about this, it's a blanket DHS policy/training for all of their employees - many, if not most, of which are unarmed, non-LEOs.

Posted: 6/30/2012 6:43:41 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
As I've pointed out in the GD threads about this, it's a blanket DHS policy/training for all of their employees - many, if not most, of which are unarmed, non-LEOs.

this. i just got this training and the words "run", "hide", or any combination of the two were never used. the words "seek" and "terminate" were used quite a bit.

edit: just like the other threads I'm sure the tin foil will keep getting passed around.

Posted: 6/30/2012 7:22:35 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Why do they have age limit of 37 for hire if they only encourage you to sit on your ass and do absolutely nothing?

Due to the mandatory retirement age of 57, and the 20 year minimum for the time they want someone to put into the pension system.

Posted: 6/30/2012 9:13:04 AM EDT

[#10]

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!

Posted: 6/30/2012 9:47:05 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
As I've pointed out in the GD threads about this, it's a blanket DHS policy/training for all of their employees - many, if not most, of which are unarmed, non-LEOs.

this. i just got this training and the words "run", "hide", or any combination of the two were never used. the words "seek" and "terminate" were used quite a bit.

edit: just like the other threads I'm sure the tin foil will keep getting passed around.

The article says it's about border patrol agents thinking it's bad policy. Aparently the DHS policy you was informed of isn't the same. Who in thier right mind would think of sending border patrol to work unarmed?

Posted: 6/30/2012 10:18:11 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
That's about right. Our .gov doesn't want ANYONE taking responsibility for their own safety or the safety of those around them. "Call Big Brother, and he'll save you". Yeah. Right. It's all part of the government ideal of making everyone completely dependant on the government for absolutely everything. Whatever happened to the idea that a man should stand on his own two feet? This sort of thing makes me sick to my stomach. Armed and trained agents should step aside and wait for the highly trained SWAT (or other .gov tactical stormtrooper) to save the day. And count the bodies and draw chalk outlines.

Amen.

Fuck that idea.

Posted: 6/30/2012 10:29:38 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
As I've pointed out in the GD threads about this, it's a blanket DHS policy/training for all of their employees - many, if not most, of which are unarmed, non-LEOs.

I took the training a couple months back and assumed the above when I took it. I never read into the way the AZ union guys did. It said to call a LEO - which we are! In the areas that most of BP agents work, they are the dominant LEO agency in the area. Most towns along the border have PDs/SOs that have 1 to 4 officers on duty at a time, and most of those guys don't have any funding for training for active shooter situations. Heck most of them if they are lucky only qual once a year.

Posted: 6/30/2012 10:30:46 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
As I've pointed out in the GD threads about this, it's a blanket DHS policy/training for all of their employees - many, if not most, of which are unarmed, non-LEOs.

this. i just got this training and the words "run", "hide", or any combination of the two were never used. the words "seek" and "terminate" were used quite a bit.

edit: just like the other threads I'm sure the tin foil will keep getting passed around.

The article says it's about border patrol agents thinking it's bad policy. Aparently the DHS policy you was informed of isn't the same. Who in thier right mind would think of sending border patrol to work unarmed?

If you read the article the Agents were talking about training given to all DHS employees and they were saying that it made no sense to give this training to them. The training is written to cover all of those DHS and other Federal employees who are not armed as part of their job. I work in a Federal Task Force and we all had to take the same training. Then we all went to our regular LEO active shooter training. This is a case of someone making it a mandate across all Federal offices to take training and not tailoring it to the specific work group.

Edit: spelling

Posted: 6/30/2012 10:37:49 AM EDT

[#15]

Seek Run. Close With Hide . Destroy Pray for salvation.

Posted: 6/30/2012 10:41:44 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
As I've pointed out in the GD threads about this, it's a blanket DHS policy/training for all of their employees - many, if not most, of which are unarmed, non-LEOs.

I took the training a couple months back and assumed the above when I took it. I never read into the way the AZ union guys did. It said to call a LEO - which we are! In the areas that most of BP agents work, they are the dominant LEO agency in the area. Most towns along the border have PDs/SOs that have 1 to 4 officers on duty at a time, and most of those guys don't have any funding for training for active shooter situations. Heck most of them if they are lucky only qual once a year.

I took the DOJ's course, which sounds nearly identical to DHS. NeIther I nor the other LEOs that took it interpreted it as the the BP union did either. We all knew that expectations are for LEOs to react and address the threat with force.

Posted: 6/30/2012 10:45:29 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
As I've pointed out in the GD threads about this, it's a blanket DHS policy/training for all of their employees - many, if not most, of which are unarmed, non-LEOs.

I took the training a couple months back and assumed the above when I took it. I never read into the way the AZ union guys did. It said to call a LEO - which we are! In the areas that most of BP agents work, they are the dominant LEO agency in the area. Most towns along the border have PDs/SOs that have 1 to 4 officers on duty at a time, and most of those guys don't have any funding for training for active shooter situations. Heck most of them if they are lucky only qual once a year.

I took the DOJ's course, which sounds nearly identical to DHS. NeIther I nor the other LEOs that took it interpreted it as the the BP union did either. We all knew that expectations are for LEOs to react and address the threat with force.

Exactly. In fact our supervisor made sure we knew to just finish the training as quickly as possible and get it over with. We all understood it was not designed for LEOs. This sounds like an overreaction by the BP union guys and it makes you wonder if they are not disgruntled with their current command and just lashing out at everything.

Posted: 6/30/2012 9:40:40 PM EDT

[#18]

Wow, this is just surfacing? I took this VU course about 6 months ago. It was put out right after the HSI SA shot his DSAC or ASAC or whoever that was in CA. All VU training is a joke, you've gotta be a real mental midget take that shit seriously.

Posted: 7/3/2012 6:45:48 PM EDT

[#19]

I can find a new job, but couldn't live with myself pulling a "Costanza" during an AS incident, leaving others to die...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueh_1PeJhaQ

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Border Patrol Agents reject instructions to "run and hide" from active shooters.

General » Brothers Of The Shield

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us