decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Maybe the union has a political aim? Course for non-law enforcement | 334 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Maybe the union has a political aim? Course for non-law enforcement
Authored by: jjs on Thursday, July 05 2012 @ 11:15 PM EDT
Having read the booklet, it was aimed at non-law enforcement
(telling law enforcement agents to call law enforcement
doesn't make sense). Agents were probably included so they
would know what those they responded to were requested to
do. It's also possible that some bureaucrat mandated
EVERYONE take the training, even if it didn't apply.

Some quotes from the training that indicate it was NOT aimed
at law enforcement:

"How to respond when law enforcement arrives"
"Because active shooter situations are often over within 10
to 15 minutes, before law enforcement arrives on the scene"
"Information to provide to law enforcement or 911"
"An active shooter in your workplace"

In addition, the training is done by the DHS Office of
Infrastructure Protection to "government and private sector
partners" - that's well more than law enforcement.

http://www.dhs.gov/files/training/training-critical-
infrastructure-partners.shtm

to quote from the training course description
(http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/IS907.asp):

"This course is not written for law enforcement officers,
but for non-law enforcement employees. The material may
provide law enforcement officers information on recommended
actions for non-law enforcement employees to take should
they be confronted with an active shooter situation."


Why did the union (AFGE) chapter in Arizona decide to play
this up? I don't know. But it strikes me as an over-
reaction, possibly for political purposes.


---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )