High School Teacher In California Injures Student After Accidentally Discharging Weapon In Class

Photo courtesy of the St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office via Wikimedia Commons

In a story that is likely to resonate in the national debate over President Donald Trump’s push to get teacher’s armed in school, a teacher at Seaside High School in Sand City, Ca. injured a student when his gun discharged in a class.  Even more embarrassing is that the class was on gun safety.


Dennis Alexander, a reserve police officer for the Sand City Police Department and a Seaside councilman, has been named as the responsible teacher by the Monterey County Herald.  

The class was on the administration of justice class. I am a bit surprised that gun safety is part of the class, though I think it is important to have such classes in areas with a large number of guns.

The student was hit by flying debris after the round hit the ceiling and was not reportedly seriously injured.

We have previously discussed such cases of negligence.  Obviously the student can sue for negligence.  Moreover, since this is an official part of the class, the school can be liable under principles of respondeat superior.  This is within the scope of his employment.

A high school teacher in Northern California accidentally fired a gun inside a classroom Tuesday afternoon and injured at least one student.

The Mercury News reported that Dennis Alexander, a reserve police officer for Sand City, had been providing safety instructions at Seaside High School when he accidentally fired a single shot from a semi-automatic handgun into the ceiling, police said.

A student was hit in the neck by debris after the bullet ricocheted off the ceiling, but was not seriously injured, police said.

The incident was brought under control and classes resumed, but an investigation is ongoing, the Monterey County Herald reported.

“We’re looking into any violation violation of city ordinance or the penal code and we’ll determine whether or not there are any applicable charges

130 thoughts on “High School Teacher In California Injures Student After Accidentally Discharging Weapon In Class”

  1. My thesis was not wrong! The armed guard was ordered to stand down. The horo coach had a gun, at home. Get real if that armed guard had used his gun the gunman wouldn’t even be in the courtroom today. When I show up on Election day to vote there is a armed police officer present. What’s he ( or she ) there for window dressing. We have been pushing gun control since the day John Kennedy was murdered. How’s it working? If you want to protect our children, then have to protect the children.

  2. @Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter , March 14, 2018 at 11:44 PM
    “Fascinating study! Thank you for posting it!”

    People who are serious about understanding and preventing mass shootings should, in addition to availing themselves of the empirical data concerning gun violence as a subset of violent crime, look at the evidence implicating psychotropic drugs consumed by many mass murderers, including the German co-pilot who deliberately crashed his passenger jet after locking out the pilot from the cockpit.

    Psychiatrist Peter Breggin, M.D. has been an expert witness in several successful suits against pharmaceutical companies whose psychotropic drugs had been taken by patients who subsequently went on homicidal rampages and/or committed suicide:

  3. @Vanns40, March 14, 2018 at 11:16 AM
    “Exactly what will they ‘get done’? Basically disarm a population? That’s just a wonderful idea. Let’s take a look at our violent crime rates – oh dear, they’ve been going down for the last 15 years while the private ownership of firearms has been skyrocketing.”

    Strongly supporting your contention, someone commenting here in JT’s forum back in 2016 called attention to the seminal study, by Dr. Gary Mauser, of the violent crime rates in the US vs those in Wales, the UK, Australia, and Canada, countries in which gun ownership had become severely restricted:

    “The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales


    “Widely televised firearm murders in many countries during the 20th Century have spurred politicians to introduce restrictive gun laws. The politicians then promise that the new restrictions will reduce criminal violence and ―create a safer society.

    “It is time to pause and ask if gun laws actually do reduce criminal violence. Gun laws must be demonstrated to cut violent crime or gun control is no more than a hollow promise. What makes gun control so compelling for many is the belief that violent crime is driven by the availability of guns and, more importantly, that criminal violence in general may be reduced by limiting access to firearms.

    “In this study, I examine crime trends in Commonwealth countries that have recently introduced firearm regulations: i.e., Great Britain, Australia, and Canada. The widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to examine trends in total violent crime, not just firearms crime. [emphasis added]

    “Since firearms are only a small fraction of criminal violence, the public would not be safer if the new law could reduce firearm violence, but had no effect on total criminal violence. The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for assessing crime rates because the criminal justice system there differs so drastically from those in Europe and the Commonwealth.

    “Not only are criminal penalties typically more severe in the United States, often much more severe, but also conviction and incarceration rates are usually much higher. Perhaps the most striking difference is that qualified citizens in the United States can carry concealed handguns for self-defence.

    “During the past few decades, more than 25 states in the United States passed laws allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. In 2003, there are 35 states where citizens can get such a permit.

    “The upshot is that violent crime rates, and homicide rates in particular, have been falling in the United States. The drop in the American crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world. In 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s. [emphasis added]

    “This contrast should provoke thinking people to wonder what happened in those countries where they introduced increasingly restrictive firearm laws.”


