Attorney here. There's an aspect of the school shooting problem you didn't address - and that's hardly surprising, because most people outside the legal profession aren't aware of it. I posted this on FB yesterday:
1: Government makes schooling mandatory. Which means that due to various circumstances, most people send their children to government schools.
2: Government made laws generally (with exceptions) preventing government employees, agencies, etc... from being held liable for the results of the acts and omissions of those government employees and agencies under the legal doctrine of "qualified immunity", other immunity doctrines and legal provisions.
3: The result is that, for example, Courts have held that law enforcement officers have no legal duty to protect individuals in the general public. See Warren v. D.C. (horrific facts involving multiple rapes and police inaction to prevent the rapes), among others:
"... the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."
If the government is under no general duty to any particular individual citizen, then the government owes no duty whatsoever. Because society is made up of individuals.
4: Similarly, generally, a government school and it's employees and law enforcement would not be held liable for failure to protect the children at the school.
"It is historically very challenging to hold a school district legally responsible for a shooting, said Chuck Vergon, a professor of education law at Youngstown State University.
A majority of past school shooting cases featured some kind of warning in advance of potential violence, he said. But it is difficult in most state courts to meet the required standard of proving gross negligence on the part of school officials — that they acted in “wanton and willful disregard” for the safety or well-being of others, he said. “That standard has usually shielded school officials in most school shooting cases from civil liability.”
5: To my understanding of the law (I'd welcome additional information that might show otherwise), private schools could more easily be held liable for failure to protect students. Which could be a reason why school shootings are less common at private schools. Perhaps private schools have better security. Or a better culture that doesn't result in pissing off some students who might come back to shoot up the place.
6: So what we have is government mandating that kids attend school, which - because of various circumstances de facto means that government is mandating that most kids attend GOVERNMENT schools. And government has passed laws to prevent itself from being liable in most instances for failure to protect the children that government mandated be placed in government care.
7: As such, there is minimal motivation - legally speaking - for government to ensure that children are protected in government schools. It is far easier for politicians to stir up division over guns than it is to take action to protect children. Arguing in the media over gun rights gets viewers and attention. Strong, practical action to protect kids doesn't as much.
8: Notice that when government wants to, government is quite able to protect people. Presidents and other prominent politicians have trained guards with guns, as well as substantial other security measures to ensure their protection and safety.
Those government agents KNOW that those methods work to prevent shootings and such. That being the case - even though a substantial percentage of the population is annoyed or angry at a particular politician at a particular time... and even though a small percentage of those people might be annoyed or angry enough to try something desperate.
Yet we rarely see attempts on politicians' and other government officials' lives (the Congressional baseball game incident 5 years ago being a prominent relatively recent exception). Their security is effective - even though there are just as many guns in society that could be used to attack politicians as there are that could be used to attack schools and children.
So why aren't similar measures implemented in relation to schools?
Possible answers:
A: Politicians and other government officials care more about their own safety than the safety of children.
B: Politicians would rather have an issue with which to leverage votes and media attention than to actually solve the issue.
C: Politicians realize that the general public doesn't want that degree of protection for their children because of the disruption and fear that could cause.
But if that's a/the reason, then that implies that the general public is ok with a lower level of safety for schoolchildren than for politicians... and that means that the general public will accept a higher amount of risk for schoolchildren potentially being the victim of a school shooting. That may well be - there are ALWAYS trade offs. We cannot rid the world of ALL risk... and ridding the world of even most risks results in a less than ideal day-to-day life. We saw everyone weighing those risks/benefits (usually not very effectively) for the last 2+ years in relation to COVID.
These aren't easy issues.
But the lack of potential liability for failure to protect the children is why we saw (according to the reports so far) government agents hiding and waiting for backup for approximately an hour while kids are being murdered in the school. We even saw government agents literally holding back parents who wanted to potentially sacrifice their own lives by storming the school and saving the children.
It's simply a fact that if there's no duty for a government agent to protect the children... and if the government agent involved does not have a child in that school... then many of those government agents are not going to act to save the children until there is so much backup that there's a minimal risk to the government agent.
(There are certainly heroic and brave people who work for the government in some capacities. We did not see those people in the first hour of the recent school shooting).
I can GUARANTEE you that if government (and it's individual employees) were actually legally liable for failing to protect children in government schools, then the children would be a lot better protected than they are now. Or government schools would be a less popular idea.
Government has chosen not to accept the liability for failing to protect the children that government mandates be put in their care and custody. And the children suffer for it sometimes.
Perhaps we should have a national discussion about THAT issue at the same time that people are arguing about guns.
