Student on Rampage Guns Down 8 in Minn.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
I doubt Indians count to the gun freaks... Alternatively we can hear some arguments about how this would have happend without guns, you know if the kid was a ninja somehow.

Be a true lib - denial, denial, denial! How about letting the truth out before casting ignorant opinions?

 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: Infohawk
I doubt Indians count to the gun freaks... Alternatively we can hear some arguments about how this would have happend without guns, you know if the kid was a ninja somehow.

Be a true lib - denial, denial, denial! How about letting the truth out before casting ignorant opinions?

You aren't really making any sense, as usual. ;)
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
What this is is 100% proof positive that gun control is absolutely useless as a tool against crime and/or accidents. You could have 25,000 laws against every aspect of what happened there (hell there are almost that many now) which add up to 40,000,000 years in federal pyitap and a gazillion dollar fine, and it will still happen, every time. Laws don't prevent crime. Never have, never will.

I can't tell you how terrified I am of having to go to school every day as a teacher and being left with no means to defend myself and my students because ignorant pvssies have chosen worthless gun control laws over the constitutional right to defend oneself and those within your charge. While I despise what happened I am hopeful that from it, somewhere parents start wanting their children protected at school and allow those of us who are capable and willing the opportunity to do just that.

Any anti-gun people out there, before you come off your rockers to freak out over this, I want to read in complete and total detail exactly how you propose to remove all guns from the planet earth, as well as all explosive materials. Don't walk by and give us your tired and ignorant 'guns are bad, mmmmkay' bs without offering a viable solution.

So you're a teacher who wants to be able to carry a gun to school???

I'd really want you teaching my kids. :roll:

And who is proposing removing all guns from the planet? Gun control isn't a total ban on guns. There are controls on alcohol, cigarettes, prescription medications, etc. None are as dangerous as firearms yet everyone recognizes the necessity to control their use because they are inherently dangerous yet you want guns to be as readily available as groceries.

Insanity.

None of the controls you mentioned work. Drugs are illegal in every state. How long would it take you to get a fix on any city street or plot of woods in the nation? Morality simply can't be legislated. Can't believe that there are people who still are ignorant to believe it can! Come up with something that actually works or STFU!
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,458
527
126
Originally posted by: gordanfreeman
being a resident of MN and knowing what the reservations tend to be like... i blame it on the terrible conditions the kid was likely raised in. those places tend to be on the shady side at best (especially those in northern MN).

anyways arent reservations technically not under US jurisdiction so US gun laws wouldnt have had any effect in this situation...

Gee...if it was the conditions...then why doesnt this happen every day...or did this kid wipe out the rest of them?
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
solution.


Took out most of the quote stuff - tired of scrolling!



Take Jamaica for instance. No guns allowed and the meanest streets in the world. Killing with sticks, stones, and machetes. To be caught with a single round on your person is life in prison - still the most killing per capita.
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Wow, where do you teach? Hopefully far away from me. Teachers should definitely not be packing heat.

Please tell me why you wouldn't want a teacher with extensive training in firearms, and more specifically, handguns, who shoots regularly and also has a CCW permit, in a classroom?

Or are you one of those people that don't believe in CCW permits at all?

What's next, Teachers with Special Forces Training? Ability to kill someone with their barehands in 101 different ways? Why a Handgun, a grenade works better.

Instead of making a Society that's trained to Kill at the drop of a hat, why not attempt to make a Society where people act Civilized? Time for a rethink.

You bet and as soon as your rethink is over and you come back to the 21st century where people still kill the weak and the innocent, please explain to me why I would want to be one of the weak.

 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: judasmachine
Children of American Indian descent and those of mixed White and AI descent have about a 4x greater rate of suicide. As much as this saddens me, it doesn't suprise me.

This was a homicide. If you're a drugged up psychopath, take your own life and end your pain. But this was a cold and vicious killing spree.

You don't think these kinds of situations arise out of the same feelings of alienation and depression?

 

Velk

Senior member
Jul 29, 2004
734
0
0
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Velk
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Not only do I have a constitutional right to protect myself, I believe as a teacher I have a moral obligation to protect the children given into my care for 1/3 of their day. I can not effectively do that against an armed attacker without my firearm.


Stop there just for a second. Let's not objectify the situation for a moment - armed attacker indeed. As a teacher, you wish to have a gun, so you can shoot one or more of your students to protect yourself and the rest of the class from them.

Is this correct ?

Now I would ask you - if a child in your class, in your care, produces an unloaded weapon in a potentially threatening manner, and you gun them down, do you feel that your actions would be justified ?

Do you think that their parent's opinion would agree with you ? Do you believe the school board would agree with you ? The national media ? The courts ?

What are you smoking, and why haven't you shared???

I never said ANYTHING EVEN REMOTLEY SIMILAR.

Your suggestion is in response to a student killing. The implication is clear. Fortunately you go on to say exactly that next, so we can skip this bit of the discussion.

IF a person, student or otherwise, threatened to take someones life in my immediate sphere of influence, yes I would kill them, the same as any soldier, any law enforcement officer, any reasonable citizen.

Now on to some discussion which may be profitable.

As for your question, I would face absolutely NO legal action for shooting someone in that scenerio, as the use of lethal force is justified when you believe it is necessary to prevent injury or death to you or someone in your immediate area. It's impossible to tell if a weapon is loaded without looking in it, and therefore no one, not citizen nor law enforcement, is required to consider that when defending themselves.

So - even if you were wrong about the threat, you would feel justified in killing one of your students to prevent what you perceived to be a threat ? As to the facing 'no legal action', I am afraid you are purely delusional.

The people we're talking about are not innocently bringing empty weapons to show others, they're coming in fullly loaded and intended to murder as many people as possible. They are not good lost sheep, they're criminals bent on murder. They might be troubled in general, but at the point when they try to take a life, they're criminals and MUST be stopped.

