The SSC curriculum doesn't espouse the teachers as being assaulters searching/clearing the school. Rather it teaches the Avoid/Deny/Defend methodology created by ALERRT. The Avoid is to get the students away from the threat if a viable exit exists; the Deny is techniques to delay or prevent the threat from entering a barricaded room; the Defend is techniques to use whatever weapon is available, be it a firearm or weapons of opportunity to engage the threat, with an eye on mitigating risk to non-threats/innocent third parties. So, under these circumstances unless the defender acted recklessly I wouldn't imagine any greater liability that anyone else.Ruark wrote:Another aspect of this would be the actual job description of the volunteer. Remember, actual active shooters in schools don't happen every day. 99.99% of these guys would spend 99.99% of their time doing... what? Sitting in the front office playing Solitaire on a computer? Standing in the hallway waiting for a maniac to walk through the door?
Also, I'm not sure how reliable "volunteers" would be, if they weren't paid. Would they show up every day? Take the afternoon off for a doctor's appointment?
I'm not being negative here... I think it's a great idea. But I tend to subject things to scrutiny. I know we have volunteers in church, but that's just for an hour on Sunday mornings. What we're talking about here is a totally different matter.
I can see some legal issues pertaining to teachers with this training, as well. Say you're a teacher with a CHL and you got this training, etc. A maniac steps into a classroom down the hall from you and starts slaughtering children with an AR. Will you be REQUIRED to pull out your Glock and go down there, lay your life on the line and face him? Would there be consequences if you didn't? I mean, hey, you signed up for it, you volunteered to "get special training to protect our children." So would you just stand there and let them be slaughtered, or go protect them? You get my drift here...
Again, it's a viable idea; the challenge, as always, would be its implementation.
Under this methodology, if the coach in Florida had his handgun (or anyone else who would have been legally armed & came into contact with the wack job), the outcome may have been drastically different.
Now regarding the issue of inconsistent participation, that would be a scheduling issue that perhaps the School Resource Officer could wrangle.
Regarding Charles' proposed legislation, I'm thinking it could include a Subsection regarding liability, recklessness, negligence, & no public duty for teachers & volunteers.
ETA: Not that I think there's anything wrong with the way the current Texas statutes are written; they are already pretty comprehensive in my mind regarding liability as long as you're not provoking/reckless/negligence/etc.