Texas School District to Let Teachers Carry guns

[Questor]

Could someone please fix the quotes?

[General Zod]

It's not more, but very different interactions. These interactions (see the part I bolded), bring these personnel into more contact, alone, with the kids most likely to present the problem you are suggesting. Student contact en masse != one on one contact.

Don't be absurd. Guards are more physically able to deal with people taking their weapons or trying to cause something than a teacher is.

How would the district assume all liability? I said I didn't think they'd see much of any liability in the case of a teacher shooting a student. The district could say that this person had passed all background checks to own a gun, and that they were only allowing the teacher to exercise their rights as a gun owner.

Please stop being stupid. By allowing teachers to carry something they were previously not allowed to, guess who's going to be held accountable? Or do you honestly think the district can just wipe their hands of a teacher screwing up horribly with their weapon?

Before this devolves any further, I think the ruling is moronic, but simply for the reason that I don't think that there should be ANY armed school personnel on a school campus. If an armed presence is necessary, it should be provided by the local police department. As much as I like the campus safety people I know, the thought of them being armed is rather scary.

There's no reason that the schools can't make some kind of deal with the police departments to ask for police help instead of hiring private deals.

[Questor]

Don't be absurd. Guards are more physically able to deal with people taking their weapons or trying to cause something than a teacher is.

Better prepared doesn't mean it's not going to happen, and what kind of guards are we talking about here? Professionally trained security guards, which are probably more expensive per year than a teacher, rent-a-cops, or something else? I don't see standards changing that much at a school for security personnel, so I'm guessing that we would be talking about the same people who are now unarmed, but with more firearms training.

Please stop being stupid. By allowing teachers to carry something they were previously not allowed to, guess who's going to be held accountable? Or do you honestly think the district can just wipe their hands of a teacher screwing up horribly with their weapon?

I don't think it's anywhere near as clear cut as you do. A science teacher could easily kill someone accidentally with the chemicals in a science lab, but that is not regarded as a source of liability.

There's no reason that the schools can't make some kind of deal with the police departments to ask for police help instead of hiring private deals.

How is that different than what I suggested?

[Questor]

I don't think it's anywhere near as clear cut as you do. A science teacher could easily kill someone accidentally with the chemicals in a science lab, but that is not regarded as a source of liability.

Or, I should say, that it is not regarded as enough of a source of liability to keep all chemicals and burners out of the science labs.

[General Zod]

[
Better prepared doesn't mean it's not going to happen, and what kind of guards are we talking about here? Professionally trained security guards, which are probably more expensive per year than a teacher, rent-a-cops, or something else? I don't see standards changing that much at a school for security personnel, so I'm guessing that we would be talking about the same people who are now unarmed, but with more firearms training.

I specifically said professionally trained guards earlier in the thread.

I don't think it's anywhere near as clear cut as you do. A science teacher could easily kill someone accidentally with the chemicals in a science lab, but that is not regarded as a source of liability.

Based on . . .what? Your say so? If an organization fails to take action for something easily preventable, or allows something to happen that they could have prevented by disallowing it, then it's a very clear source of liability. All it'll take is one accidental discharge and I can almost guarantee that the district will be getting liability lawsuits up the ass for allowing this. It's not as if this is something with unforeseen consequences, since they are all to easy to recognize.

How is that different than what I suggested?

It's not, since I was agreeing with it.

Or, I should say, that it is not regarded as enough of a source of liability to keep all chemicals and burners out of the science labs.

Chemicals and burners have a clear purpose in classroom instruction, as do grinding saws and occasionally torches in shop classes. Weapons serve no such purpose.

[Questor]

Better prepared doesn't mean it's not going to happen, and what kind of guards are we talking about here? Professionally trained security guards, which are probably more expensive per year than a teacher, rent-a-cops, or something else? I don't see standards changing that much at a school for security personnel, so I'm guessing that we would be talking about the same people who are now unarmed, but with more firearms training.

I specifically said professionally trained guards earlier in the thread.

Then we have no disagreement there.

Based on . . .what? Your say so? If an organization fails to take action for something easily preventable, or allows something to happen that they could have prevented by disallowing it, then it's a very clear source of liability. All it'll take is one accidental discharge and I can almost guarantee that the district will be getting liability lawsuits up the ass for allowing this. It's not as if this is something with unforeseen consequences, since they are all to easy to recognize.