No, the specific example I asked you is to highlight a particular problem that many people are going to have with your way of thinking. That is - what if you are wrong. I know it may be hard for you to imagine the possibility that you would ever be mistaken about something like that, but there is ample evidence that trained law enforcement officers make these kind of mistakes, and you are *not* a trained law enforcement officer. You are a schoolteacher. Even if you are unable to accept the concept of yourself making a mistake consider that if it is alright for you, it is alright for anyone - do you feel it is the place of a schoolteacher to make life and death decisions about their students, regardless of how much weapons training they possess ?


I believe if I stood there and watched a criminal murder my students and did nothing, the parents would object. I believe if after an event such as this, I met all the parents the ONLY ones who could possibly be angry at me are the ones who's kid I shot. However, the parents of the 30 kids in my class whom I protected would have only me to thank for their children being alive. How do YOU imagine they'd feel.

If you shoot a child carrying an unloaded weapon, as you indicated you would do above, then no, the parents of the children that you 'protected' from them are not going to be thanking you for their children being alive. Even in the best case you can imagine where it was clear that doing so saved the lives of many other people, there are going to be many of those parents who will not accept that you should *ever* have made the decision to kill one of the children in your care.


 

Velk

Senior member
Jul 29, 2004
734
0
0
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Originally posted by: Velk
Now I would ask you - if a child in your class, in your care, produces an unloaded weapon in a potentially threatening manner, and you gun them down, do you feel that your actions would be justified ?

Do you think that their parent's opinion would agree with you ? Do you believe the school board would agree with you ? The national media ? The courts ?

Dude, cops have shot retarded people with staplers and it is justified. Retarded guy has hit beat on several people at some warehouse. Cops are called. Cops show up. Retarded guy is running around in the dark. Pulls out a desk stapler and point it at the police. How are they supposed to know what it is? It's dark, he pulls out what looks like a gun and points it at them.

Very :(, but it can happen. Lethal force would certainly be allowed in the example you cite.

While this example is from TJ Hooker...it's still relevant. The cops find a vagrant who is being beligerant (sp?). Won't cooperate, won't listen to commands. He reaches in his pocket real fast and pulls out a black object. Cops shoot and kill him. When they walk up to him, he was pulling out a "I am deaf" card from a holder. Would be justifiable if it were a real situation that occured.

I see a lot of 'Cops' and not a lot of 'Teachers' in this list.

Do you *really* think that national headlines of 'Teacher shoots deaf student for taking 'I am deaf' card from pocket - "She wasn't listening to commands !" he claims' is going to go down well ? How about 'Teacher shoots retarded student for holding a stapler' ?
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: Infohawk
I doubt Indians count to the gun freaks... Alternatively we can hear some arguments about how this would have happend without guns, you know if the kid was a ninja somehow.

Be a true lib - denial, denial, denial! How about letting the truth out before casting ignorant opinions?

You aren't really making any sense, as usual. ;)

Oh, yeah! I make plenty of sense. There are several people on this thread who have presented true knowledge and fact and it is like casting pearls before swine here. This is one of the debates I get energized by. Don't take anything I say here personally, but what I do say is firmly based in life experience with both the good and bad. I won't re-quote the Halfday, Illinois and Kennesaw, Georgia examples again. Nor will I bring up the Florida solution that still saves lives of Canadians and Europeans in that state. The proof is that guns are just the liberal?s lame explanation of deep social problems (many caused by illegal drugs) and we do get really tired of hearing it again and again. :D

 

js1973

Senior member
Dec 8, 2000
824
0
0
Originally posted by: Velk
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Velk
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Not only do I have a constitutional right to protect myself, I believe as a teacher I have a moral obligation to protect the children given into my care for 1/3 of their day. I can not effectively do that against an armed attacker without my firearm.


Stop there just for a second. Let's not objectify the situation for a moment - armed attacker indeed. As a teacher, you wish to have a gun, so you can shoot one or more of your students to protect yourself and the rest of the class from them.

Is this correct ?

Now I would ask you - if a child in your class, in your care, produces an unloaded weapon in a potentially threatening manner, and you gun them down, do you feel that your actions would be justified ?

Do you think that their parent's opinion would agree with you ? Do you believe the school board would agree with you ? The national media ? The courts ?

What are you smoking, and why haven't you shared???

I never said ANYTHING EVEN REMOTLEY SIMILAR.

Your suggestion is in response to a student killing. The implication is clear. Fortunately you go on to say exactly that next, so we can skip this bit of the discussion.

IF a person, student or otherwise, threatened to take someones life in my immediate sphere of influence, yes I would kill them, the same as any soldier, any law enforcement officer, any reasonable citizen.

Now on to some discussion which may be profitable.

As for your question, I would face absolutely NO legal action for shooting someone in that scenerio, as the use of lethal force is justified when you believe it is necessary to prevent injury or death to you or someone in your immediate area. It's impossible to tell if a weapon is loaded without looking in it, and therefore no one, not citizen nor law enforcement, is required to consider that when defending themselves.

So - even if you were wrong about the threat, you would feel justified in killing one of your students to prevent what you perceived to be a threat ? As to the facing 'no legal action', I am afraid you are purely delusional.

The people we're talking about are not innocently bringing empty weapons to show others, they're coming in fullly loaded and intended to murder as many people as possible. They are not good lost sheep, they're criminals bent on murder. They might be troubled in general, but at the point when they try to take a life, they're criminals and MUST be stopped.

No, the specific example I asked you is to highlight a particular problem that many people are going to have with your way of thinking. That is - what if you are wrong. I know it may be hard for you to imagine the possibility that you would ever be mistaken about something like that, but there is ample evidence that trained law enforcement officers make these kind of mistakes, and you are *not* a trained law enforcement officer. You are a schoolteacher. Even if you are unable to accept the concept of yourself making a mistake consider that if it is alright for you, it is alright for anyone - do you feel it is the place of a schoolteacher to make life and death decisions about their students, regardless of how much weapons training they possess ?


