School Dist. Approves Armed Teachers, Provides the Handguns

[fishy999]

Dec 23, 2015 21:26:28 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Dec 23, 2015 20:42:45 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Some kid is gonna get shot on accident. Who's liable?

My answer would be "the person that shot them".

Other than police- anyone shooting a gun is liable for anything the bullet does.    Keep that in mind when you buy self defense rounds- the police have a qualified immunity from civil suits- you do not.

[Deleted]

So again, I can't imagine very many rational people volunteering for this position of arms teacher. There are just too many variables to assume liability for...

[swamp]

Dec 23, 2015 21:26:28 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Dec 23, 2015 20:42:45 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Some kid is gonna get shot on accident. Who's liable?

My answer would be "the person that shot them".

And the correct answer is the person who shot them in the causer of their employment and acting as an agent for the school district who permitted the teacher to carry the gun, supplied it, and trained them. 

[swamp]

I know a teachers who who love to carry a gun at school. they aren't the type of people I would want to carry a gun. 

[Shooby]

Dec 23, 2015 19:25:55 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Dec 23, 2015 11:56:43 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

That (basically your entire post) is the reason I would only support a VOLUNTARY option. Let teachers that want to, volunteer.

I think you'd run into the problem you do when it comes to driving.   EVERYONE thinks they are an above average driver, however most people are piss poor drivers.

You're going to have a bunch of people who think they are going to be good with guns and will be able to take out the bad guy volunteering when in reality most of them are going to freeze just like the rest of us or panic and shoot bystanders.

Policemen, soldiers, security guards, etc have to go thru extensive screening and training to handle their weapons and constantly keep it updated.  Even with all that they still make mistakes.

Who is going to pay to make sure these teachers recieve the type of training they need to be equipped to deal with an emergency?  Who is going to make sure that they keep up with regular re-certification?  Who is going to make sure that these guns are always accounted for?

I agree with Shooby if you absolutely want someone armed in the school that badly then it should be an actual police officer.  Someone who is regularly trained to handle a crisis and a weapon.

See my previous post.

(oh, and security guards don't go through as "extensive" of training as some people would like to think. There may be state-to-state differences, but when I was hired as a security guard in Florida in the 90's, I was offered "armed" for 50 CENTS more an hour. I asked about the qualifications and responsibilities {had to provide my own weapon and ammo, and if I fired the gun, I was personally responsible for damages and/or legal issues with the discharge of the weapon} and decided it wasn't worth it. The "extensive training" for it {had I chosen to take the offer} was a background check the same as if I were getting a CWP. That's it.)

If we are going to have armed security in the school there need to be training protocols.  Training protocols that include the armed security knowing how and when to use a gun.  How to protect students.  How to approach, contain or shoot a threatening intruder.  When to fire and when NOT to fire, and so forth.  I support Armed Security in the school, but not armed teachers.

[Deleted]

Dec 24, 2015 3:41:40 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Dec 23, 2015 21:26:28 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

My answer would be "the person that shot them".

Other than police- anyone shooting a gun is liable for anything the bullet does.    Keep that in mind when you buy self defense rounds- the police have a qualified immunity from civil suits- you do not.

No argument.

[Deleted]

Dec 24, 2015 8:08:26 GMT -5 swamp said:

Dec 23, 2015 21:26:28 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

My answer would be "the person that shot them".

And the correct answer is the person who shot them in the causer of their employment and acting as an agent for the school district who permitted the teacher to carry the gun, supplied it, and trained them. 

No. The correct answer is "The person who shot them". Period. End of process.

In some cases another entity (like an employer) MAY assume the responsibility, but no outside entity is REQUIRED to do so... but that's a whole different kettle o' fish.

[Deleted]

Dec 24, 2015 8:26:34 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Dec 23, 2015 19:25:55 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

See my previous post.

(oh, and security guards don't go through as "extensive" of training as some people would like to think. There may be state-to-state differences, but when I was hired as a security guard in Florida in the 90's, I was offered "armed" for 50 CENTS more an hour. I asked about the qualifications and responsibilities {had to provide my own weapon and ammo, and if I fired the gun, I was personally responsible for damages and/or legal issues with the discharge of the weapon} and decided it wasn't worth it. The "extensive training" for it {had I chosen to take the offer} was a background check the same as if I were getting a CWP. That's it.)

If we are going to have armed security in the school there need to be training protocols.  Training protocols that include the armed security knowing how and when to use a gun.  How to protect students.  How to approach, contain or shoot a threatening intruder.  When to fire and when NOT to fire, and so forth.  I support Armed Security in the school, but not armed teachers.

