I’m not totally sure what you’re asking, then. Police Officers are asked to do things many aren’t justified doing. Because Officers are legally permitted to put themselves into the situation, they’re then justified defending themselves and/or others.
If I’m not mistaken, teachers/school staff will merely be permitted to arm themselves in a place others aren’t. It shouldn’t be a very complex issue. They will have a lawful reason for being in the school, and be permitted to arm themselves to defend against threats that would ordinarily warrant the use of potentially deadly force.
“Citizens stand no chance against the government. The government can become an oppressive force without notice, and the people will be ill-equipped to deal with it.”
Also:
“Citizens should voluntarily disarm because the government is not that oppressive right now.”
Right. But imo, a very very large part of the wiggle room we give LEOs tests upon them living the life on a day to day basis. We acknowledge the average experience level is high enough to warrant that benefit of the doubt.
Statistically, no teacher will ever have more than “police academy” training, with essentially zero real life practice.
The way I see it there’s 2 ways this bill shakes out (at least from my reading, still haven’t seen final bill)
We’re extending that benefit of the doubt to teachers despite not meeting the same criteria to earn it (ala LEOs)
We’re not extending that benefit of the doubt, yet at the same time expect teachers to act in an LEO capacity
bill says that “a school marshal has no authority to act in any law enforcement capacity except to the extent necessary to prevent or abate an active assailant incident on a school premises.”
The situation is what concerns me. From the sources I’ve read, I haven’t seen anything more specific than the vague block above
That’s not vague. It’s about as specific as you could get without rendering such authorities useless. Reasonableness is always going to be a consideration, and it’s necessarily somewhat subjective.
So far every teacher I’ve talked to (sample size of 2) has disagreed.
So we’re asking teachers to risk going to prison based on the subjective view of the judge/jury in that example. And we’re back to whether or not society gives a group of people the benefit of the doubt when they very clearly haven’t (and won’t be able to) earn it OR no benefit of the doubt and scare every teacher from ever acting when needed
This is a risk faced everytime ANYONE pulls out a gun. “Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six” isn’t baseless. Teachers aren’t being required to arm themselves. It’s up to them. If no teacher wants to do it, then no one is worse off for teachers being permitted to do so.
Except the level of skepticism/doubt changes in a massive way when changing from LEO to non LEO.
I’m just wondering what criteria society will use to judge teachers, LEO or non LEO.
Is that what we’ll say when/if a teacher kills someone they shouldn’t have? “Well you knew there were risks from our vaguely worded law, enjoy prison”
Anecdote from my teacher friend. Week one of student teaching at a local (in the ghetto) k-5 school a 3rd grader pulled out a knife. Ignoring the obvious that a 3rd grader shouldn’t have knives in school, if she had been armed and shot the 3rd grader for fear of him using it on a classmate, is she going to prison or getting a medal? I sure as shit didn’t know the answer when she asked, and if the teacher doesn’t know either, how can we expect them to act without the level of hesitation you get when you’re about to make a decision that will largely impact the rest of your life (and your loved ones).
I can’t speak statistically, but there are plenty of teachers that used the GI bill to become teachers. So military training, plus some with actual combat experience.
Just off the top of my head, every male social studies and math teacher I can think of back to elementary school. Not statistical, but none of these guys were precious little lambs with no gun or combat training.
All cool, and probably very helpful. I had a couple as well.
But save requiring military experience to become a teacher, I’m not sure how that matters in the grand scheme. Especially re: what happens to the teacher after a shooting?
Well, you’re citing their lack of experience on the whole as a liability which could open them up to civil and criminal consequences.
I’m pointing out that some teachers have not only “police academy” training, but military weapons training and some with combat experience.
My opinion on it is that the right to sue is inviolate, and nothing can reduce the possibility of a civil suit. On the criminal side, any action involving a gun is going to be investigated. If someone is going to take on the responsibility of protecting others, its up to them to know the most current parameters of what constitutes a situation that requires the use of deadly force- just as it applies to any current gun owner.
I contact a criminal defense attorney and get the most current and applicable read on it as I can.
The danger in all of these conversations is that we look at the way a law is written, but all but maybe a couple people here know how it is actually applied.
edit: I don’t consider myself one of those few. I haven’t owned a firearm for about 7 years.
And he’s going to say what? “No case law exists, so trust my interpretation of the law and let’s hope a judge agrees”
That’s what I keep asking. It seems like we’re asking teachers to be willing to kill someone with as little information as humanly possible in an ever evolving political landscape.