I believe if I stood there and watched a criminal murder my students and did nothing, the parents would object. I believe if after an event such as this, I met all the parents the ONLY ones who could possibly be angry at me are the ones who's kid I shot. However, the parents of the 30 kids in my class whom I protected would have only me to thank for their children being alive. How do YOU imagine they'd feel.

If you shoot a child carrying an unloaded weapon, as you indicated you would do above, then no, the parents of the children that you 'protected' from them are not going to be thanking you for their children being alive. Even in the best case you can imagine where it was clear that doing so saved the lives of many other people, there are going to be many of those parents who will not accept that you should *ever* have made the decision to kill one of the children in your care.

Could you define "potentially threatening manner"?
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: Velk
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Velk
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Not only do I have a constitutional right to protect myself, I believe as a teacher I have a moral obligation to protect the children given into my care for 1/3 of their day. I can not effectively do that against an armed attacker without my firearm.


Stop there just for a second. Let's not objectify the situation for a moment - armed attacker indeed. As a teacher, you wish to have a gun, so you can shoot one or more of your students to protect yourself and the rest of the class from them.

Is this correct ?

Now I would ask you - if a child in your class, in your care, produces an unloaded weapon in a potentially threatening manner, and you gun them down, do you feel that your actions would be justified ?

Do you think that their parent's opinion would agree with you ? Do you believe the school board would agree with you ? The national media ? The courts ?

What are you smoking, and why haven't you shared???

I never said ANYTHING EVEN REMOTLEY SIMILAR.

Your suggestion is in response to a student killing. The implication is clear. Fortunately you go on to say exactly that next, so we can skip this bit of the discussion.

IF a person, student or otherwise, threatened to take someones life in my immediate sphere of influence, yes I would kill them, the same as any soldier, any law enforcement officer, any reasonable citizen.

Now on to some discussion which may be profitable.

As for your question, I would face absolutely NO legal action for shooting someone in that scenerio, as the use of lethal force is justified when you believe it is necessary to prevent injury or death to you or someone in your immediate area. It's impossible to tell if a weapon is loaded without looking in it, and therefore no one, not citizen nor law enforcement, is required to consider that when defending themselves.

So - even if you were wrong about the threat, you would feel justified in killing one of your students to prevent what you perceived to be a threat ? As to the facing 'no legal action', I am afraid you are purely delusional.

The people we're talking about are not innocently bringing empty weapons to show others, they're coming in fullly loaded and intended to murder as many people as possible. They are not good lost sheep, they're criminals bent on murder. They might be troubled in general, but at the point when they try to take a life, they're criminals and MUST be stopped.

No, the specific example I asked you is to highlight a particular problem that many people are going to have with your way of thinking. That is - what if you are wrong. I know it may be hard for you to imagine the possibility that you would ever be mistaken about something like that, but there is ample evidence that trained law enforcement officers make these kind of mistakes, and you are *not* a trained law enforcement officer. You are a schoolteacher. Even if you are unable to accept the concept of yourself making a mistake consider that if it is alright for you, it is alright for anyone - do you feel it is the place of a schoolteacher to make life and death decisions about their students, regardless of how much weapons training they possess ?


I believe if I stood there and watched a criminal murder my students and did nothing, the parents would object. I believe if after an event such as this, I met all the parents the ONLY ones who could possibly be angry at me are the ones who's kid I shot. However, the parents of the 30 kids in my class whom I protected would have only me to thank for their children being alive. How do YOU imagine they'd feel.

If you shoot a child carrying an unloaded weapon, as you indicated you would do above, then no, the parents of the children that you 'protected' from them are not going to be thanking you for their children being alive. Even in the best case you can imagine where it was clear that doing so saved the lives of many other people, there are going to be many of those parents who will not accept that you should *ever* have made the decision to kill one of the children in your care.


"even if you were wrong about the threat"

I wasn't wrong about the 'threat'. Threat is not a reality, it is the perception of harm. If I find you on the street, and pull out a gun and point it out you, I have threatened you. I have commited a crime. You are legally empowered to shoot me, or stab me, or snap my neck, or in any way available to you stop me from carrying out my 'threat'. That is true in every state as far as I'm aware, and in most if I'm wrong.

"As to the facing 'no legal action', I am afraid you are purely delusional."

Pull your head out of your ignorant butt and try researching some time. This crap happens ALL the time. You are NEVER guilty of committing a crime if you act reasonably to a perceived threat. The law states ABSOLUTELY that you are allowed to use lethal force to respond to a perceived threat. Every case you can find will support that. If you threaten someone with a viable threat, they can kill you legally. Period. Cops shoot people all the time, and they're found innocent all the time. As long as you act 'reasonably', you're totally safe. Furthermore we aren't talking about unarmed weapons remember, these kids are armed and killing.

You're just so sorry, so pitiful, so afraid of losing your frail grip on reality that you're making stuff up and pulling out of your a$$ as we go along. Not only is what you suggest unreasonable, it's patently false. Either you provide right now citation from United States law that supports your position, or I hereby declare you absolutely and unequivocably a liar trying to further a personal agenda and everyone who reads this will know it's so.

"what if you are wrong."

In your example I WASNT wrong. You respond to the threat, not the reality. That's life. If you don't like or accept that you're free to kill yourself and find a different life to live in. In fact, I wish you would because your complete stupidity is actually offensive to me.

IF someone pulls a weapon and makes a threat, you are legally empowered to kill. them. PERIOD. ABSOLUTE LAW OF THE LAND. You can choose morally not to do so, and that's fine. But the choice is the individuals and he is not liable for his actions if they are reasonable in response to a reasonable threat.