And I'm telling you that "armed security" is likely no better trained than "armed teachers"

[Shooby]

Yeah so more untrained people with guns? No.

[Deleted]

You just don't get it do you? No one is saying "untrained people"... I'm saying "I'd be fine with armed security guards" is a stupid limiter... security guards are no more "well trained" than the average CWP holder.

[swamp]

Dec 24, 2015 19:54:54 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Dec 24, 2015 8:08:26 GMT -5 swamp said:

And the correct answer is the person who shot them in the causer of their employment and acting as an agent for the school district who permitted the teacher to carry the gun, supplied it, and trained them. 

No. The correct answer is "The person who shot them". Period. End of process.

In some cases another entity (like an employer) MAY assume the responsibility, but no outside entity is REQUIRED to do so... but that's a whole different kettle o' fish.

No. You're wrong.  

[Deleted]

Dec 24, 2015 20:57:04 GMT -5 swamp said:

Dec 24, 2015 19:54:54 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

No. The correct answer is "The person who shot them". Period. End of process.

In some cases another entity (like an employer) MAY assume the responsibility, but no outside entity is REQUIRED to do so... but that's a whole different kettle o' fish.

No. You're wrong.  

I'm not wrong.

You are asserting that "Vicarious Liability" exists and is preferential. Whereas in actuality the law generally disfavors it (unless there is a crap-ton load of "with the exception of", and "only in cases of", and "notwithstanding this...", making finding Vicarious Liability almost impossible anyway)

For example, in Connecticut, there's the following law: www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/part3/3.1-4.htm, which basically states for Vicarious Liability to exist, the following FOUR criteria must ALL apply:

• Element 1 - Sold, delivered, or provided a firearm to another person (they have to actually provide the firearm)
• Element 2 - Intent of other person (The person they provided the firearm to had to already intent to use it in a crime)
• Element 3 - Knowledge (as the provider of the firearm they had to KNOW it was going to be used in a crime)
• Element 4 - Crime was committed (and the crime had to actually be committed)

In Texas Law (which really applies here as this thread is about guns in Texas schools), Texas holds the following:

Under Texas law, a employer is vicariously liable for the torts of its employees committed in the course and scope of their employment. To find that the employee acted within the scope of employment, the action of the employee must be: (1) within the general authority given him; (2) in furtherance of the employer’s business; and (3) for the accomplishment of the object for which the employee was employed.


SOURCE

Accidentally shooting a kid is not "in furtherance of the employees business" nor is it "for the accomplishment of the object for which the employee was employed".

Therefore the answer to the question of "Who is liable if someone accidentally shoots a kid?" is, as I said, "The person that fired the gun"

[midjd]

You don't think a school district would settle for millions if it was shown they provided a firearm to an unstable teacher who later shot a child with it (or an untrained teacher who accidentally shot a child)? 

A school is responsible for the safety of children while they are in its care. A school may not necessarily be liable if an employee who chooses to secretly carry goes nuts and shoots someone, but providing non-law enforcement officers with weapons and instruction to use them absolutely opens them up to liability if when something happens.

Gun and safety opinions aside, as a taxpayer I would strongly oppose something like this in my area just because of the likelihood of the school district being sued.

[Deleted]

Dec 24, 2015 23:16:17 GMT -5 midjd said:

You don't think a school district would settle for millions if it was shown they provided a firearm to an unstable teacher who later shot a child with it (or an untrained teacher who accidentally shot a child)? 

A school is responsible for the safety of children while they are in its care. A school may not necessarily be liable if an employee who chooses to secretly carry goes nuts and shoots someone, but providing non-law enforcement officers with weapons and instruction to use them absolutely opens them up to liability if when something happens.

Gun and safety opinions aside, as a taxpayer I would strongly oppose something like this in my area just because of the likelihood of the school district being sued.

Whether they would "settle" or not is irrelevant to them actually being legally liable.

[Shooby]

Dec 24, 2015 20:52:22 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

You just don't get it do you? No one is saying "untrained people"... I'm saying "I'd be fine with armed security guards" is a stupid limiter... security guards are no more "well trained" than the average CWP holder.

  I do get it.  And, i would support more and better training for Security Guards.  However, even so, a Security Guard has ONE job, which is Security versus teachers who are multitasing a zillion other things.  So, it still makes more sense for them to have the guns.   

