Purdue Professors Reportedly Intentionally Endanger Students During Shooting

[John Galt]

There currently is a bill in the Indiana House, HB 1018, that fixes this. HB 1017 even gives businesses/employers liability protection for allowing CC. We have the tools in place, so I challenge INGO members to melt the phone lines to the Statehouse to get these bills heard. ESPECIALLY given the revelation of the actions by Purdue authorities!

 

[brotherbill3]

Not an Indiana Case - but probably relevant - & I don't have the link handy - BUT:

in the VA Tech case that went to the VA State Supreme Court: the university had no 'obligation to protect students from 3rd party' very similar to SCOTUS ruling on police protection. ...

Thanks for the info Kirk. will be shared. - hopefully we can get the GFZ's on (public) campuses removed

 

[Bunnykid68]

There currently is a bill in the Indiana House, HB 1018, that fixes this. HB 1017 even gives businesses/employers liability protection for allowing CC. We have the tools in place, so I challenge INGO members to melt the phone lines to the Statehouse to get these bills heard. ESPECIALLY given the revelation of the actions by Purdue authorities!

This^^^^ I have shared this a few times on FB already shortly after finding out about the shooting.

 

[bingley]

hopefully we can get the GFZ's on (public) campuses removed

I'm going off on a tangent here, but I am guessing the shooting at Purdue is pre-meditated, targeted murder. Gun policy probably wouldn't have made a difference. It's not like the shooter picked a gun free zone to do mass shooting. He just needed to find the guy he was angry at. If it wasn't Purdue, it could have been the supermarket, the victim's home, on the street, etc. If someone is stalking and hunting you, a carried handgun is better than nothing, but you're still in grave danger. He's out for your life. He's not keeping you alive because he wants something from you (robbery). He could just snipe you as you leave your home for work in the morning. How do you guard against that?

 

[brotherbill3]

I'm going off on a tangent here, but I am guessing the shooting at Purdue is pre-meditated, targeted murder. Gun policy probably wouldn't have made a difference. It's not like the shooter picked a gun free zone to do mass shooting. He just needed to find the guy he was angry at. If it wasn't Purdue, it could have been the supermarket, the victim's home, on the street, etc. If someone is stalking and hunting you, a carried handgun is better than nothing, but you're still in grave danger. He's out for your life. He's not keeping you alive because he wants something from you (robbery). He could just snipe you as you leave your home for work in the morning. How do you guard against that?

Thus far, it sound like the murder at P.U. was just that you describe pre-meditated; but how do you know the policy wouldn't have (or couldn't have) made a difference? do we only carry in hope, against the fear of it, that we can stop a mass shooting? I know I do not; If the decedant (I will mess up names)had been allowed to carry and he see's a person who, may have priorly threatened him, come in w/ a gun threatening him, who is to say he couldn't have defended himself. ... he wasn't given the chance really.

guns are the 'ultimate answer'; there is NO GUARANTY in life; but the GFZ only (ONLY!) prevents the law abiding from having a means to defend themselves - or those around them ... Were these the only 2 in the room? Don't know; how many shots? I don't know. what's to say a 3rd party couldn't have stopped it. There are always what if's ...

PU has claimed the right (or responsibilty) to protect by banning the tools for individuals to do so; yet they have neither legal obligation nor realistic means to do so for 'individuals' - only for 'society as a whole' ... just like any ohter police or group.

 

[Mark 1911]

Since Chief Cox opposes campus carry, then the responsibility for preventing these tragedies is his by default. If he fails to prevent tragedies that occur as a result of the policies he supports as he just did, then he has failed in his self-assumed role to keep every student, teacher, and visitor to Purdue safe and free from harm. He should resign.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

There currently is a bill in the Indiana House, HB 1018, that fixes this. HB 1017 even gives businesses/employers liability protection for allowing CC. We have the tools in place, so I challenge INGO members to melt the phone lines to the Statehouse to get these bills heard. ESPECIALLY given the revelation of the actions by Purdue authorities!

1018 is about smoking... and 1017 is about wine. What are you talking about?

Edit: Found it... just... not sure why it comes up both ways http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2014/bills/house/1018/

 

[cobber]

No logical basis for that statement.

