ABC7.com reports:
The police chief at City College of San Francisco has resigned over a question of security. He wanted his officers to be able to carry guns on campus, especially in light of a recent incident, but he was overruled.
In late April, 52-year-old Peter Lee rushed into a classroom in the science building, dressed in camouflage. Students say he threatened to kill everyone. But campus police had to wait until S.F.P.D. arrived before they could respond. That’s because campus cops don’t carry guns — only pepper spray and batons.
Fortunately, Lee was not armed either and they arrested him without incident….
Carl Koehler, CCSF Police Chief: “In this day and age, there are guns on campus, but the police don’t have them.” … [Koehler] was fighting a 70-year-old college policy prohibiting its officers from carrying guns.
I’m not a policing expert, so maybe there is some reason to leave armed intervention to the city police rather than having on-campus police able to do it. Certainly not all organizations employ armed guards; and despite the occasional high-profile campus shooting, my sense is that universities generally aren’t that dangerous. Nonetheless, my first reaction is that armed protection is likelier to be more effective — not just against mass shootings, but also rapes, robberies, and the like — than unarmed protection. Any thoughts on this, or more specific facts about the CCSF situation?
Thanks to Sam Spade’s San Francisco blog and Peter Buxtun for the pointer.