"do you feel it is the place of a schoolteacher to make life and death decisions about their students"

It is every humans right to make decisions about their own life and act accordingly to everything that happens within their sphere of influence.

Your ridiculous argument is like saying no person anywhere ever has the right to do anything that isn't an itemized function of their job. I've got news for you jacka$$, people do things all the time that aren't specifically their job. People stop on the street and provide CPR, even though they aren't medics. Parents teach their children, even though they aren't teachers. And any citizen, even (or maybe especially) a teacher has the right to defend him/her self from perceived threat against their person or those in their immediate viscinity. That's not just my morality talking, that's the absolute law of the land, and is upheld DAILY in our courts.

"If you shoot a child carrying an unloaded weapon, as you indicated you would do above, then no, the parents of the children that you 'protected' from them are not going to be thanking you for their children being alive. Even in the best case you can imagine where it was clear that doing so saved the lives of many other people, there are going to be many of those parents who will not accept that you should *ever* have made the decision to kill one of the children in your care. "

Wrong, if you perceive a threat you are not liable for action of reasonable self-defense. You are simply to ignorant to understand that, so I suggest you drop it before you make yourself look that much more stupid.

As to the rest, some people are pacifists. They don't believe it's ever ok to do harm. That's fine. It's a personal choice and I respect them for it. They can not, by morality or law, make that decision for me however. Again remember that the 'child' who draws a weapon as a threat is no longer a child, they are a criminal and intending murder. Rather they actually are or not is irrelevant, only the immediate threat matters.

Basically I refute everything you say, and the law supports me, not you. I think you're an idiot. I think you're incapable of making relevant and rational arguments. I think you have narrow world views and lack any concept of reality. I will continue to make you look like a fool if you wish, just keep trying to bat out of your league.

Dork.
 

gordanfreeman

Senior member
May 26, 2004
205
0
0
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: gordanfreeman
being a resident of MN and knowing what the reservations tend to be like... i blame it on the terrible conditions the kid was likely raised in. those places tend to be on the shady side at best (especially those in northern MN).

anyways arent reservations technically not under US jurisdiction so US gun laws wouldnt have had any effect in this situation...

Gee...if it was the conditions...then why doesnt this happen every day...or did this kid wipe out the rest of them?


well show me the last time a mentally sound kid from suburbia with good parents and no chemical problems shot up his school and i will admit defeat.

instead of arguing assumptions tho, i decided to do a little research and what i found only seems to prove my point. reservations are a hotbed for crime, juvenile crime especially. the rate of violent crime on reservations is near twice that of average US residents. reservations are full of unemployment and alcoholism. the reason this case got nationwide attention is because it happened in school. had the kid simply killed his grandparents at home and then killed himself, i doubt any of you would have heard about it.

i would say yes the conditions these kids grow up in significantly influenced this event. you dont hear about it everyday because everyday the kids are not shooting up their schools.
 

nutxo

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
6,789
467
126
So.

Any of these bright boys screaming for gun control heard that the grandfather was a cop?

 

Velk

Senior member
Jul 29, 2004
734
0
0
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
"As to the facing 'no legal action', I am afraid you are purely delusional."

Pull your head out of your ignorant butt and try researching some time. This crap happens ALL the time. You are NEVER guilty of committing a crime if you act reasonably to a perceived threat. The law states ABSOLUTELY that you are allowed to use lethal force to respond to a perceived threat. Every case you can find will support that. If you threaten someone with a viable threat, they can kill you legally. Period. Cops shoot people all the time, and they're found innocent all the time. As long as you act 'reasonably', you're totally safe.

People sue schoolteachers for shouting at their children. If you think you can shoot them on the grounds of a perceived threat and escape a civil suit you have a very different understanding of the world to myself. Of course, given this kind of thing happens all the time, I have no doubt that you will be able to cite a case where a teacher killed one of their students on those grounds and did *not* face any legal action ?

Furthermore we aren't talking about unarmed weapons remember, these kids are armed and killing.

Actually no, we are talking about a specific theoretical example where one of your students has produced an unloaded weapon in a manner you perceive as threatening.

<Snip assorted insults>

"what if you are wrong."

In your example I WASNT wrong. You respond to the threat, not the reality. That's life. If you don't like or accept that you're free to kill yourself and find a different life to live in. In fact, I wish you would because your complete stupidity is actually offensive to me.

I think you misunderstand, I am not talking about legal definitions, but you, yourself, being wrong about what you think is going to happen. If you kill one of your students because you thought that they were going on a shooting spree, and you were wrong about that, that they were not, in fact, going to go on a shooting spree.

I would take it that your answer is that it doesn't matter and that you are just as justified killing one of your students that you thought was going to go on a shooting spree, as opposed to killing one who *was* about to go on a shooting spree.

Is this correct ?

"do you feel it is the place of a schoolteacher to make life and death decisions about their students"

It is every humans right to make decisions about their own life and act accordingly to everything that happens within their sphere of influence.
<SNIP>
And any citizen, even (or maybe especially) a teacher has the right to defend him/her self from perceived threat against their person or those in their immediate viscinity.

I will take that as a yes.

"If you shoot a child carrying an unloaded weapon, as you indicated you would do above, then no, the parents of the children that you 'protected' from them are not going to be thanking you for their children being alive. Even in the best case you can imagine where it was clear that doing so saved the lives of many other people, there are going to be many of those parents who will not accept that you should *ever* have made the decision to kill one of the children in your care. "

Wrong, if you perceive a threat you are not liable for action of reasonable self-defense. You are simply to ignorant to understand that, so I suggest you drop it before you make yourself look that much more stupid.

What specifically is wrong above ? That the parents would not actually thank you for saving their children's lives even if you didn't ? Or that some of them would not agree with you killing one of your students under any circumstances ?