RE blue text: My point is that the students are still operating on the "all authority is still held in the head of the class room" paradigm, and both professors and the university are taking advantage of that. This is one of those unintended consequences of boxing children in, literally, under the guise of providing an education. When are we teaching are children-to-young people HOW to think for themselves and be responsible for themselves if even well into the age of majority, we keep telling them that they are subordinate to the education system? aren't learning independence in schools. We know this because they can't exhibit any when the opportunity arises.

Please... no logical basis?

People who follow rules tend to follow rules. Those who don't, not so much.

Do you think a student who would be cowed by a prof is nevertheless likely to carry concealed in contravention of uni regs?

I would assume that those who don't give a d*mn what the prof says are more likely to also not give a d*mn what the university policy is, be it concerning guns, drugs or mandatory nap time.

Re the blue text, when parties arrogate responsibilities unto themselves, when they fail to exercise those responsibilities they should be liable for their negligence. All the more so since the university is a state actor.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I've made a couple of entries on the Indianapolis and Purdue subreddits regarding the HB1017 and 1018.

Just FYI.

 

[Cameramonkey]

My comment on the story...

Students need to realize that THEY are responsible for their own safety. Professor won't lock the door and turn off the lights per protocol. Big freaking deal. Get off your lazy butt, lock the door and turn off the light by yourself. Put your big boy or girl pants on and do what is necessary.

These young adults are still conditioned to think like kids and follow adult leadership. What you are suggesting is not gonna happen. And we have precedent in this incident. There is a report of one Prof who actually reversed this; they opened and propped the door that somebody closed as a (weak) attempt to try to follow the school policy of shelter in place. They didnt go all out and barracade the door, but they at least tried a meek attempt to do what they were told insomuch that they thought they could get away with without looking like a freak to their peers or being insubordinate to the prof.

How did the professors "make" the students stay? The last time I checked, college is not high school. Students can choose to attend class or party the whole day. Unless the professors said something like, "I will fail you if you leave," then they have no responsibility.

Also, what's stopping the students from locking the classroom doors? What's the professor gonna do, take points off on the final?

Ultimately you're responsible for your own safety. Wouldn't you think you'd know more about keeping yourself safe than people who spent their whole life in the books, none of which is about safety from active shooters?

Once again, Professor's class, Prof's rules. He/she is in charge and they make it well known. Much like many of us, these kids dont want to be that test case... the case of "Prof, Im following what the School, your boss, is telling us to do. Go ahead and try to hurt my grade for leaving or disrupting class by PROPERLY sheltering in place. I'll see you in the Dean's office."

This actually reminds me of the World Trade officials who told everybody the 9/11 incident was no big deal and to go back to their floors as there was no need to evacuate. Luckilly this time the profs lucked out and just by happenstance they were correct. Given VA Tech, Columbine, etc odds are they were not and were setting up their kids for a massacre. That is unless they knew what the shooters intentions were ahead of time.

I'm going off on a tangent here, but I am guessing the shooting at Purdue is pre-meditated, targeted murder. Gun policy probably wouldn't have made a difference. It's not like the shooter picked a gun free zone to do mass shooting. He just needed to find the guy he was angry at. If it wasn't Purdue, it could have been the supermarket, the victim's home, on the street, etc. If someone is stalking and hunting you, a carried handgun is better than nothing, but you're still in grave danger. He's out for your life. He's not keeping you alive because he wants something from you (robbery). He could just snipe you as you leave your home for work in the morning. How do you guard against that?

This is very relevant. While a change wouldnt have helped this young man, it does illustrate quite clearly the point that a "no guns" rule does absolutely nothing to protect students. But then again, Im preaching to the choir.

 

[hornadylnl]

So we're upset that the media is treating this as a "school shooting" and we're upset the professors didn't.

 

[bingley]

Please... no logical basis?

Logical basis is strictly forbidden on the internet. Please take it outside the internet, wherever that is.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

So we're upset that the media is treating this as a "school shooting" and we're upset the professors didn't.

Professors should treat it as a potential spree killing, which can occur anywhere.

Media use "school shooting" because it's a catchy buzzphrase that assists in the agenda.

