There is no general duty for any citizen to protect any other person. There are exceptions like LEOs, your kids, spouse, etc., but an armed teacher will not have such a duty under current law. No "litigious attorney" is going to file suit where no cause of action exists. However, if the teacher said they would protect his/her students and didn't, then a cause of action would exist.lonewolf wrote:In taking a little more time and reviewing this in my little ol' noggin, another thing comes to mind. As a CHL holder, I don't consider myself a body guard, a security guard, or a law enforcement officer. Keeping that thought, if there were an incident and a child was injured/killed, I can easily see some litiginous happy attorney filing suit because the CHL did not protect the child. My reckoning is that while a CHL holder can be justified in using such force in defense of others, he/she is under no obligation to do so. This whole thing could get real sticky, real fast. Make no mistake, I am in favor of allowing licensed CHL holders to carry in public institutions where they are employed, but there has to be an understanding that they are not security guards, nor on any "response team" (my quotes), or anything of that nature.
If I were the teacher and an incident was taking place at my school, I would do whatever possible to protect my students and myself. Lock the door. Barricade the door. Take cover. Establish communications with the outside world. Be a good witness. I would not go out roaming the halls looking for trouble.
That said, if my kids were still school age, I would expect their teachers to jump on a grenade to save them. If they didn't, getting sued would be the least of their worries. I would do that for any of the kids in my student Bible study class. Some things you do simply because it's right, not because the law requires it.
Chas.