Basically I refute everything you say, and the law supports me, not you. I think you're an idiot. I think you're incapable of making relevant and rational arguments. I think you have narrow world views and lack any concept of reality. I will continue to make you look like a fool if you wish, just keep trying to bat out of your league.

For a teacher who wants to carry a loaded weapon in class with the intention of using it on perceived threats, I find your temper rather disturbing.

In any case, I don't know of any precedent for findings of teachers killing students on perceived threats and being found innocent of any criminal or civil wrongdoing, but I would be interested in seeing any, or any to the contrary for that matter. Note that, call me an idiot if you will, I am not prepared to accept rulings for law enforcement as being equivalent to teachers, due to the implied burden of care.

As a side note - the discussion may be irrelevant in any case - is there actually anywhere in the states where schools permit the teachers to carry handguns in class ?

Edit : fix quoting.
 

Rhin0

Senior member
Nov 15, 2004
967
0
0
This is sad and very unfortunate. Reminds me why I keep everyone away from my guns and keep them locked up. Also reminds me that when I have a kid i'm going to teach him the value of a human life and the seriousness of firearms.


This little asshole, rot in hell you murderer.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: Velk
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
"As to the facing 'no legal action', I am afraid you are purely delusional."

Pull your head out of your ignorant butt and try researching some time. This crap happens ALL the time. You are NEVER guilty of committing a crime if you act reasonably to a perceived threat. The law states ABSOLUTELY that you are allowed to use lethal force to respond to a perceived threat. Every case you can find will support that. If you threaten someone with a viable threat, they can kill you legally. Period. Cops shoot people all the time, and they're found innocent all the time. As long as you act 'reasonably', you're totally safe.

People sue schoolteachers for shouting at their children. If you think you can shoot them on the grounds of a perceived threat and escape a civil suit you have a very different understanding of the world to myself. Of course, given this kind of thing happens all the time, I have no doubt that you will be able to cite a case where a teacher killed one of their students on those grounds and did *not* face any legal action ?

Furthermore we aren't talking about unarmed weapons remember, these kids are armed and killing.

Actually no, we are talking about a specific theoretical example where one of your students has produced an unloaded weapon in a manner you perceive as threatening.

<Snip assorted insults>

"what if you are wrong."

In your example I WASNT wrong. You respond to the threat, not the reality. That's life. If you don't like or accept that you're free to kill yourself and find a different life to live in. In fact, I wish you would because your complete stupidity is actually offensive to me.

I think you misunderstand, I am not talking about legal definitions, but you, yourself, being wrong about what you think is going to happen. If you kill one of your students because you thought that they were going on a shooting spree, and you were wrong about that, that they were not, in fact, going to go on a shooting spree.

I would take it that your answer is that it doesn't matter and that you are just as justified killing one of your students that you thought was going to go on a shooting spree, as opposed to killing one who *was* about to go on a shooting spree.

Is this correct ?

"do you feel it is the place of a schoolteacher to make life and death decisions about their students"

It is every humans right to make decisions about their own life and act accordingly to everything that happens within their sphere of influence.
<SNIP>
And any citizen, even (or maybe especially) a teacher has the right to defend him/her self from perceived threat against their person or those in their immediate viscinity.

I will take that as a yes.

"If you shoot a child carrying an unloaded weapon, as you indicated you would do above, then no, the parents of the children that you 'protected' from them are not going to be thanking you for their children being alive. Even in the best case you can imagine where it was clear that doing so saved the lives of many other people, there are going to be many of those parents who will not accept that you should *ever* have made the decision to kill one of the children in your care. "

Wrong, if you perceive a threat you are not liable for action of reasonable self-defense. You are simply to ignorant to understand that, so I suggest you drop it before you make yourself look that much more stupid.

What specifically is wrong above ? That the parents would not actually thank you for saving their children's lives even if you didn't ? Or that some of them would not agree with you killing one of your students under any circumstances ?

Basically I refute everything you say, and the law supports me, not you. I think you're an idiot. I think you're incapable of making relevant and rational arguments. I think you have narrow world views and lack any concept of reality. I will continue to make you look like a fool if you wish, just keep trying to bat out of your league.

For a teacher who wants to carry a loaded weapon in class with the intention of using it on perceived threats, I find your temper rather disturbing.

In any case, I don't know of any precedent for findings of teachers killing students on perceived threats and being found innocent of any criminal or civil wrongdoing, but I would be interested in seeing any, or any to the contrary for that matter. Note that, call me an idiot if you will, I am not prepared to accept rulings for law enforcement as being equivalent to teachers, due to the implied burden of care.

As a side note - the discussion may be irrelevant in any case - is there actually anywhere in the states where schools permit the teachers to carry handguns in class ?

Edit : fix quoting.


"People sue schoolteachers for shouting at their children."

Oh, so you're talking about civil lawsuits, and not criminal charges. See, that's different. I am saying that a person is LEGALLY allowed to kill in self-defense, you're saying the victims family would file a civil lawsuit, presumably for wrongful death or other such nonesense. Well, that's a possibility. These cases come up frequently and because civil law has basically no rules, it could go either way. Honestly, if you look at trial history, very few of those suits ever are started, and fewer still see any judgement against the person who legally defended themselves. It happens, to be sure. Hell, people sue McDonalds for making hot coffee and criminals sue homeowners if they slip on the stairs while burglaring them. So, by your argument, it's far better that we all die, and allow those around us to die, than risk possible civil lawsuits by the family of murderers. Hey, that's a hard one to argue. Here's a thought for you though...this little worthless piece of crap bastard MURDERED HIS FAMILY before he did it...so I guess there's no one left to sue me if I shot him in the head and prevented him from hurting and killing all those other people, huh? You sir, surpass your idiocy and ignorance with every post you make.


