Gun Related News/Control

[purbeast]

Just now, Long n Left said:

Having trouble understanding the tag line: “The problem with Jon Stewart.”

 

Is it that he uses logic, and verifiable statistics to point out the raging hypocrisy within the gop when it comes to their gun nuttery? 
 

Just throwing **** against the wall here.

It's the name of the TV show.

[Larry]

33 minutes ago, Long n Left said:

Having trouble understanding the tag line: “The problem with Jon Stewart.”

 

That's the name of his show.  

[Long n Left]

Thanks. Have not watched it. Always liked him on The Daily Show, I’ll check it out.

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, Long n Left said:

Thanks. Have not watched it. Always liked him on The Daily Show, I’ll check it out.

It's actually The Problem with Jon Stewar.

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[EmirOfShmo]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[Long n Left]

7 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

It's actually The Problem with Jon Stewar.

Thanks for pointing that out. Completely changed my da.

[China]

Educators ‘outraged’ after attorneys argue 1st-grade teacher shot in school is ‘workplace injury’

 

The Newport News Education Association President condemned the premise of the school division’s motion to dismiss Abigail Zwerner’s pending $40 million lawsuit.

 

The motion was filed last week by attorneys representing the School Board and argues that Zwerner, who was shot in her classroom at Richneck Elementary in January by a 6-year-old student, is only entitled to file a worker’s compensation claim because the injury she sustained from the shooting is a “workplace injury,” and that the shooting was a hazard of the job.

 

James Graves, the president of the Newport News teachers union, says that argument is “ridiculous.”

 

“This is not military, this is not the police department. This is an education system,” Graves said in an interview Wednesday.

 

In a Facebook statement posted Tuesday, Graves said, “These lawyers have started a significant hurricane in our district by saying that being shot is part of what teachers signed up for.”

Such statements, he said, are “a slap in our faces.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

[tshile]

Makes sense. School shootings have been a thing for 30 years. Districts have active shooter drills. Local police have response plans for them. Armed police officers are stationed as SROs.  Of everything they’ve been the biggest target and the most discussed. 
 

You can’t possibly be a teacher and not know this. 

[Larry]

Just now, tshile said:

Makes sense. School shootings have been a thing for 30 years. Districts have active shooter drills. Local police have response plans for them. Armed police officers are stationed as SROs.  Of everything they’ve been the biggest target and the most discussed. 
 

You can’t possibly be a teacher and not know this. 

 

A teacher.  

Pizza delivery.  

Uber driver.  

Wrong address.  

 

[tshile]

Just now, Larry said:

 

A teacher.  

Pizza delivery.  

Uber driver.  

Wrong address.  

 

 

 

right so which places have drills, are the ones most often targeted for mass shootings, etc

 

why is a school liable unless there’s negligence involved. 
 

Sounds like people wanting to take a social/political issue out on someone with no say in any of it, and clearly demonstrable evidence they are aware of it and they do what they can about it. 
 

they’re starting to ban backpacks and metal detectors are growing in usage. 
 

schools are who we want to blame for this? How ridiculous. 

[Larry]

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

schools are who we want to blame for this? How ridiculous. 

Blame?  Or have a problem with simply declaring themselves blameless?

[tshile]

Their arguments is it’s a workplace injury. 
 

I think their argument makes sense. Which means nothing about whether it holds up or not in court. 
 

That’s the matter at hand

 

your response was to cite other contexts where people are victims of gun crime. And now you’re trying to act like you’re cleverly drawing a line between blame and blameless. 
 

What’s the argument it’s not a workplace injury given what I said? How is it not obvious that being shot in a classroom is an inherent risk to being a teacher these days?
 

I don’t know if negligence matters with insurance or law when it comes to workplace injury, and the other side isn’t arguing real negligence (their argument is they should have expected a misbehaving 6 year old was the brink of shooting someone which seems absurd), but I’m not trying to defend this as an out when true negligence is involved. As far as I know this isn’t the case here. 

Edited May 4, 2023 by tshile

[Larry]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

your response was to cite other contexts where people are victims of gun crime.

It seemed the appropriate response to a post which consisted of pointing out that it happened at work. 

