Who would assume the liability of an armed teacher’s actions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, please.

You are posting on here like they are going to go out and issue guns to teachers. I don't think anyone has suggested that.

They are talking about arming those who are already proficient and providing additional training. That coach who gave his life was a gun owner. I think we all should wish he had had a gun.

Trump has said that. He wants to "arm the teachers". Then there was the comment about arming those who left the military. Maybe he went off script for that comment.

A lot of teachers are saying they Don't like the idea. Including some who are trained to handle a gun.

With an off the cuff POTUS, I think there is reason to be concerned.

[Anonymous]

Teachers get the blame for everything.

Why would this be any different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, please.

You are posting on here like they are going to go out and issue guns to teachers. I don't think anyone has suggested that.

They are talking about arming those who are already proficient and providing additional training. That coach who gave his life was a gun owner. I think we all should wish he had had a gun.

Trump has said that. He wants to "arm the teachers". Then there was the comment about arming those who left the military. Maybe he went off script for that comment.

A lot of teachers are saying they Don't like the idea. Including some who are trained to handle a gun.

With an off the cuff POTUS, I think there is reason to be concerned.

Are there a lot of teachers who are also veterans?

What would that mean for schools that perhaps have NO teachers who are already skilled and comfortable with firearms? Those become targets? Or gun skills become a factor in deciding which teachers to hire? How is that prioritized in hiring criteria?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, please.

You are posting on here like they are going to go out and issue guns to teachers. I don't think anyone has suggested that.

They are talking about arming those who are already proficient and providing additional training. That coach who gave his life was a gun owner. I think we all should wish he had had a gun.

I don't think you understand the question. The fact that the school would have extensive vetting requirements would INCREASE the school's liability for any incidents. Which there definitely would be. This would be a huge new liability for school districts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Recently there was a legal decision around Baltimore (forgive me, I can't recall where) that made it possible for "victims" to sue (and win) against police officers for damages & we're not talking only about malicious brutality, just anything that could happen in a tense and fluid environment.

I would expect that if you're asking teachers to act like police officers and arm themselves in a similar fashion, the same would be true. Terrible.

Yes, this was in response to property damage resulting from the Freddy Gray riots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recently there was a legal decision around Baltimore (forgive me, I can't recall where) that made it possible for "victims" to sue (and win) against police officers for damages & we're not talking only about malicious brutality, just anything that could happen in a tense and fluid environment.

I would expect that if you're asking teachers to act like police officers and arm themselves in a similar fashion, the same would be true. Terrible.

Yes, this was in response to property damage resulting from the Freddy Gray riots.

Sorry, here's the link to the news article: https://hotair.com/archives/2017/06/22/baltimore-businesses-sue-city-damage-done-freddie-gray-riots/

At least in Maryland, there is some negative state court precedent that says that the State (or local government) may have an affirmative duty to act to prevent tortious acts or property damage/inverse condemnation. This already costs MD $$$$$ in taxpayer money defending these suits, regardless of the outcome, which could be in the millions of dollars in State liability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recently there was a legal decision around Baltimore (forgive me, I can't recall where) that made it possible for "victims" to sue (and win) against police officers for damages & we're not talking only about malicious brutality, just anything that could happen in a tense and fluid environment.

I would expect that if you're asking teachers to act like police officers and arm themselves in a similar fashion, the same would be true. Terrible.

Yes, this was in response to property damage resulting from the Freddy Gray riots.

Sorry, here's the link to the news article: https://hotair.com/archives/2017/06/22/baltimore-businesses-sue-city-damage-done-freddie-gray-riots/

At least in Maryland, there is some negative state court precedent that says that the State (or local government) may have an affirmative duty to act to prevent tortious acts or property damage/inverse condemnation. This already costs MD $$$$$ in taxpayer money defending these suits, regardless of the outcome, which could be in the millions of dollars in State liability.

I think there was also a component that "suspects" can sue the officer PERSONALLY for injuries sustained while the officer was performing his job. Who would want to be a cop (or a teacher) when deciding to save a life (your own, someone else's) could result in a hundred million dollar lawsuit that your employer says you're on your own to defend? (I may have facts wrong but I read another article describing the slippery slope)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Possibly a good question.

Im sure though, that this won't happen. Trump will arm teachers who are adept at these things. Such as former military people who left the military.

Or something like that.

haha haha haha

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I only want combat veterans to become armed teachers. That would be really good.

Because having been in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan (or wherever) trains you to react appropriately to a school shooter in the school you're teaching in?

No, because the PTSD really gives them that edge.

Actual combat vets I know have been posting about what a terrible idea this is, talking about the realities of a firefight in a building--the confusion, the crossfire, the noise.

Pretty much. Any time I've heard the "good guy with a gun argument" I think about how good people doesn't mean you have live shooter training

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, please.

You are posting on here like they are going to go out and issue guns to teachers. I don't think anyone has suggested that.

They are talking about arming those who are already proficient and providing additional training. That coach who gave his life was a gun owner. I think we all should wish he had had a gun.

So would the school pay for guns? For the CCW training?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, please.

You are posting on here like they are going to go out and issue guns to teachers. I don't think anyone has suggested that.

They are talking about arming those who are already proficient and providing additional training. That coach who gave his life was a gun owner. I think we all should wish he had had a gun.

So would the school pay for guns? For the CCW training?

And would the county assume liabilty if an armed teacher accidentally shot a student (or several) or a colleague or police officer while trying to take out an active shooter? Something tells me unions or professional organizations would balk at covering those lawsuits and I don't blame them.

[Anonymous]

Notice how none of the pro-gun people never want to acknowledge how many people are accidentally shot by guns.

[Anonymous]

Schools get sued every time Johnny breaks his arm on the playground, you bet your ass they would get sued if a kid was shot by their teacher.

[Anonymous]

school system will be liable for any accidents/incidents

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, please.

You are posting on here like they are going to go out and issue guns to teachers. I don't think anyone has suggested that.

They are talking about arming those who are already proficient and providing additional training. That coach who gave his life was a gun owner. I think we all should wish he had had a gun.

And this is assuming he''d have shot back, we saw the other gun having person in the building (school resource officer) did nothing to protect the students)


If you arm teachers are the expected to leave their post, abandon their students to go confront a shooter? Or just shoot back if confronted?

If no one volunteers to become a marshal at their school will they be forced into it? Some schools might not have any teachers who are CCW trained gun owners already.

Is there going to be any kind of stipend paid for extra hazard pay for becoming a school marshal? (I mean this is American education so the answer is probably no)