Burlington Police Department apologized for mock shooting scenario during high school field trip visit on June 7, 2024.
Burlington School District offered counseling services for affected students.
Communication breakdown between school and police officials led to this incident.
Police department met with students to discuss presentation and its impact.
Students were not informed about the planned scenario beforehand, leading to distress and fear among some students.
The mock shooting was part of a school program called Year End Studies (YES) forensics program.
Three members of the Burlington Police Department simulated a robbery scenario with gunshot sounds and masked individuals.
On June 7, 2024, Burlington Police Department in Vermont apologized for a mock shooting exercise that took place during a high school field trip visit to the police station. The incident involved three members of the Burlington Police Department simulating a robbery scenario with gunshot sounds and masked individuals. However, students were not informed about the planned scenario beforehand, leading to distress and fear among some students.
The mock shooting was part of a school program called Year End Studies (YES) forensics program. According to the police department's statement, they had communicated with YES program staff about the details of the scenarios, including using fake firearms in a mock shooting. However, there seems to have been a breakdown in communication between school and police officials leading to this incident.
The Burlington School District offered counseling services for students who were affected by the simulation. The police department also met with students on Friday to discuss the presentation and its impact on them.
This mock shooting exercise raises concerns about the appropriateness of such demonstrations in a school setting, especially given the heightened awareness and fear surrounding gun violence in schools. It is essential for both school officials and law enforcement agencies to communicate effectively when planning such activities to prevent unnecessary distress and trauma for students.
Burlington police officers staged a surprise demonstration in which a masked gunman burst into a high school forensics class and pretended to open fire.
Students were told they would tour the police department and see a presentation on how detectives solve crimes.
Two women ran in followed by a man wearing a ski mask who was holding a gun, then gunshot sounds rang out.
Students realized it was fake only after noticing that the cops in the room had done nothing to stop the pretend shooter.
Accuracy
The simulation occurred at the Burlington police station.
Deception
(30%)
The article reports on an incident where Burlington police officers staged a mock shooting during a high school forensics class without warning. The lack of warning and the use of gunshot sounds caused students to fear for their lives, resulting in some students diving for cover and texting their parents. The article quotes several students and parents expressing shock and outrage over the incident. While the Burlington Police Department issued an apology, it is clear that this demonstration was not appropriate for high school students given the potential emotional impact. This can be considered selective reporting as only details that support the author's position (the negative reaction from students and parents) are reported, while details that may mitigate the situation (such as prior approval from school staff or previous use with college students and adults) are not mentioned.
One of the students said she dove on the floor, scraping her knee. The other said she scrambled to find her phone so that she could text her mother.
The lack of warning — and the loud gunshot sounds — sent students diving for cover in fear for their lives.
Students and parents who spoke with Seven Days expressed shock and outrage, saying the demonstration played on the fears of students who have grown up amid a nationwide increase in violence at schools.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an example of a lack of warning leading to fear and panic in the students, which can be considered an appeal to emotion or fear. The authors also use inflammatory language such as 'nationwide increase in violence at schools' and 'real threat to kids these days', which can be seen as emotional appeals. Additionally, there is a lack of clear distinction between statements made by the authors and those made by the students or parents, which can make it difficult to determine whose assertions are being evaluated.
The lack of warning and the loud gunshot sounds sent students diving for cover in fear for their lives.
It is a very real threat to kids these days to have a school shooting. It's something they worry about.
I'm shaking and crying because I'm like, Oh my god, I'm gonna get shot.
This is going to be part of the mix.
Bias
(95%)
The authors express shock and outrage from students and parents about the mock shooting demonstration by Burlington police officers during a high school forensics class. They quote students describing their fear for their lives during the simulation. The lack of warning before the demonstration is also mentioned as contributing to the fear and distress caused to students.
I'm shaking and crying because I'm like, Oh my god, I'm gonna get shot.
It felt so real.
One of the students said she dove on the floor, scraping her knee. The other said she scrambled to find her phone so that she could text her mother.
Students and parents who spoke with Seven Days expressed shock and outrage, saying the demonstration played on the fears of students who have grown up amid a nationwide increase in violence at schools.
High school students on a field trip to the Burlington Police Department were exposed to a staged armed robbery that included a mock shooting during the visit.
