School Boards need to be held criminally liable for school shootings (Poll)

Should laws holding school boards and security personnel responsible be passed?

  • Yes, children require grown-ups to protect them

    Votes: 19 45.2%
  • No, I'll explain why in my post

    Votes: 23 54.8%

  • Total voters
    42
criminal negligence

noun​

  1. Failure to use reasonable care, and thus put someone at risk of injury or death.
  2. (law) recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences)
3. I call bullshit, Peterson didn't do his job. duh.
4. Then why are school shootings still happening, duh?

Come on kzyr! if you knew anything about the topic, the two police officers at Parkland were reinstated with back pay. Your wonderful government officials missed the deadlines!
 
Come on kzyr! if you knew anything about the topic, the two police officers at Parkland were reinstated with back pay. Your wonderful government officials missed the deadlines!
Not just talking police officers, Peterson was a resource officer, he should have acted, it was his job to protect those kids.
Point being that school officials can actually be arrested for negligence when kids die at school.
I'd make those laws even tougher, especially for school boards.
 
Can schools be "hardened" by modern designs to stop potential shooters from entering the schools?

The short answer is "yes".


So why aren't all schools secure from crazies with guns? I blame school boards. I do not accept any excuses.
Just get the money and do it.

That said, are security systems perfect?
The short answer is "no".
The Sandy Hook school had security doors, but the shooter was let in, carrying his AR.
Whoever opened that security door should have been prosecuted.

Any support for holding School boards, and security personnel legally responsible for school security?
Did I mention?

The punishment should be public execution?
 
Unless they can prove he acted unlawfully to deprive the students of their constitutional rights it will go no where.
There are limited circumstances where you can lose your qualified immunity but as a rule only if you violate written department policy or law depriving the individual of their protected rights.
The students didn't just lose their rights, THEY LOST THEIR LIVES.
Stop spouting law books and think about reality.
His job was to protect the kids, and he failed to act, he failed to do his job, and kids died.

Peterson was arrested, so whatever needed to happen legally, happened.
 
Agreed. But Remington lost big in the Sandy Hook lawsuit.
They declared bankruptcy & moved to another state.
Really? How do you move to another state when the bankruptcy laws are FEDERAL!

You are confused. What was the end result of the lawsuit against Remington?
 
Registration happened already, whenever you apply to buy a gun, the gun store calls the FBI for a background check. So all our guns are registered.
Agreed dictators disarm the populace, I just don't see Americans disarming. Never happen.

Naah. Many guns have either no paper trail, or one so cold that it might as well not exist.

And all those gun loving texans sat outside the classroom while children bled and died. They sat out of that classroom for over an hour. There was 1 high school dropout in that room, why were they so scared to go in? Texas is garbage under Abbott. No balls to face 1 high school drop out while children died? It's a disgrace.

No, that was because the cops were incompetent. What do they care, they still got paid.
 
Such as hardening schools and adding SRO's to thousands of campuses around the country.

The only way it occurred here was two teachers failed to keep doors closed.
Seems like it hasn’t been all that effective then. Who could have possibly seem that coming?
 
Agreed. But Remington lost big in the Sandy Hook lawsuit.
They declared bankruptcy & moved to another state.

No, they didn't. Remington had ceased to exist, the suit was settled by insurance companies.

They lost because the suit addressed their advertising practices. The case should have been tossed on the merits.

No, that's wrong. They did not lose-in fact, Remington Arms no longer existed (they went under in 2020) when the insurers settled the suit.

Really? How do you move to another state when the bankruptcy laws are FEDERAL!

You are confused. What was the end result of the lawsuit against Remington?

The insurers for the bankrupt and liquidating Remington Arms settled because it was cheaper than not settling.
 
I don’t think I should have any say over if you get one or not. Looks like we have that in common too.

Are we becoming best friends?
Doubtful. But you can't deny there are plenty of people on the left who want to prevent me from owning firearms, despite the fact I have and could again easily pass a background check.
 

Forum List

Back
Top