• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

UVA advises students to protect themselves?

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
maybe those "educated" people lack the common-sense to conceal.

Seriously, how many active shooters have to hit college campuses until they realize their policies aren't doing jack to stop them? Let me reference my signature below again:

"Last edited by nova; Today at 06:28 PM "?

Oh, that'll convince 'em for sure. :):p
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Biting tongue so as to not make the response this demands. :lol:

Well, there is a first time for everything.

But, wouldn't you really just sit on your hands or something to restrain from typing, as opposed to biting your tonuge? What? Do you type with your tongue? Eeww!

:):p
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Well, there is a first time for everything.

But, wouldn't you really just sit on your hands or something to restrain from typing, as opposed to biting your tonuge? What? Do you type with your tongue? Eeww!

:):p

Is that the best you can do with 3 hours lead time?

Rather surprised that you would acquiesce to something simply because it was your "first time." :lol:
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
In my opinion, the University has, by prohibiting self-defense, undertaken an affirmative obligation to defend the students. Anyone who is assaulted has a cause of action against the University. The standard rule that one has the duty to protect himself, and that the police and the state have no obligation to do so goes out the window when the state acts asparens patriae and prohibits self-defense.
 

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
In my opinion, the University has, by prohibiting self-defense, undertaken an affirmative obligation to defend the students. Anyone who is assaulted has a cause of action against the University. The standard rule that one has the duty to protect himself, and that the police and the state have no obligation to do so goes out the window when the state acts asparens patriae and prohibits self-defense.

Damn, I'd love to see someone run that up the flagpole. Sounds very solid.
 

Table

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
46
Location
VaBch, VA
In my opinion, the University has, by prohibiting self-defense, undertaken an affirmative obligation to defend the students. Anyone who is assaulted has a cause of action against the University. The standard rule that one has the duty to protect himself, and that the police and the state have no obligation to do so goes out the window when the state acts asparens patriae and prohibits self-defense.

Have they prohibited self-defense or only prohibiting more effective means of self-defense?

My question relates more to the public schools in Virginia Beach were the student code of conduct states: "Fighting: Students and school personnel are entitled to a school environment free from threat and the physical aggression of others. The following acts are prohibited: two or more parties striking each other for the purpose of causing bodily harm, threatening, incitement/instigation, physical abuse, gang activity, and bullying (repeated negative behavior that targets a specific victim.) A student who is assaulted and retaliates by hitting, kicking, or any other physical means, may be disciplined for fighting. [S. B. Reg. 5-36.1; 5-36.3; 5-37.1/Rule 14] "
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
A student who is assaulted and retaliates by hitting, kicking, or any other physical means, may be disciplined for fighting. [S. B. Reg. 5-36.1; 5-36.3; 5-37.1/Rule 14] "
Read: anyone who defends themselves will be summarily punished for effecting such defense.

:banghead:
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
Have they prohibited self-defense or only prohibiting more effective means of self-defense? A student who is assaulted and retaliates by hitting, kicking, or any other physical means, may be disciplined for fighting. [S. B. Reg. 5-36.1; 5-36.3; 5-37.1/Rule 14] "

I would never have imagined that an Institution of Higher Learning would have turned itself into a sheep farm. What lesson is that University trying to instill in its students?
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
Have they prohibited self-defense or only prohibiting more effective means of self-defense?...

I don't see a distinction between the two; prohibiting the means by which one might reasonably defend himself is the same as prohibiting self-defense. Sort of like the use of medical marijuana in Va. Perfectly legal in Virginia for a person to smoke dope pursuant to a physician's order OR prescription for the treatment of the symptoms of cancer or glaucoma; but it's still illegal to grow it, be in possession of it otherwise, and to sell it. So it's just plain flat out illegal to smoke dope, statutory exception notwithstanding. If you can't legally buy it, you can't legally smoke it.

As to the school regulation, I'm thinking two things: first, the key word is "retaliation", not "defense". Use of the word, "retaliation", suggests that the assault and/or battery is over and done with, and the victim chooses to renew the attack in the opposite direction. I don't have a problem with that rule. Secondly, as to "defense" - the regulation does not purport to prohibit an active defense, and the law of Virginia provides that every citizen has an absolute right and duty to defend himself under the common law (Hash's Case, 88 Va 172(1891) (overruled as to some technical aspects in Jackson's Case, 98 Va. 845(1900), but not as the point that the right of self-defense arises under the common law). So a localitity or municipal corporation cannot set up a regulation exceeding their power to do so under the charter or general law.

As to the U.Va. regulation, and others like it (U. Mary Washington, George Mason, etc.): there was an attempt to obviate the GMU regulation in a case filed in Fairfax a while back, but I believe that one went pretty much as I'd predicted, because it was a statutory declaratory judgment action. But I believe all such regulations are void, for the reasons I've stated above. If I were hired to defend someone arrested for having violated such a regulation, I'd make this argument a central part of the defense. And I'd really like to see a case in which someone is injured as a result of a state college's negligent failure to protect, having unlawfully prohibited the right of self defense, where the injured party wishes to sue the college under the Virginia Tort Claims Act.
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
Hmmmm......

As to the school regulation, I'm thinking two things: first, the key word is "retaliation", not "defense". Use of the word, "retaliation", suggests that the assault and/or battery is over and done with, and the victim chooses to renew the attack in the opposite direction. I don't have a problem with that rule.

I know that words have meanings, especially when written in rules, regulations and laws, and when there is ambiguity (as in this case), there is often a definition section that states what is meant by certain words. Here the word 'retaliation' should have been defined to mean what User inferred.

I would suggest however, that the way the rule is written connotes an immediate response, not an after-the-fact 'retaliation.' Some definitional clarity by the writers of the rule would have been helpful.
 
Last edited:

Table

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
46
Location
VaBch, VA
Average Dad, recommend you tell your kids that when hauled down to the office, clam up, don't say a word until you or their mother gets there.

What prompted this chp lurker to pipe in on this subj, was when my then 7th grade son, surrounded by bullies, threw punches and kicks to break out of the circle, ran to the gym teacher, brought to principal's office and told her what happened and how he got free. He was suspended.

Thanks User. Just one of the reasons I lurk here.
 
Top