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, Larry said:

It seemed the appropriate response to a post which consisted of pointing out that it happened at work. 

Well. Here’s another way of thinking about it, if you read my original post:

one of these things is not like the other

one of these things just doesn’t belong

 

youve posted 3 times and not once address any substance of the issue. 
 

im genuinely curious what the argument against the idea is. 
 

“it’s not a police department” or “this is absurd” aren’t really arguments. 

Edited May 4, 2023 by tshile

[LadySkinsFan]

Gun deaths every day sometimes in multiples. This is outrageous and must stop. 

[Jabbyrwock]

18 minutes ago, tshile said:

im genuinely curious what the argument against the idea is. 

 

I just want to make sure I am clear about your argument abstraction: if a person is aware a workplace may have a hazard, and if that hazard is trained for, then that person accepts any liability that goes above workmans comp for accepting a job at that workplace.  Would this be an accurate representation of your position?

[tshile]

13 minutes ago, Jabbyrwock said:

 

I just want to make sure I am clear about your argument abstraction: if a person is aware a workplace may have a hazard, and if that hazard is trained for, then that person accepts any liability that goes above workmans comp for accepting a job at that workplace.  Would this be an accurate representation of your position?

well. It’s not my argument or position. It’s the lawyers for the school. I just think it makes sense and am curious what the counter is to it. 
 

and no, “this is absurd” or whatever else the Union president said doesn’t really do much to provide a counter argument. 
 

But generally my understanding was that if there’s an inherent risk to something, you accept that by being there. If there was a tornado would they sue the school? Or a fire? These are things they prepare for. 
 

Unless there’s negligence - something they shouldn’t have done and know that based on the fact this is a real and obvious threat. 

[Jabbyrwock]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

well. It’s not my argument or position. It’s the lawyers for the school. I just think it makes sense and am curious what the counter is to it. 
 

and no, “this is absurd” or whatever else the Union president said doesn’t really do much to provide a counter argument. 
 

But generally my understanding was that if there’s an inherent risk to something, you accept that by being there. If there was a tornado would they sue the school? Or a fire? These are things they prepare for. 
 

Unless there’s negligence - something they shouldn’t have done and know that based on the fact this is a real and obvious threat. 

So Im not a lawyer...this is just my understanding.

 

First, there are "special" personal injury case instances, like sexual harrassment.  In that case everyone is aware its a workplace hazard, there is training everywhere for it, and when it happens the employer is very definitely liable beyond workmans comp.

 

For more standard cases, I think its not so easy as a yes or no, tho.  The employer is required by OSHA as part of their duty of care to provide workplaces free from generally accepted hazards.  So that means it goes beyond just saying "Hey we got a huge hole in the ground out back try not to fall in it".  The employer must take reasonable steps to ensure you dont fall in it (e.g. "dont fall in the big hole moron") signs.  For a personal injury case, you have to show the employer didnt take reasonable steps to ameliorate the hazard.

 

So for this case: did the child have violent tendencies that were reported and not acted on? Are there any protective measures to ensure guns arent entering the school?  Etc...

 

I dont just think saying "you know that falling in deep holes hurts, and we did tell you about the deep hole out back, so the fact you fell in the hole is not our problem" meets the duty of care requirement.  The employer has to take reasonable protective steps...and thats gonna be case by case.

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, Jabbyrwock said:

So for this case: did the child have violent tendencies that were reported and not acted on? Are there any protective measures to ensure guns arent entering the school?  Etc...

 

I dont just think saying "you know that falling in deep holes hurts, and we did tell you about the deep hole out back, so the fact you fell in the hole is not our problem" meets the duty of care requirement.  The employer has to take reasonable protective steps...and thats gonna be case by case.

well. That’s negligence. 
 

for example - they knew the locks were broken on doors and didn’t fix them. 
 

so far all I’ve seen is an accusation that the behavior of a 6 year old should have been a warning this would occur. 
 

Unless they didn’t follow their established progressive discipline model with him, what sort of absurd argument is that?

 

if the school did everything right - ran their drills, preached gun safety (which at that age is basically “find a gun, don’t touch it, tell an adult” and anti bullying/violence stuff, had an sro, etc - and didn’t do anything wrong, why are they to blame?

