I guess it’s murder by the history teacher until the 14-year old shoots first. Like a new version of ‘Death by Cop’.
It depends on the color of the student with the gun.
The rules would be the same as elsewhere when one might encounter someone with a gun. “Would a reasonable person believe their use of force is necessary to stop the eminent use of unlawful force by another?” (Or some variation of that depending on your state’s specific laws) is what you’d be judged on.
Is the person with a gun also wearing a Sheriff’s Deputy uniform and a badge? Shooting them will get you in hot water. Probably the same for a hunter on opening day. Are they screaming “Allah ackbar” and shooting every random person they encounter? If so, go ahead and pop that one.
Some grey area in between? Use your best judgement and try to be reasonable.
The situation will pretty much always be in that grey area.
And you are to use your best judgment while full of adrenaline and shock, and you have seconds or less to come to a reasonable conclusion.
The person doing the shooting almost always think they are using their best judgment and is being perfectly reasonable, otherwise they would have done something different.
Meanwhile someone who’s deranged and had the advantage of time to consider his tactics will simply shoot the teacher, or anyone else presumed to be armed, first. As far as the mass killer is concerned, problem solved.
People who think arming teachers is a good idea simply don’t understand how human psychology works.
“Well I would go in and” – um, no, you most likely wouldn’t. Not without training.
I’m not sure you’re grasping what “rules of engagement” means. The point of ROE is to provide an extremely clear, unambiguous guideline as to when force should be used specifically to avoid “grey area.”
I like how you unnecessarily threw in a shot against Muslims into a scenario that didn’t need it. Well done.
As long as we’re talking about bigotry, suppose a teacher gets into an argument with a tall black teenager and the back kid reaches for something in his pants? Can the teacher open fire?
Do you think he understands that the odds favour the terrorist yelling something along the lines of “Blood and soil!” or “Heil Trump!”?
And another thing…
Say a 14 year old in Ms Grundy’s class shows up with an assault rifle. She shoots and kills him.
She will be, simultaneously, the hero who saved a roomful of kids and the woman who killed a 14 year old child. All the children will be interviewed. All the cable news shows will engage in endless debate about her conduct. Would it have been possible for her to stop him without killing him? Should she have just tried to wound him? Could she just have talked to him? Then her every prior interaction with the child will be analyzed. Did he have a crush on her? Did she have a grudge against him? Her other students will appear one after another in rotation on cable news - sharing all sorts of anecdotes- some true, others sort of true but wildly out of context and some downright false.
Maybe she will become the centerpiece of a conspiracy theory.
Now the above is assuming that the teacher and the child are of the same race. If not, her fun as just begun. Did she have anything against white people / black people / Muslims? Acquaintances will make the rounds sharing stories about the time she called a black guy at the mall “scummy” or the time she assumed a terrorist was Muslim. One side will embrace her, the other side will want to LOCK HER UP.
Do you think any teacher, even a seasoned pistol-packer, would want to go through that?
It’s certainly something she should carefully consider before choosing to carry a firearm. I doubt anyone wants to go through that, but given the alternative that her and her class full of students probably get shot to pieces in the given hypothetical, some would choose to carry.
Yes. We’re talking about stopping an active shooter. You can discuss what if’s into eternity and it won’t change anything. We know teachers will throw themselves in front of a shooter. It would be nice if they were armed in the process.
I could describe the scene in any number of ways, but “nice” just doesn’t make the cut.
And maybe that’s the disconnect. There are a lot of situations in which I would be willing to die for someone else. There are very few in which I’d be willing to kill.Those are two different skill sets, and I am grateful, frankly, that most educators lean toward the former than the latter.
There is no one braver than an internet commentator, especially when they are talking about what other people should do. The idea of arming teachers is patently stupid.
I think we’re talking about what other people should be free to choose to do (or not do) for themselves. I don’t think anyone in this thread is suggesting we obligate teachers to do something they don’t feel comfortable doing. We want them to have the choice, and make the choice themselves.
What a ridiculous statement. :rolleyes:
Well, traditionally, the “throwing yourself” thing was meant to shield the target, but with a semi-sorta-kinda automatic weapon, that isn’t practical. So, if several teachers throw themselves in front of the shooter, they can fulfill their destiny as ammunition absorption units.
But we also have to consider that 1) the people most likely to opt into this kind of system are the people I least likely want to have a gun around my kids, and 2) in order to support such a system, resources will have to be devoted*, and those resources are better spent on the educational mission.
*even if not strictly required, in an effort to limit civil liability, you can bet that the state/schools will require certain additional certifications/ training, and this will cost to administer.
We’re not discussing a matter of strictly individual choice; it’s also a matter of public safety. School children and their parents have a right - even a responsibility - to work together to create a safe environment for learning. They can decide that they don’t want armed teachers in their schools. Individuals don’t have the unfettered right to take their firearms - legally purchased and possessed, or not - wherever they desire. Governments have the power to impose restrictions on firearms.