Yea! Fuck those teachers for not thinking that being shot isn't just an expected risk of the job!
Man I fucking hate this lol
Murica gets more surreal (or others would say idiocratic) by the minute.
That's the biggest reason why I'm really concerned by climate change
A hazard of the job… wow
i still don't understand why we call teachers "educators" now, theres nothing wrong with "Teacher"?
I think it's a response to the new connotation of "teacher" (largely underpaid, unappreciated).
It's double speak. It's to dehumanize the profession. It's a known tactic by politicians. Teachers is comforting word. It evokes an emotional response of comfort. Educators is surgical. Cold.
Both are precise. But one makes the decision to make technical arguments without living in the emotional baggage. See friendly fire, hostile takeover, downsizing, relocation, etc.
I'm sorry... but what the fuck are people bitching about?
The parent of the child is facing 25 years. The child has a history of really fucked up shit - the parents are at fault. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66451768
To me this just reads that the school district is trying to get worker's comp insurance involved for them to pay for it. After all, what school district has $40,000,000 to give to workers who get shot? A district can't begin to imagine a 6 year old is going to bring a gun in anyway.
Don't get me wrong, it's fucking horrible that the teacher had this happen. It's fucking horrible that a parent teaches their child racist slurs (as this one used to refer to the teacher after shooting her), it's horrible that parents have guns within reach of children. There are SO MANY fucked up things here. I just don't understand how the school is the problem.
You're a peach. If the child had a history of violent behavior, and the school board never acted on any of it, and the student was allowed to continue attending class despite all the "fucked up shit" he did. Then the school board is absolutely liable.
It's a 6 year old. Even if a 6 year old is known for being violent or rough - do you expect there to be a firearm in their bag?
What circumstances does one expect a six year old to produce a firearm and shoot someone? As far as I can tell it has literally never happened before or since this single incident, period. Six year olds aren't really known to be the typical school shooter demographic, that's more of the angsty teen age.
I don't think it's reasonable for schools to conduct bag searches on kindergarteners or first graders. They shouldn't really expect to have metal detectors either.
If the US doesn't want to have metal detectors and bag searches.... then how about some gun regulations, to fix the actual problem? It's far too easy for Americans to get guns
There's a fervent following amongst the uneducated who worship them unfortunately, otherwise we would have some common sense regulation and remove a lot of needless deaths.
Virginia is definitely one of the states which leans heavily towards the worship part.
Man, I don't know how much you guys remember being in school, but stuff like random searches or going through a metal detector to go to school is a real authoritarian, dehumanizing thing when you're a child.
I'll walk you through this:
Kid has behavior issues (fucked up shit as you state it)
School fails to protect other students and staff by allowing the student to attend classes.
Kid shoots teacher.
Lawsuit
Any questions?
School fails to protect other students and staff by allowing the student to attend classes.
Can a school reasonably ban a 6 year old from attending classes whom has never pulled a gun before?
The 14th amendment allows for equal rights of all citizens. The moment Virginia established a public school system for all citizens this child was protected by this right for a public education without discrimination. It's very difficult to remove a child permanently from public schools. I didn't see expulsion or suspension mentioned in either of the articles I read.
The only argument i'm seeing is that "the child should not have been allowed at school".... but at the same time it's a constitutional right for them to be in school.
Any questions?
This would not be held to preclude suspending or expelling a kid who's a demonstrable safety risk.
So your contention is that a child should be allowed to remain at school until they pull a gun? All behaviour up to attempted murder should be tolerated. Gotcha, understood, thank fuck I went to school 30 years ago where school shootings weren't a "reasonable expectation". This child has been failed by everyone in their home and community, just like every other mentally disturbed child who shoots up their school. You do know there are schools for dis-regulated children right? You don't have to expose every other child and teacher to them.
A Virginia first-grade school teacher who was shot in her classroom by a 6-year-old student filed a $40 million lawsuit against her school district, alleging administrators were told the boy brought a gun to school prior to the shooting and "had a history of random violence,” yet did nothing to stop him from harming her.
Are you going to say that a 6 year old bringing a gun to school should be protected by the 2nd Amendment next? It would be less of a reach than quoting the 14th to be honest.
If you are going to take the argument that "preceding events should have caused expulsion" please provide references otherwise the argument is a lot of hot air. "Acts of random violence" in this case probably doesn't involve more than a kid having tantrums. If the kid stabbed a classmate or did something truly violent you can be sure something would have been done and it would have made the news.
No one is saying that kids should be bringing guns to school. No one even IMAGINES a six year old bringing one in!
They knew the child had a gun and did nothing. That's the lawsuit, full stop. Keep digging.
From previous articles, the student should never have even been allowed to be in a position to shoot her (not that any student should, but this student was flying red flags and the district knew and ignored them).
Also, if I recall my understanding of workers comp law, if you have a "workplace injury" you cannot legally sue the district. If she is allowed to sue, which she should be able to, she can claim that they were negligent. I'd imagine some sort of liability insurance would kick in. If it falls under workplace injury, she can only ask for them to cover her medical bills, and they can also force her to start going to their shitty workman's comp doctors for any further care she needs.