School and police officials apologized for the training exercise which upset some students.
There was a breakdown in communication between school and police officials leading to the incident.
Accuracy
The training, which occurred on Wednesday, was meant to be a 'realistic armed robbery demonstration.'
School officials responded that they thought 'these students will be fine with this simulation' and gave a heads up to parents and students.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(95%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when the police and school officials state that they are committed to improving their systems and preventing similar incidents from happening in the future. This is not a logical reason for why there should be no more fallacies in their communications or actions.
][Tom Flanagan, the Burlington schools superintendent, and Jon Murad, the police chief] are committed to doing a better job of clearly laying out descriptions, expectations, and agendas and seeking clarification when working together in the future.[/
There is no evidence that active-shooter drills have saved lives or prevented shootings.
Students who have past trauma or anxiety may be at risk of PTSD from such drills.
It's difficult to study whether drills are helpful as every situation is different.
A recent Minnesota law requires active-shooter drills to be conducted in a trauma-informed way, allowing students to opt out and providing notice and debriefing sessions.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article contains selective reporting as it only reports details that support the author's position about the potential harm of active shooter drills. The author quotes mental health professionals who question the value of such exercises and implies that they can cause trauma, but does not provide any counter-arguments or perspectives from those who argue in favor of these drills. Additionally, there is a statement 'There's no real reason that we have to act out this situation to prepare people,' which is an editorializing opinion by the author.
Peterson pointed to a recent bill passed in Minnesota's last legislative session that requires drills to be conducted in a 'really trauma-informed way.'
More than 90 percent of American public schools have some kind of lockdown drills in place, but there is virtually no evidence any active-shooter drill has ever saved a life or prevented a shooting from taking place.
The Burlington Police Department said it had communicated with high school staff on May 23, prior to the incident, saying the training would involve 'using fake firearms in a mock shooting.' The year-end studies program staff responded that the students 'will be fine with this simulation.'
Fallacies
(85%)
The author makes an appeal to authority by citing Jillian Peterson and Dr. Abi Blakeslee without providing any context or evidence for their expertise in the field. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing active-shooter drills as 'quite harmful' and 'not a healthy exercise'. There is no clear dichotomous depiction in the article.
][The roughly 20 students in attendance may now be at risk of post-traumatic stress disorder,][
Bias
(80%)
The author expresses a clear bias against active shooter drills, implying that they are not beneficial and can be harmful to students. She quotes mental health professionals who share this view and provides examples of how these drills have failed in the past. The author also uses language that depicts the drills as extreme or unnecessary.
It varies from student to student how they are affected by it but we know that shootings and violence is a reality. We know that students have been through it, that they are afraid of it, that they are conscious of it.
There's more and more research emerging showing that these live action drills are not beneficial and in fact can be quite harmful
We just want to limit students’ exposure to this as much as possible.
Police in Burlington, Vermont conducted a mock shooting exercise without warning for high school students.
Accuracy
The simulation involved gunshot sounds and people in masks.
Students were not informed about the planned scenario beforehand.
Deception
(30%)
The article contains selective reporting as it only reports details that support the author's position about the traumatizing effects of the mock shooting on students. The author also uses emotional manipulation by implying that the police department's decision to stage a mock shooting is baffling and traumatizing, without providing any context or perspective on why they might have done it. Additionally, there is a lack of disclosure about sources for some of the information presented in the article.
The author's use of the phrase 'baffling choice' to describe the police department's decision to stage a mock shooting is an editorializing statement that implies the author finds it inexplicable and therefore deceptive by omission.
Research has shown that such drills can have lasting mental health effects on children, even when there is ample notice.
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(95%)
The author expresses a clear bias against the Burlington Police Department for conducting a mock shooting without warning to students. The author also implies that the police department's actions were unnecessary and traumatizing to students, despite acknowledging that teachers were aware of the demonstration. The author also uses loaded language such as 'baffling choice' and 'too-frequent mass shootings' to elicit an emotional response from readers.
The author expresses a clear bias against the Burlington Police Department for conducting a mock shooting without warning to students.
The author implies that the police department's actions were unnecessary and traumatizing to students.
The author uses loaded language such as 'baffling choice' and 'too-frequent mass shootings'.