Page 377-378 of The Educator's Guide to Texas School Law, 2005 Edition

The BBCode doesn't seem to like the url so:
++books.google.com/books?id=CtaIQAZIbG8C&printsec=frontcover#PPA377,M1

School District Immunity

The starting point in analyzing claims asserting the liability of a school district under state law is the general legal principle of sovereign immunity. As a general rule, governmental entities, such as school districts, are immune from liability due to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. To hold a school district liable under state law, the plaintiff must point to some specific statute that authorizes the courts to impose liability. One such example is the Workers Compensation Act, which authorizes liability for acts of retaliation. This is discussed in Chapter 5.

But the statute most frequently cited is the Texas Tort Claims Act, which spells out the circumstances under which a governmental entity in Texas can be held liable for a personal injury. The Act permits injured parties to recover from most governmental entities damages caused by the negligent acts of employees arising from the operation of motor vehicles or from some condition of public property - for example an unsafe stairwell. But with regard to school districts and community colleges, liability can be imposed only when the injury arises from the negligent use or operation of a motor vehicle operated by a school officer or employee within the scope of employment. Hence, unless motor vehicles are involved, a school district is shielded by Texas law from tort liability.

There's more in there, but I'm not retyping it.

I'm actually surprised, I was thinking somewhere along the lines of the "scope of their duties argument" for the enabling of the suit for the security guards, but it looks like they would be covered as well. Once again, I am not a lawyer.

Chemicals and burners have a clear purpose in classroom instruction, as do grinding saws and occasionally torches in shop classes. Weapons serve no such purpose.

No argument there, but the reason for the lack of worry seems to stem from the above, rather than the educational value of the tools, which I would not trust a jury to evaluate.

[General Zod]

There's more in there, but I'm not retyping it.

I'm actually surprised, I was thinking somewhere along the lines of the "scope of their duties argument" for the enabling of the suit for the security guards, but it looks like they would be covered as well. Once again, I am not a lawyer.

Huh. So Texas has a real fucked up definition of liability. . .somehow I'm not shocked.

No argument there, but the reason for the lack of worry seems to stem from the above, rather than the educational value of the tools, which I would not trust a jury to evaluate.

If there were a basic firearms safety class or something of that nature a case could probably be made. But generally when it comes to students taking courses with clear dangers parents are required to sign wavers that let them do so.

[Death from the Sea]

I should also add this. My mother is a 6th grade teacher and while yes she has shot guns before, I don't think even she should carry a gun to class. Even if she did, I know for a fact that she does not have the mindset to be able to use a gun against a person. That is something else to consider.

I don't know who tossed out the $60K figure to hire an armed security guard, but I would like to know where that came from. I know of a "small town" school district has it's own police force and pays them about $24K a year.

[General Zod]

I don't know who tossed out the $60K figure to hire an armed security guard, but I would like to know where that came from. I know of a "small town" school district has it's own police force and pays them about $24K a year.

The salary for armed security guards can vary pretty wildly, but for anything resembling a reasonable sized city I don't think I've ever seen less than $35-40k at the lower end. With the payrate going up depending on what you're guarding, what kind of company you're working for, shift differentials, etc.

[Invictus ChiKen]

Don't worry this will go away when a teacher accidently shoots a kid.

I'm afraid your right.

Yes I know it was meant as a joke. I am not laughing because the chance is all to real. Especially of the student is a pagan, LGBT or other undesirable.

[Death from the Sea]

I don't know who tossed out the $60K figure to hire an armed security guard, but I would like to know where that came from. I know of a "small town" school district has it's own police force and pays them about $24K a year.

The salary for armed security guards can vary pretty wildly, but for anything resembling a reasonable sized city I don't think I've ever seen less than $35-40k at the lower end. With the payrate going up depending on what you're guarding, what kind of company you're working for, shift differentials, etc.

I will say that paying more $$$$ will generally attract a better quality and better qualified person to do such work. But There are those that do it for less, if you are hard up enough.

[General Zod]

I will say that paying more $$$$ will generally attract a better quality and better qualified person to do such work. But There are those that do it for less, if you are hard up enough.

Well. I'm not entirely familiar with Texas employment laws, but in some states they might not be allowed to pay below a certain amount for given positions legally. Doing so opens them up to all kinds of employment lawsuits depending on their legal code, but given it's Texas it wouldn't surprise me if they could.