Should owner or school be liable for a mass shooting if the owner/school is not providing security or possible protective measurement?

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 09:48:36 -0400

This was a question just come up and I believe is a very good question, since private properties owner even liable for intruders getting hurt in their properties.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Oct 20 at 2015 9:51 AM

PO1 John Miller — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 09:51:45 -0400

I would have to say yes, especially since schools try to cover their asses by declaring themselves a "Gun Free Zone."

Response by SGT David T. made Oct 20 at 2015 9:52 AM

SGT David T. — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 09:52:12 -0400

No. That is punishing someone else for the actions of another.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Oct 20 at 2015 9:58 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 09:58:21 -0400

It has been held frequently in case law that the government (especially not the police) has no specific responsibility to protect the lives of individual citizens from the actions of other individuals. (Seemingly contrary wise to the very stated purpose of government) Ergo I doubt a court would find in favor of a lawsuit against a school.

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS Your thoughts?

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 20 at 2015 10:06 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:06:40 -0400

This is a "simple" question with VERY "complex" implications.

What we run into is the implication that the "owner" or more specifically the "controlling party" is essentially "disarming" the entrants when they enter the property, and therefore they have an Obligation to provide Safety & Security for those who enter the Premises. This would be akin to the "General Liability" which is Insured against, just like someone breaking their leg when entering the property.

However, there is of course the element of Free Will. A person generally, speaking does not have to do business with a PRIVATE entity. Therefore, that liability becomes "limited." The entrant takes a certain amount of Risk into their own hands. It's an equation, like any other Risk Management Scenario.

Now, when you get into PUBLIC "controlled" property, this becomes infinitely more complex. As an example, you cannot enter most Courthouses with a firearm. That is generally considered a "reasonable restriction." The Government also provides security at locations like these, and as such, they do have an obligation to protect the occupants from harm.

But what about Public Schools? This is farther along the "spectrum." It is "controlled" by the government, but readily accessible. Then we run into Private Schools, which are direct parallels to Public Schools. The controlling party would still have the same level of obligation, but not the same level of resources, nor the same level of Power to enforce. It changes things from Criminal to Civil.

As I said, a VERY complex answer to a very simple question.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Oct 20 at 2015 10:09 AM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:09:07 -0400

If I am having my personal ability to defend myself restricted, then the restricting entity takes responsibility for it. If I have to leave my weapons to attend a school function, the school takes responsibility for my safety.

I think it is ridiculous that an intruder being injured on my property can hold me liable for their safety. I did not invite that individual to my home, they forced their way in. This is a part of the problem with the litigious nature of our society. This is one instance where more law is something I am in favor of. I think that we should have laws protecting home owners from assholes that commit a crime against them on their property. What difference does it make either an intruder steals my stuff, or I have to sell it off to pay the intruder when they sue? The solution is to just kill the bastard, bury them at sea, and never report the crime. Not a good way to be feeling in the "Land of the Free"

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 20 at 2015 10:43 AM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:43:20 -0400

I am keeping my .50 cent ass out of this two dollar question.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 20 at 2015 1:17 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:17:08 -0400

How does anyone forecast the unforeseeable? Who among us has a crystal ball? This constant knee-jerk, Monday Night Quarterbacking is asinine and counterproductive.

Response by SGT Josheua Cooke made Oct 20 at 2015 1:17 PM

SGT Josheua Cooke — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:17:16 -0400

I have been trying to do legal research on this for a few months. Now that I am playing Billy Madison and am back in a state school, my head is stuck on a swivel because of how the media has glorified mass and school shootings. Although there is no legal ramifications for CCW in WI colleges, it is still prohibited by the campus'.

From my reading, the court has previously ruled that an establishment has not legal requirement to ensure customer/ student safety.

However, the ability to protect oneself hinges on being able to use the same level if not more force than the aggressor is using. Many CCW patrons ignore privately posted signs. What needs to happen is to abolish "safe zones" as these are the vast majority of places affected.

Response by SSgt Thomas Carney made Oct 21 at 2015 11:55 AM

SSgt Thomas Carney — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:55:18 -0400

I'm not a lawyer, just an engineer. I don't have the answer.

Response by SFC Maury Gonzalez made Oct 22 at 2015 12:32 PM

SFC Maury Gonzalez — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:32:50 -0400

Spoons make you fat are you going to sue Oneida and corning ware

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Oct 23 at 2015 10:11 AM

SSG Warren Swan — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:11:42 -0400

No. The owner cannot afford in most cases to prepare for every single scenario that could come his/her way. If they implement best practices and do their due diligence they've met the threshold of reasonable safety and shouldn't be help responsible.