C-Mag wrote: ↑Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:29 pm
brewster wrote: ↑Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:23 pm
Don't you think this issue is really about the line between
providing security and
guaranteeing security?
No.
In the Parkland case, it was reasonable to assume that an armed Broward County Police Officer at the site of violence at a school, where he was stationed. React to protect the children in the school. He did not, he hid, took care of his own safety, ensuring he went home at night.
Further, I would submit it is irresponsible of parents to turn their kids over to a school who is not responsible for taking care of the safety of that child. If I turned my kids over to a hobo in the street who seemed like a nice guy and was going to teach my kids things I could have my kids taken away.
But you're addressing the last part of my post that you snipped. The Deputy
did malfunction. So there's an argument for his liability. But lets say he did not, died doing his job, and the kids died anyway. We can conclude the security
as designed was inadequate. But do we really want to create incentives for schools to create foolproof 100% security? Can you imagine what that would look like? Take TSA and ramp it up 10x. As a society we don't do that, and freedom lovers like everyone here would say it's the 1st step to a general police state.
We accept the risk of houses, cars, guns, skiing, whatever. Statistically your teen is safer in school than in their car. You're safer in a plane than in your car. Basically you're safer anywhere but in your car, but everyone drives and feels like they're in control. It's the lack of the perception of personal control that drives people buggy about planes, schools, whatever.
We are only accustomed to dealing with like twenty online personas at a time so when we only have about ten people some people have to be strawmanned in order to advance our same relative go nowhere nonsense positions. -TheReal_ND
