Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by GoDores, Apr 8, 2018.
A Kansas bill could make schools liable for shootings if they don't arm teachers
Sometimes I really love my home state.
As much as I support the idea of armed adults at schools, I don't like this legislation.
Not the way it creates a "rebuttable presumption" that allowing armed teachers would have prevented any and all harm to any innocent persons at a school.
There's a good possibility that even if a school or board of education "allows" armed teachers, only 1 out of 100 teachers will be interested in carrying at school.
Of those, if there are any additional hurdles imposed by law or school policy to carrying, the number of interested teachers and staff would probably drop to 1 out of 500.
That means it's a pretty good bet that MOST schools would have ZERO (none) armed teachers even if those teachers were not disarmed by law or school policy, but instead simply had to take a safety class or something and apply for formal permission to be designated as armed teachers (like the scheme we have in GA for public schools).
The bottom line is I don't want to see anybody, even a government bureaucracy, held liable for some bad action done by a third party (criminal) unless it's REALLY TRUE, as a matter of fact and not bare speculation, that the school's choices regarding armed teachers WAS the cause (or the "proximate cause" among many links in the chain of causation) of the victims' injuries.
Make the plaintiffs prove their cases by the traditional negligence formula. Let the legislature establish a duty of care that demands armed and trained personnel at schools. Maybe set a certain number of armed adults per each number of students at that institution, or the number of square feet of all the buildings, or the number of acres on the campus, etc. Leave it up to each school or district to choose how to meet that duty of care. If they fail to satisfy the duty of care, and a reasonably foreseeable plaintiff gets harmed as a consequence, then there's liability. (P.S. The details of what was the duty of care, and whether or not the school met that standard, would be very fact-specific on a case by case basis, and it would be determined at a trial, probably by a jury.)
Finally working on this gun free zone problem we have. I hope it passes and that many follow suit. If the government (including school) sees fit to not take every precaution in the book, including allowing adults to arm themselves, they should be held liable. This is a preventable occurrence, albeit rare. I wish gun free zones were removed on a national level, but we all know that won't be happening. School shootings would drop dramatically just due to the deterrent factor.
I have no problem with it. It just changes the situation from prohibiting carry to permitting it once the personnel jump through the reasonable hoops.
Once the prohibition is removed the rebuttable presumption is removed and that statute becomes irrelevant, assuming the hoops installed were reasonable and not so demanding to make them such that no one would want to try to get through them.