If these students were in housing ON campus I could possibly see the actions. But these students were in OFF campus housing owned by the school. Therefore the university would have a duty to provide security to that housing as they do for on campus dorms. Seeing that they don't, I feel the students have a valid defense of having some form of protection from the criminal element that mean to do them harm.
-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
Gonzaga University How Important Is Following The Rules?
- Thread starter Smoke
- Start date
Got a legal precedent for that?
SgtLumpy
Member
What about those martial arts guys who are "required to register their hands as lethal weapons". I think they shouldn't be allowed to bring their hands to the dorms.
Sgt Lumpy
Sgt Lumpy
You just gave me the BEST IDEA EVER next time I hear that I'm going to ask to see the registration card
They were both "right." The University has a policy. Private school - they can do what they want (and suffer the consequences, whatever they are). Same for the kids. Do what they want, if they get kicked out, it's their problem. No lawyers needed either way.
Right now,those two kids look smart and the school looks foolish.The school's in a bind.They lose face whether they punish them or not.I hope the media stays on this story.
Just to be clear IMO the best outcome would be for the school to say "This is a dumb rule and we're scrapping it." but if they do what about anyone they kicked out before? Do they have standing to come back and say we want back in and we want this off our record?
deadin
US Veteran
Not at all. But I am a supporter of obeying rules or accepting the results of not obeying them. (i.e. No using the excuse that the rule is unfair and therefore there should be no repercussions for ignoring it.)
venomballistics
Member
we both know theres no legal precedent ... but there sure is a moral one.
You seem to side with the rules set forth by academia.
I probably would be right along side you if I didn't have first hand knowledge of just how fatally flawed they are.
For a time I was the head hash slinger in the UW system.
being an extension, the campus didn't have it's own PD or security as would larger institutions.
despite the lack of security resources, the admin figured it would be a great idea to provide grants and scholarships to some fresh out of prison thugs, thinking they could reform them through opportunity...
Well .. giving them a leg up towards getting it together and becoming a productive member of society would not be a bad idea at all .... if it worked that way.
I was just finishing the days duties, turning off the lights before heading home, when I heard a knock at the back door.
When I opened that door, I looked down at a brutally beaten puddle of young, half naked lady.
she was so ravaged that it took me a little while to recognize that this shattered pile at my feet, was a student that I saw nearly every day.
It was not the rule makers, nor admin officials who found a table cloth to put around her, nor was it the dean who drove her to the ER.
It was me, the only one she had left on her short list of people who she thought could help her.
I was a cook, not a cop, and not someone appointed to authority in these matters, but the students came to me when they lost faith in the schools admin.
Her attacker went back to prison on rape and drug charges ... while she was expelled.
Admin hates a black eye, and freely toss anyone under the bus who show their faults.
and this is why I can't find it in me to stand with you in support of following school policy.
they are not half as bright as they degree themselves to be
finesse_r
Member
Since I do value being allowed to post on this site, I will not tell you what I think of the concept known as "precedent."
OK, if I understand you, what you are saying is you have no issue with them defending themselves, but with their protesting being punished for violating the rule? Am I correct in my assumption?
My problem is that the university didn't protect them against the homeless felon. The university had the colossal chutzpah to deprive the students of their means of self-defense without providing for it themselves. Once that character showed up past the university's [non-existent] defenses, everything they do is wrong, and they have nothing to complain about. The university is completely in the wrong. The students merely did what they knew they had to do in the face of the abandonment by the university of its responsibility. They were right to ignore the university's rules because they already knew that the u was not doing its job.
Who would have paid damages if they had been robbed or raped or killed? To whom?
the ringo kid
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 20,895
- Reaction score
- 22,820
Im lucky I guess because the university I went to---allowed guns in housing BUT--had to be kept locked up at the Housing Directors office. However, every one I knew==ignored that rule keeping them in their dorms. I did as well. Nobody ever had any probs of any kind with anyone who had them. I had 4 in my dorm.
Last edited:
venomballistics
Member
No one
Academia is quite adept at dodging responsibility.
I feel they should be charged with aiding and abetting.
Consequences for policies should not be brought to bear against the students alone
OK, same motivation with you, just curious as to where your thinking is.
We have legal precedents that clearly establish property ownership does not give you the right to violate others civil rights. Anti-Discrimination Laws, Fair Housing Laws etc. I think this principle is clear.
We also have legal precedent that the Courts view individual property/business rights differently than they do corporate rights. I'm thinking of exceptions to worker's comp laws, affirmative action etc.
All the above is a secondary point, but my question to you is does the fact a rule is unconstitutional invalidate it?
It's an interesting and complex issue to me. I get your thoughts on if you are man enough to ignore it, you have to be man enough to deal with the reaction. The other side of the coin is the rule is unconstitutional.
carpriver
US Veteran
They did what they did, they now want a pass for violating the rules they agreed too. Man up take the punishment for violating the rule.
Please see my last post, it addressed this. Thanks.
gdnagle
US Veteran
Aren't rules and laws made to be broken. Lets see there is a law not to exceed the posted speed limit, stop fully for a stop sign, reckless driving, leaving X amount of space between your vehicle and the vehicle in front of you per X amount of MPH, failure to avoid a accident, after you had one of course, no drinking while driving anything, illegal parking don't take outside food into a move, etc, etc. Laws against carrying a concealed weapon without a permit as gang bangers do. These are either laws or rules.
Everyone in their life time have broken how many laws, or rules, just like you. So everyone should be bared from living just because they broke the law or rules just like you have broken laws weather intentionally or from lack of knowledge of a law. Remember Ignorance of the law is no excuse. These guy's broke the rule and it might have saved their lives. No problem from me even if it were my property, they might even have save the campus a law suite from not having a secure place for students to live if they were assaulted or killed.
I've broken traffic laws my driving record could prove that from when I was a teen, and I drive 5mph over the limit as they don't bother you for it around here. It's still breaking the law.
So what's the point to this rant? Well more people are killed by vehicles then firearms. Why then is it that only firearm infractions are made a bigger deal about then everything else. You are still breaking a law or rule. Firearms are listed under the Constitution motor vehicles are not.
I'm assuming you have never broke any rule or law or am I wrong because I only remember one person that walked on water and even he broke some laws.
CAJUNLAWYER
Member
Well, I'd rather be defending my son for breaking the no gun rule than suing the university after I buried him because they didn't guarantee his safety. The student broke the rule and must suffer the consequences pure and simple. I'd much rather have an expelled safe child than a dead one with a large money judgment and an " I told you so". I break rules all the time-before I do I weigh the consequence of getting caught vs the benefit gained by breaking the rule and make a value decision. I also understand that I live with the consequences. I'll never tell someone to break a rule-but what I decide to do is my business and nobody elses. I'm a big boy and I'll take any licks that I have to.
It be what it be
It be what it be
Last edited:
