If we were discussing the aftermath of a shooting incident, and a lack of planning/preparation that resulted in substantive legal/financial loss, that would be a valid statement.RossA wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:08 pmInsurance and legal liability are always issues. But only to those who have survived a shooting. The first goal is to survive. Everything else is secondary.rotor wrote:I understand the need but what does the church's insurance say about setting up security forces? I see tremendous liability problems in these situations once it is an organized church sponsored security force. I am not against it but I wonder about the legal issues and whether an attorney has been consulted. Real police if there is a suit are covered by the police force (taxpayer). Church though? Individuals in that security force? Who pays the legal bills if there is a shooting? There is another post running now about a woman who killed a BG that was trying to kill a cop. She is now being sued in civil court. Tough decisions. I wish that there was some kind of good samaritan law to protect the good guys.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but the purpose of planning and discussion is to mitigate the risks in a forseen situation. If the sum total of the planning discussion months or years before a critical incident is, "kill the bad guy!", the critical failure is not the entry of an aggressor into the protected zone, but the sequelae of handling that entry.
Ok, we effectively stop a bad guy, but the family of the BG files a civil action and the denomination drops the congregation because they failed to take reasonable efforts to reduce legal liability and the pastor and senior staff lose everything (as they will following the advice of Bubba Gump). This assumes that no innocent people were injured, directly as a result of inadequate/improper training, resulting in criminal liability.
What have we, "protected"? The church is bankrupt, the congregation is most likely highly divided because of the incompetence involved, and several people are irreparably impacted. I cannot define that as success, when proper prior planning would have prevented most of the potential negative consequences. Taking the lowest common denominator as our highest goal should not ever be considered success, in the application of lethal force.