"I would take it that your answer is that it doesn't matter and that you are just as justified killing one of your students that you thought was going to go on a shooting spree, as opposed to killing one who *was* about to go on a shooting spree. "

That is not only my moral take on it, but the view of the United States judicial system. If you don't like it, you're free to flee to nevernever land, but here in America we have the right to defend ourselves. Period.


"What specifically is wrong above ? That the parents would not actually thank you for saving their children's lives even if you didn't ?"

Your entire scenerio is wrong, in that it didn't happen, and is very unlikely to happen. However if it DID happen, then you're wrong in that I was still legally and morally right in acting to stop a perceived threat. You can't second guess after you're dead, therefore you must always err on the side of caution and survival. EVERY law enforcement agent and security officer and military member of the entire planet is trained to understand this. Most people accept this as fact. It is only you, in your ignorance, that refuse to see it.


"I am not prepared to accept rulings for law enforcement as being equivalent to teachers,"

I can't decipher what you mean by that.


"is there actually anywhere in the states where schools permit the teachers to carry handguns in class ? "

No. All primary and secondary public school campuses are 'weapon free zones'. It is unlawful for any person except on-duty law enforcement and security specifically hired by the school to come onto the property while armed. Private institutions can, of course, act however they choose. Also post-secondary institutions are not included in the ban, though many have chosen to institute a similar ban (most often in direct conflict with state and federal constitutions).


"In any case, I don't know of any precedent for findings of teachers killing students on perceived threats and being found innocent of any criminal or civil wrongdoing, but I would be interested in seeing any, or any to the contrary for that matter."

Ok, you have a misunderstanding somewhere. Being a teacher is irrelevant. It doesn't give you any rights, nor does it remove any rights. The 'teacher' portion of the equation is absolutely irrelevant in court. But if you want citation of laws and cases where people defended themselves by killing their attacker(s) and were not charged with a crime I'd be happy to post a few thousand from the recent years for you. But I'm telling you now, and 99% of the country will back me in this, it's legal in America to kill someone in self defense if you perceive a threat.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I wish Ted Nugent was teaching: One of my fav dudes:p

HELPLESSNESS IS FOR WIMPS & DEADGUYZ
by Ted Nugent

With all the yapping and hand wringing about Homeland Defense, I?m somewhat perplexed there hasn?t been more discussion about how average Americans can secure their country from terrorists, thugs and other assorted human debris and scum. You heard it here first: homeland defense begins at home. It is each American?s responsibility to protect themselves and their families from those who want to perpetrate harm upon us. I could care less what the creep?s religious, political or ideological intentions are, or whether he simply wants to steal your Buick at gunpoint. A killer is a killer and they must be stopped. I pray the feds have the resources, intelligence, and commitment to exterminate terrorists around the world. I also pray the local cops have the same resources to lock up local punks who have instigated their own criminal jihad against law-abiding citizens. Pray as I might, I also adamantly believe each of us should be prepared to neutralize evil in its tracks whenever and wherever it may arize. Waiting for the feds or the cops to show up might be a death sentence - our death sentence. Crime reports, studies and honest cops will tell you that it is up to you to defend yourself and your loved ones against evil people. Fortunately, the majority of states allow their citizens to carry concealed weapons to do just that. Afterall, to be unarmed is to be helpless, and that's just irresponsible. Though the media won?t tell you this, law-abiding citizens use guns to thwart crime roughly two million times a year.

The media?s silence on these facts is condemnable. Instead of reporting the facts, the media whores engage in journalistic prostitution as it pertains to guns. They will 'report' or spin the story to meet their left-wing ideology that guns are evil, unnecessary instruments designed solely to kill other people. I?m sure two million people a year would beg to differ with the media?s overt dishonesty and unprofessional anti-gun agenda. The average American is much more likely to be the victim of a recidivistic punk who has a rap sheet a yard long than of a Muslim extremist. Therefore, it only stands to reason that we must be more vigilant to protect our homes and lives against the streetrats than the religious numbskulls who kill in the name of their evil gods. I?m not arguing that everyone run out and get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. First off, everyone is not going to do everything that makes sense all the time. Secondly, only those people who feel comfortable carrying a concealed weapon and who routinely practice with it should carry do so. There are literally millions of Americans who carry concealed weapons on a daily basis. The media has unabashedly tried to convince Americans that this practice is extremely dangerous, that ordinary Americans will shoot at each other in traffic, and that accidental shootings will far outway any benefit. Again, the media whores couldn?t be more wrong. The number of concealed carry permits that have been rescinded is literally minuscule, virtually a non-issue. There haven?t been shootouts between concealed carry holders as the media tried in vain to scare Americans into believing. Concealed carry permit holders haven?t shot the wrong guy. Concealed carry permit holders haven?t committed crimes. Instead, these conscientious Americans have made America a safer place to live, work and play. Isn?t that the goal of Homeland Defense? Americans need to be vigilant. We need to get to know our neighbors better. We need to become more involved in great programs such as Neighborhood Watch. We need to establish better relationships with our police departments. I support any effort that will truly assist in stopping the next terrorist or thug who wishes to bring harm to innocent, law-abiding Americans. I will never, however, support any effort that will make it easier for criminals to prey on innocent Americans because Sarah Brady doesn't believe in us to take care of ourselves. Homeland defense begins at home. There are millions of Americans each year that can attest to that. The heroic actions of these brave Americans need to be recognized, even celebrated, not hidden from the public view by the media, or worse, scorned. We have the legal right and a moral duty to protect our loved ones and ourselves. I don?t depend on anyone else for my family?s protection. That would be foolish, dangerous and cowardly. When I call 911 it will only be tell them to bring a dustpan and a broom. I shoot back, and depending on the circumstances, I?ll shoot first. You?re weird if you?ve got a problem with that. Good should live, evil should die. Make a stand America. Neutralize evil or get out of their way.

