Is school security really such a bad idea?

I'm an attorney in California and I practice Family Law...Divorces,custody, support and all issues pertaining to a divorce. In the 80's, I also practiced criminal law.  In comparing the two areas of law, it was often said among attorneys I knew that in criminal law, you meet the worst people on their best behavior.  In Family Law, you meet the best people on their worst behavior.  And it was true. In the mid-90's, violent action in and around court rooms became such that airport type security was implemented.  First in Family Law courts and later in all courts in California.

To enter a courthouse here, you must empty your pockets, place them in a tray and your brief case on a conveyor belt that takes these items through an x-ray machine. You must personally walk through a metal detector and submit to a personal search if the guard deems necessary. I am often stopped for a more direct search because the metal clasps of my suspenders sets off the metal detector.

Yes the first few days of this seemed intrusive and unnecessary, but after a few days, it became clear that I was now safe inside the courthouse. In Family Law cases, tensions often run very high between the parties.  Yet even though that understandable human nature has not changed because of the security necessary to enter the courthouse, there is no potential for a shoot out in a courtroom here in California. So, I can go to court, do my job and come home safely.

Now if our State spends this money to secure attorneys, judges and court personnel, people that aren't on the high side of favor with the public, is it really wrong to use at least a lower level of security to protect our most precious asset; our children at school?

I have read in recent days everything from security at schools could cause the children to be worried or scared to we can't afford it as a nation or it just won't work. In fact, Mr. Gregory on Meet the Press this last Sunday argued against security at schools while his children go to a school with ample security.  I suppose he forgets that we have Air Marshals on commercial flights to.....protect the passengers during flight when they are the most vulnerable.  And some pilots are trained and armed as well.  Why wouldn't a combination of security and teachers produce the a similar level of protection for our children? Should we let the fervor outweigh the possibility of more protection for our precious children?

Gun grabbers, the new buzz word for gun-control advocates, argue that the only way to prevent violence in schools is to more completely regulate weapons. But allow me this one question:  how do we, exactly, legislate against insane or pure evil?  We can't.  All the laws to do so have been pasted.  It's time to directly protect our children.  And security in our schools is the quickest and potentially the most effect means to do so.


I'm an attorney in California and I practice Family Law...Divorces,custody, support and all issues pertaining to a divorce. In the 80's, I also practiced criminal law.  In comparing the two areas of law, it was often said among attorneys I knew that in criminal law, you meet the worst people on their best behavior.  In Family Law, you meet the best people on their worst behavior.  And it was true. In the mid-90's, violent action in and around court rooms became such that airport type security was implemented.  First in Family Law courts and later in all courts in California.

To enter a courthouse here, you must empty your pockets, place them in a tray and your brief case on a conveyor belt that takes these items through an x-ray machine. You must personally walk through a metal detector and submit to a personal search if the guard deems necessary. I am often stopped for a more direct search because the metal clasps of my suspenders sets off the metal detector.

Yes the first few days of this seemed intrusive and unnecessary, but after a few days, it became clear that I was now safe inside the courthouse. In Family Law cases, tensions often run very high between the parties.  Yet even though that understandable human nature has not changed because of the security necessary to enter the courthouse, there is no potential for a shoot out in a courtroom here in California. So, I can go to court, do my job and come home safely.

Now if our State spends this money to secure attorneys, judges and court personnel, people that aren't on the high side of favor with the public, is it really wrong to use at least a lower level of security to protect our most precious asset; our children at school?

I have read in recent days everything from security at schools could cause the children to be worried or scared to we can't afford it as a nation or it just won't work. In fact, Mr. Gregory on Meet the Press this last Sunday argued against security at schools while his children go to a school with ample security.  I suppose he forgets that we have Air Marshals on commercial flights to.....protect the passengers during flight when they are the most vulnerable.  And some pilots are trained and armed as well.  Why wouldn't a combination of security and teachers produce the a similar level of protection for our children? Should we let the fervor outweigh the possibility of more protection for our precious children?

Gun grabbers, the new buzz word for gun-control advocates, argue that the only way to prevent violence in schools is to more completely regulate weapons. But allow me this one question:  how do we, exactly, legislate against insane or pure evil?  We can't.  All the laws to do so have been pasted.  It's time to directly protect our children.  And security in our schools is the quickest and potentially the most effect means to do so.


RECENT VIDEOS