PDA

View Full Version : Princeton sucks


MrBig
07-09-2008, 9:20 PM
Hi, this is MrBig

I was inspired by the supreme court ruling to finally register on this forum. I have been lurking for a long time hehe.

Anyways I noticed a CNN article talking about how Princeton like banned guns from their own cops...........

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/osha.guns/index.html?iref=newssearch

dfletcher
07-09-2008, 9:55 PM
Smart of them to advertise that sort of thing. Will anyone be surprised if the next campus shooting occurs in Princeton? Hopefully Cherry Hill has armed cops that can respond.

jacques
07-09-2008, 10:35 PM
A step in the wrong direction.

24thMED
07-09-2008, 10:48 PM
Sad...

"For some colleges and universities, the right policy is to arm their public safety officers, but we believe that would not be the right policy for Princeton, at least for now," Princeton spokeswoman Cass Cliatt said.

I guess they need to have somebody get killed before they will take any action...

Tombstone Safety...

yellowfin
07-09-2008, 11:18 PM
This from supposedly intelligent people. Remind me never to go to a doctor they graduate from these classes- with this as an indication I'd likely get a toe amputated as an attempted cure for hair loss.

dfletcher
07-10-2008, 8:11 AM
Sad...

"For some colleges and universities, the right policy is to arm their public safety officers, but we believe that would not be the right policy for Princeton, at least for now," Princeton spokeswoman Cass Cliatt said.

I guess they need to have somebody get killed before they will take any action...

Tombstone Safety...

I think in general the protection public officials have from lawsuits is a great benefit - I don't want a broken down motorist to be able to successfully sue a state trooper because he left her to chase a speeder and she was later injured or hurt waiting for a tow truck on the side of the road. Or for Citizen A to sue the Fire Dept because his house burned down while they were enroute. And let's face it, having as a legal basis that LE is not responsible to protect an individual makes stronger our case for self protection. But it seems to me that there ought to be some standard to hold these people legally responsible for their actions in certain circumstances.

For example: I apply for and am denied a CCW. My stated reason is "I want one to protect myself" (which should be good enough in my book) but I have no specific threat based reason. If I'm denied and later end up mugged and dead, I can see the LE who denied it not being held legally liable.

But let's say I'm an ex - wife, I have a TRO against the ex - husband and have filed a report or two that he's threatening me. I apply for and am denied a CCW and the ex attacks & injures me. Shouldn't the LE who denied the CCW be legally (civilly of course) liable? Should there be, or is there, some level of responsibility between that of the average citizen and the near immunity some public officials are granted?

24thMED
07-10-2008, 11:15 AM
I think in general the protection public officials have from lawsuits is a great benefit - I don't want a broken down motorist to be able to successfully sue a state trooper because he left her to chase a speeder and she was later injured or hurt waiting for a tow truck on the side of the road. Or for Citizen A to sue the Fire Dept because his house burned down while they were enroute. And let's face it, having as a legal basis that LE is not responsible to protect an individual makes stronger our case for self protection. But it seems to me that there ought to be some standard to hold these people legally responsible for their actions in certain circumstances.

For example: I apply for and am denied a CCW. My stated reason is "I want one to protect myself" (which should be good enough in my book) but I have no specific threat based reason. If I'm denied and later end up mugged and dead, I can see the LE who denied it not being held legally liable.

But let's say I'm an ex - wife, I have a TRO against the ex - husband and have filed a report or two that he's threatening me. I apply for and am denied a CCW and the ex attacks & injures me. Shouldn't the LE who denied the CCW be legally (civilly of course) liable? Should there be, or is there, some level of responsibility between that of the average citizen and the near immunity some public officials are granted?

While I sort of agree with you my comments were not aimed at liability or responsibility but more to the elitist view portrayed in the comment. It is our policy does not really give me a warm and fuzzy. If I was paying the kind of tuition Princeton charges, I would expect a little something in return. Especially if I was not allowed, by policy and law, to protect myself. If there is a situation where a public safety officer is needed for more than a parking ticket, I would like to know that he has the upper hand or equal hand in a situation. How many times have you walked/driven by an unarmed security gaurd and wondered what he/she would do if confronted by someone who is armed. What could they do? At that point, they become a victim instead of a paid witness, which, bottom line, is their role.

By them having a policy not to arm their officers, IMO, it shows an elitist attitude that it can never happen here... That can get people hurt. An ounce of prevention...

Also, if they are not capable of providing that level of security, why are they there? The Chief of campus security for San Francisco State resigned because he wanted to arm his officers and could not get the administration to change the "no guns" policy.

If they are not responsible for providing safety on their campus as the police are not liable from providing citizens with a certain level of safety, then who is ultimately responsible for your safety? Well, you are of course but we all know where that argument goes...

As far as holding an LE responsible for denying a CCW to a person who had clear cause as in your last example, why not take it a step further and make parole board members responsible for letting a felon out early if he commits another crime? Recidivism rates aside, making a parole board member finish a sentence for a parolee that commits another crime may make them think twice before letting someone out to do it again...

Of course, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong...

dfletcher
07-10-2008, 11:31 AM
I agree with you - it is elitist. I suppose I've given up on curbing their elitism, would like to see people held responsible. They can be elitist and minus a few million dollars.

Guntech
07-10-2008, 1:53 PM
Yeah they are going to have to call in the PD two counties over when a shooting happens and it will take them an hour to get there by than how many will be dead? hmm I guess we will find out

jacques
07-10-2008, 1:54 PM
Isn't Ajaxx or Dedeye going off to Princeton?

Codelphious
07-10-2008, 9:53 PM
At least it's fair.

If students can't carry guns, neither should the police. I think it is a step in the right direction. Sometimes you have to turn the lights off for some people to see the room is a hazard, know what I mean?

Here's a likely headline for a CCW student:
"STUDENT SAVES LIVES, SHOOTS GUN MAN WHILE POLICE FLEE"


Here's the follow up:
"HERO STUDENT EXPELLED - VIOLATED NO GUN RULE"

MrBig
07-10-2008, 10:00 PM
At least it's fair.

If students can't carry guns, neither should the police. I think it is a step in the right direction. Sometimes you have to turn the lights off for some people to believe the room is a hazard, know what I mean?

Here's a likely headline for a CCW student:
"STUDENT SAVES LIVES, SHOOTS GUN MAN WHILE POLICE FLEE"


Here's the follow up:
"HERO STUDENT EXPELLED - VIOLATED NO GUN RULE"

Yep but over there you cannot be armed at all. Also I doubt any kid going to school would arm themselves due to the ever so dominate domesticated life style. It will sound good that a student defends him or herself but I would find that unlikely only until they get the right.

This is where I later try to understand why can schools make such crappy laws even at private where they get their own cops.... It is like saying the land is private property but the dean of the school has loyal guards for his agenda hehe. Now the guy just disarmed his guards and serve as a model of a gun free paradise.