• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Boise Professor wants guidelines for shooting students.

golddigger14s

Activist Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,068
Location
Lawton, OK USA
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/op...dent.html?_r=0

"BOISE, Idaho — TO the chief counsel of the Idaho State Legislature:
In light of the bill permitting guns on our state’s college and university campuses, which is likely to be approved by the state House of Representatives in the coming days, I have a matter of practical concern that I hope you can help with: When may I shoot a student?
I am a biology professor, not a lawyer, and I had never considered bringing a gun to work until now. But since many of my students are likely to be armed, I thought it would be a good idea to even the playing field."
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
This is the brain power you send your kids off to school to be taught by.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
"Even" the playing field? I suspect the Herr Professor is likely to be outgunned. Liberals have a very poor idea as to what gun is the right gun.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/op...dent.html?_r=0

"BOISE, Idaho — TO the chief counsel of the Idaho State Legislature:
In light of the bill permitting guns on our state’s college and university campuses, which is likely to be approved by the state House of Representatives in the coming days, I have a matter of practical concern that I hope you can help with: When may I shoot a student?
I am a biology professor, not a lawyer, and I had never considered bringing a gun to work until now. But since many of my students are likely to be armed, I thought it would be a good idea to even the playing field."

Many? CooooL!!
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
dumbass said:
...But since many of my students are likely to be armed,...
Actually, if this is true, it is now less important that he also be armed.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
"When may I shoot a student"?

TITLE 18
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 40
HOMICIDE
18-4009. JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE BY ANY PERSON. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in either of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mortal combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

Are college professors really too dumb to pick up a code book on occassion?
 

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,239
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
+1 Another example of an educated man with no sense.

This is Truth!

Actually, if this is true, it is now less important that he also be armed.


It is typical, in my observations, that people such as this "professor" are extremists. He is aparently an anti-firearm person. Those around him are going to Legally exercise their Second Amendment Rights and this upsets him. He is angry with them and resorts to the extreme. To counter their Freedom to Arm, he suggests that they will come to his classes, armed to the teeth, and out to get him. For that reason he will announce that he is arming himself to shoot back? In what other business model does an employee get to make this kind of threat?
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Prof Dumbass said:
... I had never considered bringing a gun to work until now. But since many of my students are likely to be armed, I thought it would be a good idea to even the playing field."

Because previously the bad guys were thwarted by that damn sign.
 
Last edited:

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
Because previously the bad guys were thwarted by that damn sign.

The magic stickers ALWAYS work as long as:
No scratches to the stickers corrupt the protecting spells:lol:
The stickers do not lose their adhesive powers and fall off:D
The person reading said stickers is a LAW-ABIDING citizen.:banghead:

I remember two different instances on the Univeristy of Arizona campus that made the Daily Wildcat pages:

Once when a man in the main library pulled out a knife and threatened a student
Another time when a man was stabbed in the parking lot of the Kaibab-Huachuca dorm conglomerate.

I'll put up the links to the Daily Wildcat issues covering these two occurrences.

:rolleyes:And here I thought those magical "No Weapons" signs were keeping me safe from criminals. /sarcasm off


*Added 25th of May, 2014*
Knife-wielding man in main library
http://www.wildcat.arizona.edu/article/2012/10/man-with-knife-arrested-at-ua-main-library
ID of man (note he had no affiliation with the UA, but was on campus)"
http://www.wildcat.arizona.edu/arti...ng-knife-ua-main-library-arrested-uapd-102512

Stabbing in the dorm parking lot:
http://www.wildcat.arizona.edu/article/2013/05/stabbing-at-park-student-union
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
The magic stickers ALWAYS work as long as:
No scratches to the stickers corrupt the protecting spells:lol:
The stickers do not lose their adhesive powers and fall off:D
The person reading said stickers is a LAW-ABIDING citizen.:banghead:

I remember two different instances on the Univeristy of Arizona campus that made the Daily Wildcat pages:

Once when a man in the main library pulled out a knife and threatened a student
Another time when a man was stabbed in the parking lot of the Kaibab-Huachuca dorm conglomerate.

I'll put up the links to the Daily Wildcat issues covering these two occurrences.

:rolleyes:And here I thought those magical "No Weapons" signs were keeping me safe from criminals. /sarcasm off

"Gun-buster" signs are just symbols.

