The taxpayers and parents were deceived by the county and by the school board. It was voted upon to hire at great cost armed security officers for the schools that were not already protected as only four were.
Did the school board not do their homework on this subject before appropriating, what was it, $1.2 million dollars?
Why would any uniformed and qualified official place themselves into a gun-free zone that by its very nature makes them a target?
While serving as a very junior police official many decades ago and I was assigned to an unarmed position, I refused to go on duty. One carries a weapon, loaded and at the ready.
We should not try to bluff a would-be attacker with an unarmed target. It places the person and the school in a less secure situation.
I felt sorry listening to the principal that was stuck as the spokesperson on a television interview for this poorly made decision.
She was obviously flabbergasted at what to say, and thought that the guards would be beneficial "as men and large in size and bilingual," rather than armed and ready to deter and if necessary shoot an intruder.
Please, the schools do need security. A no-gun zone makes them a target.
A uniformed "unknown" and unarmed person is not a deterrent to some mentally corrupted mind, the only kind that will consider attacking a school. Save the money and go back to zero protection. It is safer.