Indiana School Arming Staff

[SassyIrishLass]

Sounds like a well thought out plan.

Shelby County school district arming staff members as part of safety plan

SHELBY COUNTY, Ind. — Some staff members at Shelby Eastern Schools will have access to guns in the school buildings as part of a new school safety plan. Last week, the district rolled out new safet…

fox59.com

 

[fncceo]

I'm guessing the students will be more polite.

 

[pknopp]

I have zero issues with a teacher arming themselves if they so choose to do so. I see that as their Constitutional right. The issue I have here..................We see case after case after case of someone shooting up a school with a long history of mental health issues. People say after the fact they knew that person had issues.

How do we decide to address that? By arming people. People seem to prefer shoot outs in schools as opposed to addressing the mental health issues of the country.

 

[fncceo]

People say after the fact they knew that person had issues.

You can't address it. You cannot involuntarily commit someone, even with a history of violent mental health behavior for more than a few weeks.

There are violent, crazy, people out on the streets and nothing can be done about that.

All police or government can do is fill out the paperwork after they do something.

 

[candycorn]

Terrible idea. The same folks you don't trust to teach your kids anything are the folks you want to have a gun in close proximity to your kids.

Right wing logic is non-existent.

 

[pknopp]

You can't address it. You cannot involuntarily commit someone, even with a history of violent mental health behavior for more than a few weeks.

There are violent, crazy, people out on the streets and nothing can be done about that.

All police or government can do is fill out the paperwork after they do something.

I disagree. Lets take the case of James Holmes. His therapist told authorities he threatened her. She told authorities he was going to harm someone. Now threats in a situation like that are actionable. Authorities did nothing.

 

[fncceo]

Now threats in a situation like that are actionable.

Making a threat to kill IS a crime. But, in order to be charged, the threat has to pass the reasonable person test (a "reasonable person" would believe the threat was a declaration of intent) and the person must have imminent opportunity of making good on that threat. However, if a person making the threat does has a history of mental health issues and even a history of assaults, they won't be charged, they will be taken to a mental health clinician to determine of that threat is imminent. In most cases, they are released without charge five minutes after seeing the clinician.

If you attempt to charge them, the very low likelihood of a conviction on that offense will make sure the prosecutors will withdraw the charge nolle prosequi.

 

[pknopp]

Making a threat to kill IS a crime. But, in order to be charged, the threat has to pass the reasonable person test (a "reasonable person" would believe the threat was a declaration of intent) and the person must have imminent opportunity of making good on that threat.

He was sitting across from her when he made the threat.

However, if a person making the threat does has a history of mental health issues and even a history of assaults, they won't be charged, they will be taken to a mental health clinician to determine of that threat is imminent. In most cases, they are released without charge five minutes after seeing the clinician.

If you attempt to charge them, the very low likelihood of a conviction on that offense will make sure the prosecutors will withdraw the charge nolle prosequi.

I was told that if you make a threat over the phone, little can be done. If you go to someone's home and make a threat you will be arrested and charged. The authorities did nothing in the case I noted.

 

[fncceo]

I was told that if you make a threat over the phone, little can be done.

That is true. It doesn't meet the requirement that the threat be imminent.

 

[TNHarley]

I have zero issues with a teacher arming themselves if they so choose to do so. I see that as their Constitutional right. The issue I have here..................We see case after case after case of someone shooting up a school with a long history of mental health issues. People say after the fact they knew that person had issues.

How do we decide to address that? By arming people. People seem to prefer shoot outs in schools as opposed to addressing the mental health issues of the country.

How do you address that, though?

 

[pknopp]

That is true. It doesn't meet the requirement that the threat be imminent.

And not what was done with nothing being addressed by the authorities.

 

[fncceo]

He was sitting across from her when he made the threat.

If someone makes that threat, and you don't immediately report it to police. Then you cannot later claim that you believed the threat was real and you believed it was imminent.

In cases of family violence, you can get a civil restraining order if the threat was made in the past. But, for a criminal charge, you have to immediately call 911 if you ever hope to get a prosecution.

 

[pknopp]

How do you address that, though?

Here is my position. We can not determine that until we are willing to address it. Sadly it seems no one is.

The guy made an actionable threat. There is no reason why he couldn't be arrested, brought before a judge with his therapist there and a judge making a determination about a mental health hold.

 

[pknopp]

If someone makes that threat, and you don't immediately report it to police. Then you cannot later claim that you believed the threat was real and you believed it was imminent.

She did immediately report it.

In cases of family violence, you can get a civil restraining order if the threat was made in the past. But, for a criminal charge, you have to immediately call 911 if you ever hope to get a prosec

She told the authorities. It wasn't an after the fact thing.

 

[pknopp]

CENTENNIAL, Colo. (AP) — New questions confronted the University of Colorado, Denver on Friday amid disclosures that a psychiatrist who treated theater shooting suspect James Holmes had warned campus police a month before the deadly assault that Holmes was dangerous and had homicidal thoughts.

Court documents made public Thursday revealed Dr. Lynne Fenton also told a campus police officer in June that the shooting suspect had threatened and intimidated her.

Documents: Psychiatrist warned James Holmes was dangerous

 

[TNHarley]

Here is my position. We can not determine that until we are willing to address it. Sadly it seems no one is.

The guy made an actionable threat. There is no reason why he couldn't be arrested, brought before a judge with his therapist there and a judge making a determination about a mental health hold.

I do agree that mental health is the main problem, and addressing it is the obvious best option. But then comes up the issue of peoples natural, human and constitutional rights.
So, someone says something crazy and they obviously meant it. They broke the law, they get arrested. They get out, then what?

 

[fncceo]

The guy made an actionable threat. There is no reason why he couldn't be arrested, brought before a judge with his therapist there and a judge making a determination about a mental health hold.

Two completely different kinds of law here. A judge cannot rule on a criminal charge unless that charge was brought by police (or a prosecutor).

For a mental health hold, which is civil law, a judge will make a determination only based on the evidence given by an independent authority. If they do make a mental health hold, it will only be for a few weeks at most. Most are a lot shorter. Long term psychiatric institutionalization is a thing of the past. You can blame Jack Nicholson for that.

 

[pknopp]

I do agree that mental health is the main problem, and addressing it is the obvious best option. But then comes up the issue of peoples natural, human and constitutional rights.
So, someone says something crazy and they obviously meant it. They broke the law, they get arrested. They get out, then what?

That can't be answered unless we know what getting out all entails.

 

[fncceo]

She did immediately report it.



She told the authorities. It wasn't an after the fact thing.

If she did, was there evidence? Or was it a "he said, she said" report? You can't prosecute a threat without proof or witnesses. It isn't easy to prosecute someone for making threats.

That is why they've made it much easier to get a restraining order. They don't need to be proved like criminal charges. If you go before a judge, in some cases you just need to speak to a registrar, you can get an order almost immediately. That order will typically prohibit that person from speaking to you an ANY way. If they violate that order just by saying "Have a Nice Day", they get charged with a crime.

 

[pknopp]

Two completely different kinds of law here. A judge cannot rule on a criminal charge unless that charge was brought by police (or a prosecutor).

It's like continuing to slam your hand in a car door. He isn't before the judge unless the police acted upon her complaint and brought him there.

For a mental health hold, which is civil law, a judge will make a determination only based on the evidence given by an independent authority. If they do make a mental health hold, it will only be for a few weeks at most. Most are a lot shorter. Long term psychiatric institutionalization is a thing of the past. You can blame Jack Nicholson for that.

That doesn't mean that is how it always must be. John Hinckley was held for a very long time.