Posted on Dec 3, 2014
Should the government be held civilly responsible when they fail to provide adequate security in the face of a known threat?
2.38K
1
3
0
0
0
Under current policy, law and regulation, the Military forbids its members from carrying privately owned weapons in self-defense while on a Federal installation. Service members and family are only allowed to implement passive security measures.
This places the onus of providing security for all on that military installation at the feet of the Commander, CIC, and those in congress that allow this to be the law of the land. Should the Military, or governmental leaders be held civilly responsible when the provided security proves to be inadequate? Recent history has shown the security provided by the government to its employee’s and their family members is not sufficient.
If a civilian company was to do the same, survivors or family members would likely be victorious in a civil suit brought against that company who failed to provide sufficient or even reasonable security when a clear threat was known about in advance.
Thoughts?
This places the onus of providing security for all on that military installation at the feet of the Commander, CIC, and those in congress that allow this to be the law of the land. Should the Military, or governmental leaders be held civilly responsible when the provided security proves to be inadequate? Recent history has shown the security provided by the government to its employee’s and their family members is not sufficient.
If a civilian company was to do the same, survivors or family members would likely be victorious in a civil suit brought against that company who failed to provide sufficient or even reasonable security when a clear threat was known about in advance.
Thoughts?
Concealed Carry
Security
Garrison
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 2
1
1
0
Good question, SGM Erik Marquez. This kind of ties in with the question about the Iran Hostage Crisis and compensation of those folks who were held 444 days (I think it was 444). There's a discussion thread on that here on RallyPoint. I learned that those folks were paid $22,000 apiece, in the mid 80s, but that seems like nothing nowadays. Some would argue they were there voluntarily, others would say their being taken hostage was the result of a "failure" of our government (/embassy) to protect them. And there's the tie-in.
Here's the thread on the Iran issue: https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/are-we-hurting-our-own-with-iran-s-deal
Here's the thread on the Iran issue: https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/are-we-hurting-our-own-with-iran-s-deal
Are we hurting our own with Iran's deal? | RallyPoint
For Former U.S. Hostages, A Deal With Iran Also Remains ElusiveYour thoughts on Iran and its former hostages.https://www.readfulapp.com/site/Headlines/?tag=US&item=5479c21706c4b03a6b11d799(Sent from Headlines)
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
The gov per se should not be totally liable, negligent people should be at least 50% personally liable.
(0)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
SGM Coberly, what of the negligent people being governmental employees?
Or did you mean the shooter them self?
If so, that's a separate issue. Of course the criminal that did the crime is directly responsible for that crime.. But that was not the question posed.
Or did you mean the shooter them self?
If so, that's a separate issue. Of course the criminal that did the crime is directly responsible for that crime.. But that was not the question posed.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google