View Full Version : What has changed since the first school shooting?
I was reading this article in Spiegel about the first every recorded school shooting 100 years ago. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/a-century-after-the-first-school-shooting-in-bremen-a-906996.html) The article mostly focused on how similar the school shooting was to all the recent tragedies. But to my mind, the most striking thing was how different the reactions of the adults nearby was compared to modern mass shootings.
Is the difference between adult reactions real or just in my head?
Since you asked. It seems the more things change the more they stay the same.
This is a travesty:
Schools/Teachers Denied Insurance (http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/06/19556-teachers-with-guns-denied-school-insurance/)
Since you asked. It seems the more things change the more they stay the same.
This is a travesty:
Schools/Teachers Denied Insurance (http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/06/19556-teachers-with-guns-denied-school-insurance/)
My guess would be that if the insurance company covers a district where teachers and/or school employees carry guns they increase their chances of being liable for any damages, injuries and/or deaths resulting from action and or in actions of the staff.
Whereas if guns are disallowed and someone walks into a school and slaughters innocent unarmed students and staff the claims and losses will be less.
If you are a 'Gun Free' school the responsibility of your protection falls on the PoPo....
DENVER, Colorado (Reuters) -- A federal judge ruling on the 1999 Columbine High School massacre dismissed Tuesday all lawsuits lodged against a Colorado school district, but let stand a suit against police brought by the family of a teacher who bled to death while awaiting rescue.
Lawsuits against the parents of the two gunmen and the three friends who helped them get their weapons were settled for around $3 million on the eve of the second anniversary of the shooting.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/11/27/columbine.lawsuit/
Liability wise, it is more cost effective to install or enact preventative measures like metal detectors, perform scheduled lock down drills and suspend kids from schools for Lego guns, NRA T-Shirts, Grilled Cheese in the shape of guns, etc....
If you are a 'Gun Free' school the responsibility of your protection falls on the PoPo....
Nope!
Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."
"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."
Sources:
7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.
(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)
(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).
(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
New York Times, Washington DC
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
Nope!
Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."
"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."
Sources:
7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.
(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)
(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).
(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
New York Times, Washington DC
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
WOW!!! But we are told to let Law Enforcement do their job and not to take the law into our own hands!
That just adds to the folly of Gun Control.
A man armed with an semi-automatic pistol walks into a school and starts shooting little kids. An unarmed janitor attacks him and is shot. A male school teacher attacks him and is shot. The male school teacher manages to grapple with him for a bit in spite of being shot. Unarmed people (at least they had no firearms) outside the school hear gunfire. They break into the school and attack the gunman. Gunman is taken out of action with a pitchfork. Cops show up and protect the gunman from the crowd that wants to kill him.
Total death toll: 5 little girls.
When we had a mass shooting in my neck of the woods, the cops waited for over an hour on the outside of the building before they went in. People on the inside had bled to death and the gunman had killed himself long before they went in. But in the early 1900's in Germany, unarmed people in the streets were breaking into a building that they knew contained a live armed gunman just so they could take him out.
You can talk about the legal climate and a lot of other factors. But I can't help but think that mostly it boils down to a loss of character.
You can talk about the legal climate and a lot of other factors. But I can't help but think that mostly it boils down to a loss of character.
Balls are becoming a thing of the past.
Look at primetime TV.
The hippies and their mutant progeny are winning in politics and society.
I remember my first school shooting; I came in dead last. And I was the one who come up with the idea of starting a shooting team. :o I got better. :D
Pat
The hippies and their mutant progeny are winning in politics and society.
At the moment maybe, but they are sowing the seeds of their own demise. You can't take from the land without replenishing the crops and all they are doing is taking.
At the moment maybe, but they are sowing the seeds of their own demise. You can't take from the land without replenishing the crops and all they are doing is taking.
Oh, I concur. I just said they're winning; not that they've won.
Remember what Maggie said. ;)
ironyoshi
06-23-2013, 18:17
You can talk about the legal climate and a lot of other factors. But I can't help but think that mostly it boils down to a loss of character.
I remember after the Norway shooting there were some asking how one man could have killed ~70. The implication was that the modern citizen is conditioned against the employment of violence to the point where even self-defense is inhibited - in other words, when confronted with a killer, everyone becomes a sheep.
Considering your post and also the reaction of British passerby to the beheading of one of their soldiers (obeying the killers' orders; attempting to "remonstrate" with them), I'm inclined to agree.