As George Carlin once remarked, "...and I leave symbols to the symbol-minded."
 

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
I wonder if establishments would be so willing to post up these detrimental (to LACs) signs if they were held legally and financially responsible for any injuries and damages to disarmed LACs caused by a violent criminal act?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I wonder if establishments would be so willing to post up these detrimental (to LACs) signs if they were held legally and financially responsible for any injuries and damages to disarmed LACs caused by a violent criminal act?

Probably not. But, that cure is worse than the disease. The last thing we need is government criminalizing the exercise of property rights.

It sounds great to make property owners financially responsible--just desserts and all that. But, in the end, "solving" the problem by using government to coerce people is not the answer. Government already does way, way too much of that.

Persuasion is what is needed. For example, (off-the-cuff): "Mr. Manager, I'll make you an offer. I am trained and back-round checked. Here are my certificates. If you let me shop here armed, then, while I am here, I will provide you with momentary armed security, free. Anybody who uses violence against you or your employees while I am in the shop will dealt with in the same calm, disspassionate, armed, manner as if you had a police officer right here to interrupt the attack. I can't arrest them. But, I can dissuade them, and even prevent them, from harming you and your employees to exactly the same degree as if you had a cop standing right here. What do you say?"

Make up your own persuasion/offer.
 
Last edited:

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
Probably not. But, that cure is worse than the disease. The last thing we need is government criminalizing the exercise of property rights.

It sounds great to make property owners financially responsible--just desserts and all that. But, in the end, "solving" the problem by using government to coerce people is not the answer. Government already does way, way too much of that.

Persuasion is what is needed. For example, (off-the-cuff): "Mr. Manager, I'll make you an offer. I am trained and back-round checked. Here are my certificates. If you let me shop here armed, then, while I am here, I will provide you with momentary armed security, free. Anybody who uses violence against you or your employees while I am in the shop will dealt with in the same calm, disspassionate, armed, manner as if you had a police officer right here to interrupt the attack. I can't arrest them. But, I can dissuade them, and even prevent them, from harming you and your employees to exactly the same degree as if you had a cop standing right here. What do you say?"

Make up your own persuasion/offer.

Fair enough.
Thank you for pointing out the beginnings of a deviation to the Dark Side.:D Too much of a (seemingly) good thing might just cause more of the exact problems arising from overreaching government.

Although I may have to disagree on the acting as security. My goal is to make it home to my loved ones, so I would interject only under certain conditions, but usually one of my requirements is that my loved ones or I be in mortal danger.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Probably not. But, that cure is worse than the disease. The last thing we need is government criminalizing the exercise of property rights.

It sounds great to make property owners financially responsible--just desserts and all that. But, in the end, "solving" the problem by using government to coerce people is not the answer. Government already does way, way too much of that.

Persuasion is what is needed. For example, (off-the-cuff): "Mr. Manager, I'll make you an offer. I am trained and back-round checked. Here are my certificates. If you let me shop here armed, then, while I am here, I will provide you with momentary armed security, free. Anybody who uses violence against you or your employees while I am in the shop will dealt with in the same calm, disspassionate, armed, manner as if you had a police officer right here to interrupt the attack. I can't arrest them. But, I can dissuade them, and even prevent them, from harming you and your employees to exactly the same degree as if you had a cop standing right here. What do you say?"

Make up your own persuasion/offer.

Your caution is well taken, but I might opine that the assignment of liability, where such exists, is not coercive/initiatory (read: aggressive) force.

If someone has committed a tort against another and accrued liability, it is not a usurpation on the part of government to demand recompense.

So, in my mind, the issue cannot be distinguished from the analysis of whether such a gun ban does, in fact, constitute a tort (in the eventuality of an attack). This is true no matter how strong my preference is to less/no government.

This remains true as long as government possesses a de facto monopoly on civil dispute, IMO.

If such were to, in fact, constitute a tort, it would not be legitimate (read: within our rights) to deny its victims recompense simply because we're not fans of the means of achieving said recompense.

Sort of like, I'm an anarchist, but that doesn't mean I think government shouldn't jail murderers, or that in fact no murderers should be jailed until such can be carried out by a stateless society.
 
Last edited:
Top