 

renierh

Member
May 25, 2004
89
0
0
shure, you have the right to defend yourself. unfortunately, guns can be used for a lot less rightious things than defending yourself. they can also, for example, be used to murder innocent children during math class. the problem with the pro gun lobby is that they fail to see that the ones who are so dedicted to carrying guns to protect themselves, are the same people that they need to protect themselves from. the gun that kid used to shoot his classmates, was kept at hand by someone who felt he needed it to protect himselve from violence. this is just one example of how having a gun around for defence can blow up in your face.

and ofcourse, the kid was insane, but then again, things like that hardly ever happen in europe. we have insane people too .we just keep them away from loaded guns.

another point is, that it's impossible to distinguish between people with good and evil intentions. if you make guns available to the big public, you are bound to have a lot of people carrying them, a lot of them for protection, and maybe even more for criminal purposes. if you'd find a way to seperate one from the other, you would have solved the problem anyway, because nobody would need guns for protection anymore.

all in all, when it comes to safety and violence, i feel deeply sorry for your country. you've manouvred yourselves in a position where the fear has become so strong that every gun you buy to protect yourselves results in a greater threath, and therefor, a greater need for protection. when will conservative america realize that you can't make a country safer by pouring thousands of deadly weapons into it?

ofcourse we can start throwing fact sheets at each other, but i'm confident that for every pro- guncontrol fact i can come up with, someone else can throw a anti guncontrol fact at me,and the other way around, because we only pic the statistics that back up our own point of view.

 

Velk

Senior member
Jul 29, 2004
734
0
0
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

"I would take it that your answer is that it doesn't matter and that you are just as justified killing one of your students that you thought was going to go on a shooting spree, as opposed to killing one who *was* about to go on a shooting spree. "

That is not only my moral take on it, but the view of the United States judicial system. If you don't like it, you're free to flee to nevernever land, but here in America we have the right to defend ourselves. Period.

This is what I was asking - I found it hard to believe that was actually your stance, which is why I have asked you to clarify a number of points.

"What specifically is wrong above ? That the parents would not actually thank you for saving their children's lives even if you didn't ?"

Your entire scenerio is wrong, in that it didn't happen, and is very unlikely to happen. However if it DID happen, then you're wrong in that I was still legally and morally right in acting to stop a perceived threat.

Morally, legally, doesn't matter - if you believe that the parents of your students will thank you for saving their children's lives by killing one of their classmates for a perceived threat then really, I can't argue with you.

"I am not prepared to accept rulings for law enforcement as being equivalent to teachers,"

I can't decipher what you mean by that.

If you do present a citation, please do not use one involving a police officer and an adult felon rather than a schoolteacher and one of their students. I know that you claim it makes no difference, but if it is possible, please humor me.

"In any case, I don't know of any precedent for findings of teachers killing students on perceived threats and being found innocent of any criminal or civil wrongdoing, but I would be interested in seeing any, or any to the contrary for that matter."

Ok, you have a misunderstanding somewhere. Being a teacher is irrelevant. It doesn't give you any rights, nor does it remove any rights. The 'teacher' portion of the equation is absolutely irrelevant in court. But if you want citation of laws and cases where people defended themselves by killing their attacker(s) and were not charged with a crime I'd be happy to post a few thousand from the recent years for you. But I'm telling you now, and 99% of the country will back me in this, it's legal in America to kill someone in self defense if you perceive a threat.

No, I would like a citation of a case where a teacher was not charged with a crime after killing one of their students who appeared to be armed, but actually wasn't, and got off.

Failing that, one where anyone killed a child who appeared to be armed but was not and got off.

Failing that, one where anyone killed a child who *was* armed but had not actually fired the weapon, and got off.

Proving that a lethal shooting was the minimum reasonable force for the situation is kind of the sticking point here. It may be that you are correct, and if so I would be glad for you to expand my knowledge on this subject with actual evidence rather than assertions - they may be obvious to you, but I am not familiar with the material on which you are basing your judgement.
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: renierh
shure, you have the right to defend yourself. unfortunately, guns can be used for a lot less rightious things than defending yourself. they can also, for example, be used to murder innocent children during math class. the problem with the pro gun lobby is that they fail to see that the ones who are so dedicted to carrying guns to protect themselves, are the same people that they need to protect themselves from. the gun that kid used to shoot his classmates, was kept at hand by someone who felt he needed it to protect himselve from violence. this is just one example of how having a gun around for defence can blow up in your face.

and ofcourse, the kid was insane, but then again, things like that hardly ever happen in europe. we have insane people too .we just keep them away from loaded guns.

another point is, that it's impossible to distinguish between people with good and evil intentions. if you make guns available to the big public, you are bound to have a lot of people carrying them, a lot of them for protection, and maybe even more for criminal purposes. if you'd find a way to seperate one from the other, you would have solved the problem anyway, because nobody would need guns for protection anymore.

all in all, when it comes to safety and violence, i feel deeply sorry for your country. you've manouvred yourselves in a position where the fear has become so strong that every gun you buy to protect yourselves results in a greater threath, and therefor, a greater need for protection. when will conservative america realize that you can't make a country safer by pouring thousands of deadly weapons into it?

ofcourse we can start throwing fact sheets at each other, but i'm confident that for every pro- guncontrol fact i can come up with, someone else can throw a anti guncontrol fact at me,and the other way around, because we only pic the statistics that back up our own point of view.

See, gun grabbers deny the truth daily. The death rate has gone up with every new gun control law. Back in the fifties, when almost everyone carried a gun on the person or in the car, there were few murders. As the DA libs passed useless laws against people being able to defend themselves, they have created a society of unarmed victims - yet they are simply too stupid to even see that! No explaining how people that damned dumb can be aware enough to tie their own shoes! Think about it, a principle can't spank a kid in school because it is too cruel, yet a cop can taser him! That is what happens when liberals try to control society through the drivel they call legislature!