[Deleted]

Richard, you are complaining that security guards aren't trained... And saying teachers will be... It's contradictory.

[OldCoyote]

Utah has allowed guns in schools for sometime,  It does not appeared to be a big problem.


www.deseretnews.com/article/865639447/Which-teachers-have-guns-Utah-law-prevents-districts-from-asking.html?pg=all

[Opti]

Dec 25, 2015 9:18:53 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Utah has allowed guns in schools for sometime,  It does not appeared to be a big problem.


www.deseretnews.com/article/865639447/Which-teachers-have-guns-Utah-law-prevents-districts-from-asking.html?pg=all

Haven't read the article yet, but it might take some time before the issue comes up. I found a link detailing school shootings since 2013, and had to be more specific to get Google to cough up the school shooting in Orem, UT. Seems other shootings have been happening since 5/4/15.

FWIW, the 5/4/15 shooting was two college students using guns without an instructor present. Guns were supposed to be unloaded and luckily both shots were non-fatal.

everytownresearch.org/school-shootings/

Not sure what the real likelihood of a school shooting is, but if I use a low estimate of 100 schools per 50 states, I get a 3% chance of a school shooting over a two year period.

[OldCoyote]

What does this have to do with teachers carrying CCW?

[Shooby]

Dec 25, 2015 10:04:08 GMT -5 Opti said:

Dec 25, 2015 9:18:53 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Utah has allowed guns in schools for sometime,  It does not appeared to be a big problem.


www.deseretnews.com/article/865639447/Which-teachers-have-guns-Utah-law-prevents-districts-from-asking.html?pg=all

Haven't read the article yet, but it might take some time before the issue comes up. I found a link detailing school shootings since 2013, and had to be more specific to get Google to cough up the school shooting in Orem, UT. Seems other shootings have been happening since 5/4/15.

FWIW, the 5/4/15 shooting was two college students using guns without an instructor present. Guns were supposed to be unloaded and luckily both shots were non-fatal.

everytownresearch.org/school-shootings/

Not sure what the real likelihood of a school shooting is, but if I use a low estimate of 100 schools per 50 states, I get a 3% chance of a school shooting over a two year period.

Stastics are fine and dandy.  Oh you have a 3% chance or whatever.  But, not sure what comfort that is?  Because if it does happen to you, then you are 100% dead.

[Opti]

Dec 25, 2015 10:34:42 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Dec 25, 2015 10:04:08 GMT -5 Opti said:

Haven't read the article yet, but it might take some time before the issue comes up. I found a link detailing school shootings since 2013, and had to be more specific to get Google to cough up the school shooting in Orem, UT. Seems other shootings have been happening since 5/4/15.

FWIW, the 5/4/15 shooting was two college students using guns without an instructor present. Guns were supposed to be unloaded and luckily both shots were non-fatal.

everytownresearch.org/school-shootings/

Not sure what the real likelihood of a school shooting is, but if I use a low estimate of 100 schools per 50 states, I get a 3% chance of a school shooting over a two year period.

Stastics are fine and dandy.  Oh you have a 3% chance or whatever.  But, not sure what comfort that is?  Because if it does happen to you, then you are 100% dead.

I made my stat intentionally high to demonstrate it is still not a large problem. Googling the number of schools I got -

The Answer: According to the National Center for Education Statistics, there were 98,817 public schools during the 2009-2010 school year. For more information,

So its about a 0.08% chance of even being involved in a school shooting, fatalities are even lower.

So roughly double of this-

It is estimated that Earth as a whole is struck by an average of more than a hundred lightning bolts every second. The odds of becoming a lightning victim in the U.S. in any one year is 1 in 700,000. The odds of being struck in your lifetime is 1 in 3,000.Jun 24, 2005

You are 100% dead if you are fatally shot by a spouse, sibling, or police officer. Right now, many are more afraid of random violence than things they can explain. Hence the outsize fear on school shootings. MO.

[Shooby]

Dec 25, 2015 10:58:07 GMT -5 Opti said:

Dec 25, 2015 10:34:42 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Stastics are fine and dandy.  Oh you have a 3% chance or whatever.  But, not sure what comfort that is?  Because if it does happen to you, then you are 100% dead.

I made my stat intentionally high to demonstrate it is still not a large problem. Googling the number of schools I got -

The Answer: According to the National Center for Education Statistics, there were 98,817 public schools during the 2009-2010 school year. For more information,

So its about a 0.08% chance of even being involved in a school shooting, fatalities are even lower.

