news-record.com

If the school board keeps pushing the sheriff and police chiefs on the Taser issue, Guilford County might end up without SROs in its high schools.

Then we will see with whom voters register their displeasure.

Sandra Alexander was outspoken in her opposition to Tasers, according to Brian Ewing's story today.

“I think the citizens of Guilford County have something to say about who occupies those offices, and we hope that law enforcement administrators will enter into this discussion about Tasers with that thought in mind,” she said.

Yes, the voters elect the sheriff, and they can even influence who occupies the office of police chief by leaning on their city council, which in turn can lean on the city manager, who can hire and fire the chief.

But I think it's a lot more likely voters will replace school board members who won't let SROs do their jobs.

According to Alexander, that job is "working with children," which "requires special training, and I don't know if they're getting the training they need in that regard."

OK, I suppose "working with children" is part of the job. SROs can be counselors, or at least positive role models for students.

But their primary purpose is to protect students and staff and to help provide a safe environment.

Anyone remember the rash of shootings at schools across the country a few years ago? It prompted the SRO response in the first place.

Don't we first and foremost want SROs to be properly trained -- and equipped -- to deal with threats to school safety and security?

Those threats can be every bit as serious as threats to public safety outside schools. Therefore, it seems to me, law-enforcement officers inside schools should have the same tools they may need outside schools.

No one likes the idea of an officer using a Taser on a teenager or, heaven forbid, a younger child. Far worse, of course, would be using a firearm. Should SROs also leave their firearms outside the school? What happens, then, when an armed intruder enters and starts shooting?

In any kind of emergency, of course, the SRO has to call for backup. When more police respond, would they have to drop their Tasers, and any other weapons the school board prohibits, before stepping onto the campus?

The unfortunate fact is that schools can be dangerous. Some students can be dangerous -- like the Columbine killers, or the more run-of-the-mill gang members. And schools can attract outside threats.

The public, again and again, has demanded police protection for their children's schools.

It's no accident that the Columbine-type tragedies were largely stopped when schools started placing law-enforcement officers on campus.

But you have to let law-enforcement officers be law-enforcement officers. And you have to trust them to do their jobs effectively and responsibly.

I have no problem with the school board inviting the sheriff and chiefs over for a discussion of Tasers and other school security concerns. Frank talk will be good for everyone.

The problem will occur if the board forces the law-enforcement agencies to make a choice between leaving officers in school but less than fully equipped, or pulling them out.

If that happens, I predict the voters won't be happy with their school board.