 

isn’t it common discussion that teachers are out at unnecessary risk by the current gun culture? Don’t teachers have rallies and stuff about it?

 

it seems like people desperately want someone to blame and punish, and I do too, but unless they actually did something wrong I don’t understand the suit. 
 

If they were suing the parents I’d totally get it. But I bet the parents don’t have multiple millions to fork over in a settlement. 

[Jabbyrwock]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

if the school did everything right - ran their drills, preached gun safety (which at that age is basically “find a gun, don’t touch it, tell an adult” and anti bullying/violence stuff, had an sro, etc - and didn’t do anything wrong, why are they to blame?

 

They arent to blame.  If they did everything right.  The teacher will try to prove she thinks they didnt, they'll try to prove they did, and the chips will fall.  As I said case by case...and I'm not gonna claim I know anywhere near enough details in this case to pick a side.

 

On a side note, for known hazards one of the duties of care for employers is providing ppe.  I know this from 25 years of Beryllium worker training.  So if its a known hazard, did the school provide proper ppe ( e.g. bullet proof vest ).

[tshile]

11 minutes ago, Jabbyrwock said:

 

They arent to blame.  If they did everything right.  The teacher will try to prove she thinks they didnt, they'll try to prove they did, and the chips will fall.  As I said case by case...and I'm not gonna claim I know anywhere near enough details in this case to pick a side.

 

On a side note, for known hazards one of the duties of care for employers is providing ppe.  I know this from 25 years of Beryllium worker training.  So if its a known hazard, did the school provide proper ppe ( e.g. bullet proof vest ).

well if they take that turn and are successful I’ll be curious if that means vests become required by schools. I’m ok with the idea as a concept but I understand the cost and I’m wondering what that does to the learning environment. But at least that’s an argument. 
 

so far the only allegation is that his behavior should have triggered them to … do something to prevent the shooting, I’m not aware what actions she’s claiming they should have done. 
 

the schools lawyers saying this is a workplace injury situation

 

and the president of the union declaring it’s absurd because they’re not a police department or an army

 

working with those three points, unless there’s something I’m missing about the allegation and responses, what’s the argument it’s not a workplace injury?

 

I’ve outlined why, given what we know, the argument makes some sense. So what’s the argument, given what we know, that it doesn’t?

[Jabbyrwock]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

well if they take that turn and are successful I’ll be curious if that means vests become required by schools. I’m ok with the idea as a concept but I understand the cost and I’m wondering what that does to the learning environment. But at least that’s an argument. 
 

so far the only allegation is that his behavior should have triggered them to … do something to prevent the shooting, I’m not aware what actions she’s claiming they should have done. 
 

the schools lawyers saying this is a workplace injury situation

 

and the president of the union declaring it’s absurd because they’re not a police department or an army

 

working with those three points, unless there’s something I’m missing about the allegation and responses, what’s the argument it’s not a workplace injury?

 

I’ve outlined why, given what we know, the argument makes some sense. So what’s the argument, given what we know, that it doesn’t?

 

(A) Bullets randomly flying around is a known hazard at the workplace.

 

(B) No ppe was supplied for that hazard, though ppe exists (I presume she wasnt given a vest or a taser etc...)

 

This is why drawing contrasts with police isnt completely absurd: they are provided with ppe.

 

Again...I am just drawing parallels from the chemical/nuclear hazard exposure stuff I am aware of.  Also dont know details: lawyers statements in the public square rarely dig into the nitty gritty of the situation.  I was just trying to give a perspective.

[tshile]

A successful argument that ppe should have been provided would certainly be interesting. 
 

I don’t believe she’s arguing that, at all, but I’m not following it all closely enough to know for sure. The article didn’t point it out. And I don’t believe the one it linked to about filing the suite mentioned it either. 
 

so I think your idea is interesting but I don’t think it’s part of what we know, and is just you making up a random arguement. I give it as much sway as “maybe the locks were broken and they knew it for 6 months and didn’t fix them” - yeah that’s real negligence but I don’t believe anyone’s accusing them of that so…