UT appeals attack decision
School had no duty to protect student who was disabled, lawyer says
Read the story. it is sickening what was done to a vibrant young woman who had such potential.
OK, so if the school won't protect people on their premises, how about if they protect themselves?
No, sorry:
The university is committed to maintaining the safety and security of all persons on university property and during university activities and to maintain a safe and healthful working environment. Specific prohibited activities include:
Possession of firearms, explosives, or other lethal materials on university property or during university activities, unless the employee falls within certain categories of employees who must use weapons in the course of their employment (such as police officers, R.O.T.C. personnel, etc.)
Everybody's clear on their options here, right?
[Via RW]
4 comments:
Years ago I made the decision that I, and I alone, am responsible for my own safety. That's why, despite state law and company policy, I carry a concealed handgun whenever I have clothes on. I work in a facility filled with soft targets and high-value property, all guarded by one elderly unarmed man who serves primarily as a messenger boy when he's not chasing the homeless out of the lobby. Realizing that I AM on my own, I decided that I will have to ACT on my own.
I don't care if it's illegal.
It's too damn bad that the UT administration and the Board of Regents can't be sentenced to jail with Gann, for contempt of life.
This kind of thing isn't really new. Schools, as well as all the victim disarmament zones have been arguing this for some time. There was a school, in PA I think (been a while) that argued it had no legal responsibility to provide any kind of safety, and it couldn't be sued because of that at the same time it was going after someone for trying to protect themselves.
Did this case ever have national exposure on the "if it bleeds it leads" news? Where are the shrill voices of those looking for "common sense assault rock regulations?"
I can't seem to find the section in the rules there that gives the green light for this...trying to stay clean here, this ANIMAL, this subhuman piece of garbage who should have got a date with death for this, to possess a lethal weapon.
Any time that ANY school, business or other entity forbids law abiding citizens the ability to properly defend themselves by carrying proper tools for self-defense - like a gun - the entity should be COMPLETELY responsible for any harm that befalls anyone who is on the premises.
After all, if they post the premises as a "gun free zone," they shouls accept complete and total responsibility for the safety of whomever is there.
For example: How can a female student defend herself against a lunatic if denied the proper tools? Is she supposed to negotiate with him while he beats her sensless?
Obviously, this criminal had nothing to fear from her, and knew that no security personnel would intercede on her behalf.
Any entity that denies on the right to self protection should have to carry a liability policy about ten times the amount that the she hopes to gain.
Post a Comment