Attorney here. There's an aspect of the school shooting problem you didn't address - and that's hardly surprising, because most people outside the legal profession aren't aware of it. I posted this on FB yesterday:
1: Government makes schooling mandatory. Which means that due to various circumstances, most people send their children to government schools.
2: Government made laws generally (with exceptions) preventing government employees, agencies, etc... from being held liable for the results of the acts and omissions of those government employees and agencies under the legal doctrine of "qualified immunity", other immunity doctrines and legal provisions.
3: The result is that, for example, Courts have held that law enforcement officers have no legal duty to protect individuals in the general public. See Warren v. D.C. (horrific facts involving multiple rapes and police inaction to prevent the rapes), among others:
"... the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."
https://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/1981/79-6-3.html
If the government is under no general duty to any particular individual citizen, then the government owes no duty whatsoever. Because society is made up of individuals.
4: Similarly, generally, a government school and it's employees and law enforcement would not be held liable for failure to protect the children at the school.
"It is historically very challenging to hold a school district legally responsible for a shooting, said Chuck Vergon, a professor of education law at Youngstown State University.
A majority of past school shooting cases featured some kind of warning in advance of potential violence, he said. But it is difficult in most state courts to meet the required standard of proving gross negligence on the part of school officials — that they acted in “wanton and willful disregard” for the safety or well-being of others, he said. “That standard has usually shielded school officials in most school shooting cases from civil liability.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/04/us/oxford-high-school-responsibility-legal.html
5: To my understanding of the law (I'd welcome additional information that might show otherwise), private schools could more easily be held liable for failure to protect students. Which could be a reason why school shootings are less common at private schools. Perhaps private schools have better security. Or a better culture that doesn't result in pissing off some students who might come back to shoot up the place.
6: So what we have is government mandating that kids attend school, which - because of various circumstances de facto means that government is mandating that most kids attend GOVERNMENT schools. And government has passed laws to prevent itself from being liable in most instances for failure to protect the children that government mandated be placed in government care.
7: As such, there is minimal motivation - legally speaking - for government to ensure that children are protected in government schools. It is far easier for politicians to stir up division over guns than it is to take action to protect children. Arguing in the media over gun rights gets viewers and attention. Strong, practical action to protect kids doesn't as much.
8: Notice that when government wants to, government is quite able to protect people. Presidents and other prominent politicians have trained guards with guns, as well as substantial other security measures to ensure their protection and safety.
Those government agents KNOW that those methods work to prevent shootings and such. That being the case - even though a substantial percentage of the population is annoyed or angry at a particular politician at a particular time... and even though a small percentage of those people might be annoyed or angry enough to try something desperate.
Yet we rarely see attempts on politicians' and other government officials' lives (the Congressional baseball game incident 5 years ago being a prominent relatively recent exception). Their security is effective - even though there are just as many guns in society that could be used to attack politicians as there are that could be used to attack schools and children.
So why aren't similar measures implemented in relation to schools?
Possible answers:
A: Politicians and other government officials care more about their own safety than the safety of children.
B: Politicians would rather have an issue with which to leverage votes and media attention than to actually solve the issue.
C: Politicians realize that the general public doesn't want that degree of protection for their children because of the disruption and fear that could cause.
But if that's a/the reason, then that implies that the general public is ok with a lower level of safety for schoolchildren than for politicians... and that means that the general public will accept a higher amount of risk for schoolchildren potentially being the victim of a school shooting. That may well be - there are ALWAYS trade offs. We cannot rid the world of ALL risk... and ridding the world of even most risks results in a less than ideal day-to-day life. We saw everyone weighing those risks/benefits (usually not very effectively) for the last 2+ years in relation to COVID.
These aren't easy issues.
But the lack of potential liability for failure to protect the children is why we saw (according to the reports so far) government agents hiding and waiting for backup for approximately an hour while kids are being murdered in the school. We even saw government agents literally holding back parents who wanted to potentially sacrifice their own lives by storming the school and saving the children.
It's simply a fact that if there's no duty for a government agent to protect the children... and if the government agent involved does not have a child in that school... then many of those government agents are not going to act to save the children until there is so much backup that there's a minimal risk to the government agent.
(There are certainly heroic and brave people who work for the government in some capacities. We did not see those people in the first hour of the recent school shooting).
I can GUARANTEE you that if government (and it's individual employees) were actually legally liable for failing to protect children in government schools, then the children would be a lot better protected than they are now. Or government schools would be a less popular idea.
Government has chosen not to accept the liability for failing to protect the children that government mandates be put in their care and custody. And the children suffer for it sometimes.
Perhaps we should have a national discussion about THAT issue at the same time that people are arguing about guns.
Agree with this 100%.