 

[jamil]

So we're upset that the media is treating this as a "school shooting" and we're upset the professors didn't.

Maybe some people are upset about that. It seems that the reason for this thread is that the OP is upset that the campus chief made statements such that he and campus policy will protect people. That claim seems dubious if the university staff don't practice the policy. If the claims about the professors is true, I can't say I can disagree with that.

 

[Kart29]

This reminds me of the authorities that told me I should stay home after a recent snow storm and not venture out in public. I don't have all of the information but I can clearly see how for some classrooms to lock their doors and turn off the lights and cower in hiding would be a bit overly dramatic. Call me a fool if you will but I would just as soon let college professors run their classrooms as they deem most prudent under the specific situations as they occur. If the students don't like it they can take whatever course of action they think is most reasonable for their own safety.

Of course, we should never waste a good tragedy and if we can use this incident as a way to advance an objective then by all means go for it. Afterall, the left does it all the time so why not?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

This reminds me of the authorities that told me I should stay home after a recent snow storm and not venture out in public. I don't have all of the information but I can clearly see how for some classrooms to lock their doors and turn off the lights and cower in hiding would be a bit overly dramatic. Call me a fool if you will but I would just as soon let college professors run their classrooms as they deem most prudent under the specific situations as they occur. If the students don't like it they can take whatever course of action they think is most reasonable for their own safety.
Of course, we should never waste a good tragedy and if we can use this incident as a way to advance an objective then by all means go for it. Afterall, the left does it all the time so why not?

No, they can't... I'm sure they would face punishment or resistance.

And we aren't advancing anything. "Shelter in place" is something that's been around, and I don't think it's on anyone's agenda. It has arguments for and against it, and it's not a party-line thing.

The problem here is the professors made light of the potential situation, and students felt uncomfortable or scared due to it.

Edit: Also, sometimes there actually is a wrong and right. Armed protection at schools is "right". No protection at schools is "wrong"

I don't need to get political to say that this is how it should be.

 

[hornadylnl]

This reminds me of the authorities that told me I should stay home after a recent snow storm and not venture out in public. I don't have all of the information but I can clearly see how for some classrooms to lock their doors and turn off the lights and cower in hiding would be a bit overly dramatic. Call me a fool if you will but I would just as soon let college professors run their classrooms as they deem most prudent under the specific situations as they occur. If the students don't like it they can take whatever course of action they think is most reasonable for their own safety.

Of course, we should never waste a good tragedy and if we can use this incident as a way to advance an objective then by all means go for it. Afterall, the left does it all the time so why not?

Amazing that the narrative is that these students are poor helpless souls disarmed by a university and are powerless to do anything about it. So the tragedy is that we must allow campus carry.

 

[hornadylnl]

Maybe some people are upset about that. It seems that the reason for this thread is that the OP is upset that the campus chief made statements such that he and campus policy will protect people. That claim seems dubious if the university staff don't practice the policy. If the claims about the professors is true, I can't say I can disagree with that.

Is this a dubious claim?

It's been established that the police have no duty to protect. So what legal basis can we argue that a university or professor does?

 

[88GT]

I think one point stands up and shows itself loud and clear in this incident. Universities are in the business of educating and preparing people for jobs, NOT security. They may be among the best in the country at cranking out Engineers and Scientists, but they SUCK at security. And why should they? If we're in charge of our own safety - and you truly are - then the only way to do that is to allow us to protect ourselves. Stop holding our education over our heads and allow us to protect ourselves!

If that is so obvious, why do students and the universities themselves continue to operate as if student safety wer a priority for the university?

 

[RockofStrength]

This reminds me of the authorities that told me I should stay home after a recent snow storm and not venture out in public. I don't have all of the information but I can clearly see how for some classrooms to lock their doors and turn off the lights and cower in hiding would be a bit overly dramatic. Call me a fool if you will but I would just as soon let college professors run their classrooms as they deem most prudent under the specific situations as they occur. If the students don't like it they can take whatever course of action they think is most reasonable for their own safety.

Of course, we should never waste a good tragedy and if we can use this incident as a way to advance an objective then by all means go for it. Afterall, the left does it all the time so why not?

Well, except for actually defending themselves with a real weapon...