Educators ‘outraged’ after attorneys argue 1st-grade teacher shot in school is ‘workplace injury’
Educators ‘outraged’ after attorneys argue 1st-grade teacher shot in school is ‘workplace injury’
The Newport News Education Association President condemned the premise of the school division’s motion to dismiss Abigail Zwerner’s pending $40 million lawsuit.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/3089104
NEWPORT NEWS — The Newport News Education Association President condemned the premise of the school division’s motion to dismiss Abigail Zwerner’s pending $40 million lawsuit.
The motion was filed last week by attorneys representing the School Board and argues that Zwerner, who was shot in her classroom at Richneck Elementary in January by a 6-year-old student, is only entitled to file a worker’s compensation claim because the injury she sustained from the shooting is a “workplace injury,” and that the shooting was a hazard of the job.
You're viewing a single thread.
I mean... they have a point. In America, getting shot while teaching kindergarten is a hazard of the job.
So maybe, just maybe, it is a good idea to... give a shit about that?
While I understand the assholes are trying to get a lower payment, if this is a workplace hazard, then every teacher should sue for back hazard pay, violations on clearly showing it's a possibility and expectation to get shot, and I'm sure OSHA has something on providing proper PPE. It's a workplace hazard after all.
Honestly? Yeah.
If we aren't going to do anything about the completely out of control assault rifle epidemic in this country, we can at least use it as an excuse to pay teachers a living wage... and maybe get them some kevlar for the next time they dare to... read Clifford The Big Red Dog.
Permanently Deleted
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004. In the civilian context, an assault weapon is semiautomatic. Fully automatic weapons are, to put it lightly, uncommon among civilians so assault weapon refers to a variety of styles of semiautomatic firearm.
Those nra talking points also conveniently ignore that, ever increasingly, military doctrines are acknowledging that automatic fire in a rifle is largely pointless and should be avoided outside of very specific circumstances.
But hey. The biggest issue with kids and teachers being murdered is the terminology used.
Permanently Deleted
Why is what? Why did the ban expire? It had a sunset date and wasn't extended. Why are fully autos not popular? Combination of laws and practicality. Why are certain civilian semiauto rifles called assault weapons? Military has assault rifles, civilians use the broader term assault weapons to capture a broader category.
Why not go after handguns? NRA and their ilk keep blocking those efforts.
So... you wander into discussions of the continuing mass murder of children by nuts with guns. And your "contribution" is to... complain that people aren't showing proper deference to the arbitrary terminology used with firearms.
Do you actually think you are a good person? Or do you understand the kind of scum who would do that?
Consider this: not everyone familiar with firearms is a right wing lunatic. In fact, there is a surprisingly large and generally quite chunk of the population that is moderate to left leaning with various levels of support for civilian firearm ownership. If you go far enough left you find the people actually willing to fight for the good of the people and against tyranny (not like, "no step on snek tyranny, but more a long the lines of the black Panthers of old, or the current volunteers providing armed protection to lgbtq events in Texas, etc).
How would you suggest that such a person point out to you that you're using emotionally charged language to create a false dichotomy and ramble off blatant ad hominem attacks?
Here's something else to consider: the US government is bad at writing laws. If you want a great example, check the CAFE emissions standards. Using a chart that effectively allows bigger vehicles to get lower mileage has not resulted in manufactures making more fuel efficient vehicles, it's resulted in larger vehicles. This is why you can't buy a small pickup truck like the old ranger or s-10. So people are forced to buy larger vehicles (that use more resources to manufacture) that get worse mileage, and in turn actually increasing total fuel consumption. That's obviously really stupid if you think about it for a few minutes.
Most gun laws are equally as stupid and short sighted, but because the topic is more political and constantly in the news (even though the planet burning up is way more important, but I digress) it is debated more emotionally. In the example above if one doesn't take the time to understand general concepts about modern vehicles, legislation, and the various terms used to describe it, they won't have an educated opinion. An uneducated opinion is just noise.
This is relevant to firearms because most laws are feature restrictions of some kind. For example, banning a vertical foregrip. Defining what that is surprisingly tricky, and the government gets it wrong, or leaves loopholes, or has some other weird side effect. That's ignoring the fact that the purpose of a foregrip is to give the shooter better ergonomics and control. More control is safer and the odds of a shooter missing a target are reduced. So why would the government decide to ban something that is effectively a safety device while using incorrect jargon? Great question! Go ask the state of California, and new Jersey, etc.
At the end of the day, the only way to eliminate gun violence is to eliminate all guns. In the US that is logically impossible even if the constitution and will of the people is ignored. Calling something "assault" is as meaningless as cereal manufacturers saying a bowl of sugary carbs in milk is good for your heart.
If you are actively supporting "protection of firearms" as a "solution" to the widespread mass shooting and murdering of children: That is inherently a conservative position. I don't care how you feel about social justice or health care (actually, I kind of do since viewing human life as being less important than squeezing a trigger are diametrically opposed).
