Not likely. They have reviews and professional journals and discussions with judges and a ton of other resources that neither of us is aware of. At least the one I call does. As a rule, I try to avoid “Better Call Saul…” type practices. Given that I’ve put my freedom among other important matters in their/his hands a few other times, I’d take his word for it.
So… “No case law exists, so trust OUR judgement…?”
He’s going to be getting a call back if it doesn’t work out. Probably collect.
Like I said, there is how it is written and looks to us, then there is how it is applied.
Which I totally get. But given it’s yet to be applied, all we have to start with is how it’s written and looks
Jesus dude, you obviously really want to argue about something.
You appear to advocating for the legislature to explicitly outline when deadly force is legal, in painful detail, for every conceivable and inconceivable scenario. “Sorry Mr. Jones, the man brandishing the knife and threatening to kill you was standing 20 feet 8 inches away when you shot him, and the law says that someone armed with a knife has to be within twenty feet, so now you to prison. Also, you used a .45 when only 9mms are authorized, and two of the four shots you fired hit him below the belt, which is clearly unsportsmanlike.”
No, the laws are “vague” because they couldn’t possibly spell out the almost infinite number of incidents in which people use deadly force, both justified and not. Instead we have principles: Innocence, Imminence, Proportionality, Avoidance and Reasonableness (stolen from Andrew F. Branca, I’ve already mentioned his book The Law of Self Defense). And then we have a legal system with judges and juries and prosecuting attorneys and they sort the real incidents out. If you use deadly force whatever the circumstance, you’re going to need a lawyer, and you may well face a trial by a jury of your peers. The results of those trials are called case law.
Just because the defendant happens to be a teacher in a classroom doesn’t suddenly make all of that irrelevant. They’re not going to get a special set of rules. They should get training, which I keep saying the details of which should not be spelled out in legislation, but should be left to professionals. Also, it seems like common sense that if a teacher shot a person armed with an AR-15 who had a history of mental illness in a school, there is no way they would get prosecuted.
But if a grown adult was so terrified of a 3rd grader with a knife that they shot them, they should be locked up. I mean that obviously violates the standard of “reasonableness.” Even if you’ve never heard of the standard of reasonableness it should strike you as a pretty stupid fucking thing for anyone to even be worried about.
“That 8 year old has a knife, am I supposed to shoot him?!?” Come on. I hope whoever asked that never buys a gun, drives a car, or leaves the house without adult supervision. If they’re actually teaching children then god help us.
2 Likes
Not really. I just wouldn’t dream of asking a school teacher to take a life and act as a pseudo LEO if I couldn’t at least explain when they won’t go to prison for it.
That is not what I’m advocating for. Apologies for the confusion
To my knowledge, the law doesn’t even require a defensive position.
LEOs do. And since the verbiage I’ve seen explicitly allows them to act as LEOs under certain criteria, teachers will have special rules under certain conditions.
To my knowledge, LEOs (much like military) have rules of engagement. Doesn’t seem absurd to expect that for teachers given what we’re asking them to do.
Edit: Also, fwiw, I have little problem arming teachers assuming the gun is locked/etc/blah blah.
I have an issue with asking teachers to be willing to kill someone when we can’t tell them which scenarios will and won’t separate them from their families for 20 years.
Can you give the special set of rules under which LEOs operate?
The ability to walk into a home without permission of the homeowner, kill him if he poses a threat, and leave without ever seeing the inside of a jail cell.
Fwiw, I also fully accept and acknowledge is NEEDS to be this way re: LEOs. In no way am I advocating we change LEO practices
Interesting, but untrue(or not complete). Police Officers need either a warrant or good reason to force entry. That is not at all applicable to a discussion of school personnel arming themselves, since school personnel will already lawfully be in school. Reasonableness(actually, probability) is still a consideration in the case of warrantless entry. Probable cause has already been declared to exist in the case of entry with a warrant.
It appears teachers will only be given authority to stop an active assailant. Would it be unreasonable to shoot two kids engaged in a fight? I hope everyone can agree it would be. Would it be unreasonable to shoot someone who’s walking from class to class and executing people? I don’t think so. Would it be unreasonable to shoot an eight-year-old for pulling out a knife? I think so. Would it be unreasonable to shoot an eight-year-old that just stabbed his classmate in the neck and is now going after another? I don’t think so(edit: not necessarily, anyway). Would it be unreasonable to shoot a student that just flipped his desk and stormed out of class? I hope so.
There’s almost always going to be some gray area. You first hope for a reasonable CA/DA(whichever it is in your area). If that fails, you hope for a reasonable jury. If you feel so incapable of acting in a generally-regarded-as-reasonable manner, or view the threat posed by mass shooters as so small that it’s outweighed by the risks of arming yourself to act(and I would hope these folks also oppose arms restrictions), then I would encourage you not to arm yourself. It’s as simple as that.
1 Like
Actually, almost all of the same standards apply to law enforcement as they do to the rest of us, except avoidance, because it’s the job of the police to go confront bad guys, investigate suspicious activity, etc. In other words, they often have to start conflict rather than avoid it.
Innocence, Immense, proportionality and reasonableness all apply. If a cop shot an 8 year old with a knife, do you really think he’d get away with it?
Anyone seen this:
Seems like a decent idea.
2 Likes
Will “except avoidance” apply to teachers? From the verbiage I’ve seen, it will. Which, to me, opens a pretty huge can of worms
If he my teacher, I don’t have a problem with anything he does…
1 Like
Or beer…
Exactly. A teacher who might already have a permit to carry has already assumed the risk involved with bring armed only now he can assume that risk in a school. The laws that govern how he uses his gun outside of school will apply inside a school.
Like destroying the barrel of that gun?
I don’t see how anything changes leo vs citizen. Why are you assuming that cops get more benefit of the doubt? Did Zimmerman not get the benefit of the doubt?
Fear of stabbing someone is vague. Is it fear of the possibility or is the kid in the process of stabbing someone? Was it reasonable for the person to shoot vs disarming the kid? I don’t think any parent would be upset if a teacher shot a student to protect his child from getting stabbed. Kids aren’t allowed to commit murder.
Same here! Huge can of worms. I would say that once they go through the training, and understand the ramifications of having to engage an active shooter that you would end up with maybe one teacher out of a hundred being willing to take on that responsibility.
1 Like
Because they do
Oh, that’s why.
1 Like