Probably more school boards will open themselves to allow volunteer teachers to be armed. And that is because no police officer will dare to take the job of SRO if suddenly the state makes him responsible for the life of every kid in a school. And I think the same will apply to armed security. If people think school violence is bad now, wait till there is nobody to put the foot down in case of emergency.
Sincerely, other than bankrupting Peterson into oblivion I do not see why this case would be brought to trial.
4 thoughts on “The Scott Peterson Trial may have an unintended consequence.”
I think the anti-self defense bunch want to poison the well by even having armed security being prosecutable simply for being ‘incompetent’.
In the future, say an armed teacher decides to guard their classroom full of students and a few ‘walkins’ without riding toward the sound of the guns?
I could see a zealous (read corrupt) anti-self defense minded prosecutor deciding to make an example of that teacher.
It would probably wind up like Peterson probably will; Charges eventually dismissed, or a conviction overturned due to SCOTUS rulings about LE’s responsibility only to society at large wafawafawafa.
Acquitted but totally bankrupt, the process being the punishment.
Would you as such teacher that could go through the training to be armed take such a risk to your personal future or financial ruin?
I know some would still do so. But how do the odds stack up if a teacher knows the political climate of where they teach and decide the risk isn’t worth it?
IIRC, the law has immunity from prosecution for the Guardians. No idea if it will be enough.
It seems to me that bankrupting Peterson into oblivion is a very worthy purpose.
Allowing teachers to voluntarily arm themselves, with the assumption they would be a deterrent against an attack is fraught with legal liabilities. Generally, the talk is about what will happen if a teacher accidentally (or deliberately) shoots a student. But, this action against Peterson shows the other side of the coin.
What about liability in the event a person who has voluntarily taken on the role of protector fails in that duty?
There needs to be (and probably is) a test of reasonableness applied. Something along the lines of what is done under some State’s malpractice law. Just because the patient died does not mean the doctor/hospital is at fault. Were the actions taken by the doctor within the bounds of normal medical practices? If the answer is yes, the malpractice suit does not proceed. (Again, IANAL and this is State dependent.)
If a teacher, or a SRO, or a janitor that goes through the efforts to carry a weapon on school grounds, that does place a certain amount of responsibility on them. However… if an active shooter does start an attack, and the teacher chooses to run, or hide instead of engage, that might be a reasonable response at that time. Would charges be warranted? Not in my opinion.
And, despite my personal desire to see Peterson and everyone else that sat on their hands do hard time, and be bankrupted for their inaction, I think a case could be made that their actions were not negligent. Were they properly equipped to engage the shooter? Was their personal protection equipment sufficient to protect them against the weapons used? Etc…
What is important to keep in mind here is that using the court system to get revenge because your emotions are demanding it is what the other side does, not us.
Login or register to comment.