So roughly double of this-

It is estimated that Earth as a whole is struck by an average of more than a hundred lightning bolts every second. The odds of becoming a lightning victim in the U.S. in any one year is 1 in 700,000. The odds of being struck in your lifetime is 1 in 3,000.Jun 24, 2005

You are 100% dead if you are fatally shot by a spouse, sibling, or police officer. Right now, many are more afraid of random violence than things they can explain. Hence the outsize fear on school shootings. MO.

Well so what?  Do you have kids in school?  There is still no reason for kids to be sitting ducks in unarmed buildings is there?  Bank robberies are rare too.  Yet we protect our money with guns.

[mroped]

In general people and especially the more conservative ones are against an expansion of government in all forms. Be it federal, state, local, all forms if enlarged means a longer reach for the government therefore we/some/most are against it.
Now having security personnel, armed mind you, in school for the purpose of protection, means they have to be hired by the school district which is funded by public money which makes it...local government(or state or federal). 
Doesnt that make said action government expansion?

So we are against a larger police force because of "government overreach" or a larger border patrol force or state troopers, people that go thru extensive training and continuos retraining but we would be fine with hiring "rent a cop" people that failed to make the cut for "real" law enforcement to watch over our children!
Fancy that! This is a messed up concept if there is ever one!

[midjd]

Dec 25, 2015 9:18:53 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Utah has allowed guns in schools for sometime,  It does not appeared to be a big problem.


www.deseretnews.com/article/865639447/Which-teachers-have-guns-Utah-law-prevents-districts-from-asking.html?pg=all

There's a big difference between "don't ask, don't tell" and actually encouraging teachers to use handguns/providing training.

[Deleted]

Dec 25, 2015 9:02:04 GMT -5 oped said:

Richard, you are complaining that security guards aren't trained... And saying teachers will be... It's contradictory.

Since that's not actually what I am saying, you are incorrect.

I'm saying (quite plainly) that security guards are no more "well trained" than anyone else with a CWP.

Before they could carry teachers would need to be licensed (which usually requires training or at least a test and background check... which is what I am saying is the equivalent to what the average security guard goes through).

How is that contradictory?

[Deleted]

Dec 25, 2015 15:17:28 GMT -5 midjd said:

Dec 25, 2015 9:18:53 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Utah has allowed guns in schools for sometime,  It does not appeared to be a big problem.


www.deseretnews.com/article/865639447/Which-teachers-have-guns-Utah-law-prevents-districts-from-asking.html?pg=all

There's a big difference between "don't ask, don't tell" and actually encouraging teachers to use handguns/providing training.

Please quote where anyone or any article said that anyone was "encouraging teachers to use"... I'll wait.

Making it legal for them to carry isn't in any way, shape, or form "encouraging them to use"

[zibazinski]

Every bullet comes attached with a lawyer. 

[midjd]

Please quote where anyone or any article said that anyone was "encouraging teachers to use"... I'll wait.



Making it legal for them to carry isn't in any way, shape, or form "encouraging them to use"

The title of this thread is "school dist. approves armed teachers, provides the handguns." Is providing handguns to teachers supposed to discourage the use of them? 

Of course making it legal for teachers to carry isn't "encouraging them to use." Which is why (in the post you quoted) my entire point was that the article oldcoyote posted is different than what was being discussed in the OP. 

[Deleted]

Dec 25, 2015 21:50:41 GMT -5 midjd said:

Please quote where anyone or any article said that anyone was "encouraging teachers to use"... I'll wait.



Making it legal for them to carry isn't in any way, shape, or form "encouraging them to use"

The title of this thread is "school dist. approves armed teachers, provides the handguns." Is providing handguns to teachers supposed to discourage the use of them? 

Of course making it legal for teachers to carry isn't "encouraging them to use." Which is why (in the post you quoted) my entire point was that the article oldcoyote posted is different than what was being discussed in the OP. 

Still waiting...
(the thread title does not include any form of encouragement to use)

[Deleted]

Dec 25, 2015 22:18:00 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Dec 25, 2015 21:50:41 GMT -5 midjd said:

The title of this thread is "school dist. approves armed teachers, provides the handguns." Is providing handguns to teachers supposed to discourage the use of them? 

Of course making it legal for teachers to carry isn't "encouraging them to use." Which is why (in the post you quoted) my entire point was that the article oldcoyote posted is different than what was being discussed in the OP. 

Still waiting...
(the thread title does not include any form of encouragement to use)

Somebody buys you a gun ... They are encouraging you to use it... Otherwise, why buy it?