All aside from that: the bog standard NRA talking points are
- Get pissy that people aren't using the right terminology as a way to distract from those pesky dead crisis actors
- Insist that other people refuse to try to solve the actual problem... while actively refusing to engage with any proposed solutions
- Mock past laws for nonsensical loopholes while actively ignoring that those loopholes were largely put there by pro-gun/anti-life lobbyists
But: Hey, if you think banning assault weapons is not sufficient, I agree with you. Let's ban all guns. Pretty much all civilized countries do so. Like most conservatives, you are incapable of empathy. You think that because you refuse to ban any guns that doing a "gotcha" by arguing for even stronger bans is an argument. Rather than... you agreeing with me.
But, regardless: it takes a REAL ghoul to join a conversation about how death by firearms has become so prolific that it genuinely a workplace hazard for teachers with "Well, ackshually, the term for the kind of gun that almost killed this person is..."
I think you need to go re-read and do some research. I never suggested a solution to school shootings at all. If you want one it's simple: better quality of life overall, better quality education, and guaranteed social services of various kinds. This is quite straightforward.
Now, if you'll stop putting words in my mouth I'll give you one more try. Otherwise, it seems like it's you that's sticking to the talking points and not at all paying attention.
Yes, I know you never suggested a solution. I outright pointed that out as my second point. Sorry, would it be easier to understand if I had a show on NRAtv or whatever the fuck that nonsense is?
And apologies. How could I be so foolish as to not understand. The problem isn't the guns. The problem is that the world is not a utopia. So obviously we just need to throw more assault rifles at people until we live in one.
Jesus christ. Oh, sorry, that probably offended you. Jesus armed with dual glocks and an Ak strapped across his back. Silly me
Bruh. You're talking to an atheist socialist. I don't know how to be any more clear: your generic talking points literally don't make sense in any context, and certainly aren't a coherent response to anything I'm saying.
Many other modernized countries have the basic components that create a functional society. I'm not suggesting someone invent Star Trek replicators and magically solve all the problems. I'm saying the basic psychology that leads someone to commit atrocities almost always leads to a root cause that can be addressed at a macro level with the resources already available right now. We simply choose not to and allow the ultra wealthy to create an environment more and more conducive to enriching themselves further. This includes just about every piece of legislation that passes anywhere in the country - both for limiting and expanding firearm rights.
More guns surely isn't the answer either, they are already prolific. You couldn't get more even if you wanted. If you want to talk about realistic legislation a competence-based graduated ownership (or use, depending on how you define legal terms) permit addresses the vast majority of issues that both colors of koolaide drinkers ramble on about. In fact, we already do this with cars and motorcycless and airplanes and mining equipment and dangerous chemicals. It's not a difficult problem to solve. And yet, the actual legislation that is created to placate moderate liberals is always feature bans, and almost always only applies to new purchases instead of ownership or use.
You'd have to be an actual crypt dwelling sould eating ghoul to not acknowledge a realistic solution to the problem you are actively crying about, because that would mean you don't actually care at all and are just here for the drama and churn.
You can call yourself whatever you want. You are taking a strong conservative stance on gun control and, the fact that this is at the expense of children and teachers.. says a lot.
Again, other countries have had no problems getting rid of firearms. And there are ways to stage and phase things out. Rather than just waiting for the utopia to start while hoping parents buy kevlar and flak jackets for their teachers along with the spare markers.
Also: Again, if I were to think of a "ghoul" it would be someone who felt the need to rush into a discussion of how gun control might actually help with "You are a teacher. Getting shot is part of the job" with "BUT MY GUNS!!!!".
Nah, you know what, you can have "ghoul". Because the word for someone like that is on a whole different level.
Permanently Deleted
If you want to solve a problem you need to understand the problem, using terms like "assault rifle" when 97% of all gun violence uses hand-guns including school shootings shows you don't actually care about understanding the problem, let alone solve it.
So... you do think you are a good person. Wow
Also: Since you bring it up, pistols are bad too. So I would totally be happy banning all guns, if that makes you feel better. I am sure it does since you felt the need to point out how dangerous handguns are too.
No civilized nation has this many firearms in the hands of private civilians and, shockingly, no civilized nation has reached the point where we mix up which mass murder of children a given news story is talking about because so many happened last month.
We should just ban schools. That way school shooting won't happen.
I mean, republicans are trying to do that. Just look at florida
Short-barrel carbine ban doesn't have the same ring. I still think they should go as they really amount to nothing more than murder fantasy toys for grown boys.
Permanently Deleted
Like a sign that says "X days without shooting"?
Country wide? That sign comes with a permanent 0.
Each school. Country-wide a Mass shootings per day would be more effective.
I was thinking the same, the outrageous thing here is not the claim, but the fact that they do have a point.
getting shot in America is a hazard of just existing in that country...
I read a little more about it. They are saying that she was entitled to claim workman's comp, but refused to do so. She has thus far refused benefits to which she was/is entitled.
Their theory is that whatever damages are eventually assessed in this case should not include the benefits she is entitled to receive separate and apart from the case. This would be important if she is awarded triple damages, for example. They are effectively arguing that the medical bills shouldn't be tripled, even if every other claim is.
It's a technical point, but likely a solid one.
