School shooting Florida

[Checkmite]

What was he trained or expected to do in this kind of situation? Unless he was trained to counter a school shooter, then I would not expect him to live up to anyone's expectations if they assumed he would enter the school and subdue the shooter.

Considering his department fired him for not doing that, I imagine he likely was trained or at least expected to do just such a thing.

 

[William Parcher]

You mean like the time TIME magazine published photos of Emmett Till's bloody corpse and went out of business?

It's funny, it seems more as if they got a Pulitzer Prize for it.

Not gonna happen. Advertisers would abandon that media venue. Viewers would be outraged and stop watching anyway. It would be profoundly condemned by both gun haters and gun lovers. Suicide for a network. I don't care what you say about what happened with Till and Time Magazine.

 

[William Parcher]

Considering his department fired him for not doing that, I imagine he likely was trained or at least expected to do just such a thing.

Peterson wasn't fired. He quit after being suspended without pay.

 

[Checkmite]

That's solved if the guns stay at work and don't ever leave the school property.

Doesn't seem to be what the NRA or the president are proposing. And the guns will have to leave the property at some point, or the teachers will require their own weapons at some point, if the teachers are to be so-called "trained" or "qualified", unless the schools are expected to build firing ranges in the gym.

 

[Checkmite]

Peterson wasn't fired. He quit after being suspended without pay.

I think you are well aware that his "quitting" is euphemistic. His separation from the department was not voluntary - he was never going to be allowed to come back to work.

 

[Bob001]

I think you are well aware that his "quitting" is euphemistic. His separation from the department was not voluntary - he was never going to be allowed to come back to work.

He retired, probably protecting his pension and benefits. If he had actually been fired for misconduct, they would have been at risk.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Considering his department fired him for not doing that, I imagine he likely was trained or at least expected to do just such a thing.

I expect them to suspend the other deputies who hid behind their vehicles then.

 

[Polaris]

You mean like the time TIME magazine published photos of Emmett Till's bloody corpse and went out of business?

It's funny, it seems more as if they got a Pulitzer Prize for it.

Till's mother had them published in The Chicago Defender newspaper, and Jet Magazine, both publications mainly for black people. Mainstream publications wouldn't publish them because they were so graphic.

I googled this to make sure I remembered correctly - didn't find anything about Time magazine and a Pulitzer. I'm more than happy to stand corrected if you have any evidence.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Giving a gun to any of the teachers I had is a frightening thought.

I had a substitute French teacher who fought in WW2 and was apparently part of the British troop who captured Heinrich Himmler. I'd have trusted him with one, in part because (funnily enough) he was able to keep a roomful of teenagers in check without appearing the slightest bit stressed. On the other hand during my school years at least two teachers that had my class left the profession due to nervous breakdowns, neither was my fault so far as I'm aware. Not sure they'd have been better armed.

 

[crescent]

Till's mother had them published in The Chicago Defender newspaper, and Jet Magazine, both publications mainly for black people. Mainstream publications wouldn't publish them because they were so graphic.

I googled this to make sure I remembered correctly - didn't find anything about Time magazine and a Pulitzer. I'm more than happy to stand corrected if you have any evidence.

This is from the Wikipedia page on Emmett Till:

Photographs of his mutilated corpse circulated around the country, notably appearing in Jet magazine and The Chicago Defender, both black publications, generating intense public reaction. According to The Nation and Newsweek, Chicago's black community was "aroused as it has not been over any similar act in recent history."[64][note 5] Time later selected one of the Jet photographs showing Mamie Till over the mutilated body of her dead son, as one of the 100 "most influential images of all time": "For almost a century, African Americans were lynched with regularity and impunity. Now, thanks to a mother’s determination to expose the barbarousness of the crime, the public could no longer pretend to ignore what they couldn’t see."[65] Till was buried on September 6 in Burr Oak Cemetery in Alsip, Illinois.

You might be right - I don't know if they published the photo itself, but Time used to publish all sorts of special issues with things like that, it would seem odd to list the photo as one of the most influential, but not to include the photo itself.

It looks like you are correct about the Pulitzer, I don't know where I got that from. Thank you for correcting my mistake.

 

[Polaris]

This is from the Wikipedia page on Emmett Till:



You might be right - I don't know if they published the photo itself, but Time used to publish all sorts of special issues with things like that, it would seem odd to list the photo as one of the most influential, but not to include the photo itself.

It looks like you are correct about the Pulitzer, I don't know where I got that from. Thank you for correcting my mistake.

I think it stuck out because I recall first learning about Till in a class on the Civil Rights Movement and then seeing the photo, which was...jarring to say the least.

It is odd to me how sanitized our media is in the US. I've seen clips from Middle Eastern news shows that certainly don't hide anything. Not sure how it is in Europe or elsewhere. Differences in media should have its own thread - maybe someone with more experience than I do will start one.

 

[Ranb]

Probably, if the thing blows up in your hands. But the point is that in other product areas, victims are allowed to make a case to juries that the manufacturer, dealer etc. allowed the product to be sold to someone who shouldn't have it, or failed to instruct/warn the user properly etc.

I'm not aware of any car manufacturers who were sued by the victims of an owner's misuse. Are there any? I heard of Caterpiller being sued by the family of a woman who got run over by an Israeli bulldozer. Nothing else though.

Guns alone are exempt from the laws that apply to everything else.

There are limits to what the PLCAA can do. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ92/html/PLAW-109publ92.htm
1. If the manufacturer knows that a particular gun they sold will be used a for a crime.
2. Negligent entrustment; limited to knowing that the gun was going to be misused.
3. When violating the law by its sale.
4. Breach of contract or warranty
5. Defects in design
6. And last, something about an action or proceeding commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of title 18 or chapter 53 of title 26, United States Code. But I couldn't be bothered to look that part up.

So what you claimed about "guns alone are exempt from the laws that apply to everything else" is silly to say the least.

 

[Bob001]

I'm not aware of any car manufacturers who were sued by the victims of an owner's misuse. Are there any? I heard of Caterpiller being sued by the family of a woman who got run over by an Israeli bulldozer. Nothing else though.


There are limits to what the PLCAA can do. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ92/html/PLAW-109publ92.htm
1. If the manufacturer knows that a particular gun they sold will be used a for a crime. 2. Negligent entrustment; limited to knowing that the gun was going to be misused.3. When violating the law by its sale.
4. Breach of contract or warranty
5. Defects in design
6. And last, something about an action or proceeding commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of title 18 or chapter 53 of title 26, United States Code. But I couldn't be bothered to look that part up.

So what you claimed about "guns alone are exempt from the laws that apply to everything else" is silly to say the least.

This is the writer's claim:

Under centuries-old theories of liability, you should be allowed to sue both the manufacturer and the dealer for torts like negligence and public nuisance. You could then use that money to pay your medical bills. If you are hurt by a car or a prescription drug, after all, you are typically allowed to sue for damages. But thanks to a law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, you have no legal remedy if you are hurt by a gun. In passing that law in 2005, Congress granted gun dealers and manufacturers legal immunity in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and every U.S. territory. No other industry receives this privilege: Firearms are the only consumer products that receive federal immunity from tort liability.

This is the legislative history:

Congress passed the PLCAA in 2005 at the behest of the National Rifle Association and other industry lobbyists, which insisted that firearm-related litigation had imperiled the gun industry. That wasn’t actually true; as a court later noted, the industry faced “no crippling recoveries,” and the NRA’s anxiety about budget-busting litigation had lacked “empirical support.” Still, Republican Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, the bill’s sponsor, insisted it was necessary to stave off catastrophe, and his GOP colleague Jeff Sessions urged his colleagues to protect the industry from “huge costs” resulting from “unjust lawsuit.” With some bipartisan support, the bill easily passed into law.

If there was no empirical support for the NRA’s claims, what was the group so frightened of? The answer is simple: The firearm industry feared becoming the next tobacco industry. In the 1990s, a supermajority of states, frustrated that tobacco-related illnesses were draining their Medicaid funds, banded together to sue tobacco manufacturers for violating various state laws, particularly consumer protection statutes. As the attorney general of Mississippi explained: “You caused the health crisis; you pay for it.” In 1998, the states entered into a settlement with tobacco manufacturers that required them to pay out $206 billion.

The comparison was made to the tobacco industry, which was forced to pay many billions of dollars for manufacturing and promoting a product that causes injury and death when used as intended. No proof that any tobacco seller knew that any particular person would be harmed by any particular product was required.

And regarding (1) and (2), those are big loopholes. There is no real way to prove to a jury that Ruger or Remington knew that any particular firearm was going to be misused by any particular person. "Could have known" or "should have known" or "negligently failed to prevent" are not arguments that may be made to juries regarding guns.

 

[Checkmite]

He retired, probably protecting his pension and benefits.

He was permitted to retire rather than be fired. But whichever road he "chose", he was forced out. He was made to leave by his superiors because of what he did (or, rather, failed to do) in this incident.

 

[Checkmite]

I expect them to suspend the other deputies who hid behind their vehicles then.

I honestly don't see how they'll be able to avoid suspending those deputies as well - unless they decide to try to argue that's not what they did I suppose.

 

[Ranb]

This is the writer's claim:

Or so the writer claims. Who was the writer anyway? I asked you for a single example of a car manufacturer that was held liable for the criminal misuse of one of the cars they built. What do you have to support your argument?

 

[Seismosaurus]

Really? You'd use the paradises-on-earth of Iraq and Afghanistan in support of a case for having an armed citizenry in order to keep a government in check? I hope you realise that you just lost the argument.

No I wouldn't - and didn't - do either of those things.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

He was permitted to retire rather than be fired. But whichever road he "chose", he was forced out. He was made to leave by his superiors because of what he did (or, rather, failed to do) in this incident.

How could he possibly work in that school again?

 

[fuelair]

Love is the solution. Love the children (in a gun-oriented sort of way) and everything will be OK.



Jesus wept.

As does Truth. Everytime trumpf tweets and every time it opens it's mouth.

 

[fuelair]

And you know that the shooter outguns you so you might be able to hit them at a classroom length, whilst they could easily hit you from the other end of the building.

shoot first OR throw a distinct distractive item and shoot when he rises fully again. Normal school classroom distance is not a biggie, college class might be - and may well have more students in it.