 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: renierh
shure, you have the right to defend yourself. unfortunately, guns can be used for a lot less rightious things than defending yourself. they can also, for example, be used to murder innocent children during math class.

Of course, so can knives, bricks, cars, rolling pins, large toys, Xbox, darts, arrows, and my personal favorite, something *almost* everyone has: Your hands.

But you wouldn't make a move to outlaw any of *those* things, now would you? The old addage that "Guns don't kill people, people do" is absolutely true. For someone who is decided to murder, nothing will stop him. He WILL find a way. Stopping normal people (read: people other than convicted violent offenders, obviously) from having weapons isn't an answer or a solution. By and large, it isn't average-joe with his .38 you need to worry about. It's psycho-kid and his little temper-tantrum murderous rampage or joe-desperate-for-crank that poses the serious threat. Keep guns out of their hands to the best of your ability, yes, but don't cripple normal, decent peoples' ability to defend themselves.

*Especially* after yesterday, when it's become *Crystal Clear* that the people in our government are more than willing to overstep their authority to get what they want. Be afraid, and be ready to defend yourself.

Jason
 

renierh

Member
May 25, 2004
89
0
0
Originally posted by: Condor
[

See, gun grabbers deny the truth daily. The death rate has gone up with every new gun control law. Back in the fifties, when almost everyone carried a gun on the person or in the car, there were few murders. As the DA libs passed useless laws against people being able to defend themselves, they have created a society of unarmed victims - yet they are simply too stupid to even see that! No explaining how people that damned dumb can be aware enough to tie their own shoes! Think about it, a principle can't spank a kid in school because it is too cruel, yet a cop can taser him! That is what happens when liberals try to control society through the drivel they call legislature!
[/quote]

well, apart from the insults, wich i'm not even going to respond to (you never know with your kind of people, you might feel you have to "defend" yourself) your reasoning is that of a five year old. in the fifties people had guns, and in the fifties, fewer people where murdered, therefor, when there are more guns, fewer people get murdered. that's like saying: "in the fifties, we didn't have any immigrants and there was no hole in the ozone layer, therefor, immigrants cause the hole in the ozone layer. you're connecting facts that have no proven link whatsoever, and on top of that, you're leaving out loads of changes that occurded since the fifties.

honestly, i expected a little more from the pro gun people. can anybody give me a different perspective on how they plan to make shure the weapons are used for defense and not for shooting your wife in an argument, or having your 5 year old son kill your 3 year old daughter during a game?

i would really love to read a pro gun post that doesn't ooze that "i can shoot anybody who eyeballs me because it's in the constitution and if you take my gun away i'm scared shitless that all the bad guys will come over to my suburb and rape my wife" attitude. ease up people, the world is not the depressive, horribly dangerous place you believe it to be, unless you make it that by whipping out your gun everytime somebody looks at you.

oh, and for the teacher who brings a gun into the classroom: you should seek professional help man. what you're doing has nothing to do with protecting yourself, this is pure paranoia. people like you owning a gun is the best justification for gun control i can think of.


 

renierh

Member
May 25, 2004
89
0
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex


Of course, so can knives, bricks, cars, rolling pins, large toys, Xbox, darts, arrows, and my personal favorite, something *almost* everyone has: Your hands.But you wouldn't make a move to outlaw any of *those* things, now would you?
ofcourse we wouldn't. the thing you're conveniently forgetting is that all of these things, except guns, don't have the primary function of killing people. therefor it would be pretty hard, not to mention very inconvenient to outlaw them. handguns however, exist for the sole purpose of killing or wounding other people. even if you don't agree with my opinion on guns, you have to admit that the point your making above won't hold up.

The old addage that "Guns don't kill people, people do" is absolutely true. For someone who is decided to murder, nothing will stop him. He WILL find a way.

sounds good, but is it true? how can you be shure?.. could that kid yesterday have done the same amount of damage with a kitchen knife? and what about the people who aren't "decided" to murder, but use a gun in a fit of rage? this whole sentence is illogical anyway, since your conclusion is that it's useless to prevent access to weapons because they will find another way of killing if they want to. that's like justifying selling crack to 15 year olds, because they can get it somewhere else anyway if they really want to. i know banning guns won't mean an end to all violence in schools, but if you make it harder to come by, less kids will be able to get a gun.





Stopping normal people (read: people other than convicted violent offenders, obviously) from having weapons isn't an answer or a solution. By and large, it isn't average-joe with his .38 you need to worry about. It's psycho-kid and his little temper-tantrum murderous rampage or joe-desperate-for-crank that poses the serious threat. Keep guns out of their hands to the best of your ability, yes, but don't cripple normal, decent peoples' ability to defend themselves.

now here's the real point: the pro gun guys always say that we should give guns to the good guys, and keep them away from the bad guys. obviously, it doesn't work that way. we can't send the FBI to peoples houses to investigate if they are "Average Joe" enough to own a gun. we need to realise that releasing guns to the good guys means realising guns to the bad guys too.

*Especially* after yesterday, when it's become *Crystal Clear* that the people in our government are more than willing to overstep their authority to get what they want. Be afraid, and be ready to defend yourself.

Jason

i'm not shure what you are reffering to. the shooting to me is an example of what happens when you think you can give the good guys guns and keep them away from the bad guys. it doesn't work: it's like in lord of the ring: something made for killing will always find it's way too people who want to kill. not because of some magical power, but because those people will want them the most.


and in response to your last sentence: no, i will NOT be afraid! i will just enjoy life instead of hiding behind a gun and making headlines by shooting the mailman because i thought he was coming to rob me.