  4. What we need are more gun free zones. That way we’ll all be safe. Seriously, I do think teachers should be “allowed” to carry, as long as they have proper training. If for example a teacher does not feel comfortable carrying a concealed firearm, then they shouldn’t carry one. But to go forward with this ludicrous idea that schools should be gun free zones is absolutely crazy. These cowards only go after easy prey.

    1. “These cowards only go for easy prey.”
      I’m pretty sure the school in Florida had an armed security guard. Thus not easy prey by your own definition. Your thesis is wrong.

      90+% of bank robberies are solved. With odds so stacked against them, why do people still rob banks?

      I’m sorry, your thesis completely falls flat.

  5. So the guy’s a Phrickin idiot and we should ban guns & chainsaws as well!

    So we should just give up all our rights!

    Yea Right, Cannons first just like soon many of your ungrateful ignorant Azzholes.

  6. Trifecta – reserve police officer, teacher with a weapon, AND the bloody class topic was gun safety.

    First of all, this is why you keep your finger out of the trigger guard unless you want to shoot something.

    Why would gun safety be part of an administration of justice class? You have gun safety classes at the range, and your weapon is pointed down range.

    Here we have another series of unfortunate events.

    An air marshal doesn’t take out his gun and show it to the passengers. It is only supposed to come into play if there is an emergency. Although I have my reservations on armed teachers, Trump is not proposing gun classes in high school with live fire. He was suggesting more of an air marshal program, where you would not know which, if any, teachers were armed backup.

    I have my doubts about armed teachers. I would only consider it for honorably discharged military or former police (which didn’t prevent this guy from making a bad decision.) Personally, I favor visible armed officers at schools as a deterrent. I don’t know how feasible it is, but it would be nice if local schools were on the cops’ beat. Rotate cops on school duty, and have them on-site.

    Clearly, a disproportionate number of this generation is violently bananas, and ether joining Antifa or shooting up schools. We had to harden up airports and banks, so I don’t understand the pushback at doing the same for schools. I absolutely do understand the debate about what that armed security looks like – teachers, volunteers, police, etc.

    1. Logic doesn’t apply here. People who shoot up schools don’t make rational decisions.

  7. I would favor raising the age to purchase firearms, as well as tobacco and booze, to 25. Voting should be restored to age 21. It is well known that the brain continues to develop until the age of 25: moreover, young adults are not nearly as mature and responsible as they were a few generations ago. Most young adults are still emotional adolescents and dependent on their parents well into their early to mid 20s. The vote was lowered to 18 due to the Vietnam draft, but we no longer have a draft. If you choose to join the military, it is strictly voluntary. The amount of death and destruction caused by teens and young adults getting their hands on booze would not be eliminated, but could be significantly reduced, if the “drinking age” were increased to 25.

    1. TIN – anything over age 18 would violate the Constitution. Since you are part of the militia at 18 you need to be fully armed. Raising it violates your Constitutional Right and Duty to be part of the militia.

      1. Are you suggesting the right to bear arms is tied to the militia? I mean, that is what the 2nd amendment says. Just wondering?

        1. Paul – what I am saying is that raising it over 18 violates that part about the militia. I am not concerned about self-defense at this point.

    2. TIN, since when did an age limit stop college students from drinking? I use college students because they are supposedly better brought up. My kids were not strictly prevented from drinking and were permitted wine at dinner at times even in restaurants where it supposedly was not permitted. They seldom drank and learned restraint while with their parents so when they were away at school or left home the doors to the bars didn’t suddenly open. My kids remarked that the students that were the worst drinkers were the ones that were forbidden to drink and never drank at home.

      Family values are needed whether it has to do with drinking, guns or anything else.

    3. Tin – you cannot summarily remove anyone’s Constitutional rights due to age. When you are a legal adult, you have all of your Constitutional rights. Otherwise, they could say you can’t vote until you are 40 because you lack wisdom.

      They need to pick one age of majority.

      It’s strange how we cobble this together – one age for when you can join the military and die for your country, shooting firearms, and get married, one age to buy alcohol, one age to buy guns, and one age to rent a car.

  8. Those who can: do. Those who can’t: teach. Those who can’t teach: teach teachers. We need an oiutsider to teach these teachers.

    1. This is one of the most idiotic cliches in American history. Perhaps you just weren’t fortunate enough to have extraordinary teachers

      1. Lemon is almost right: “…those who can’t teach…” isn’t the most idiotic cliche. “There’s two sides to every story” is.

  9. Teacher shoots her foot, elementary student pulls the trigger of visiting cops gun while it is in the holster, and now cop/teacher shoots the ceiling. More guns in the classroom. What could possibly go wrong?

  10. God willing, this is the century that does away with the American gun fetish once and for all. Yes, have a gun to hunt and one to protect your family if you need to and want to. But it’s become a toxic sickness. A constitutional amendment that re-defines 2A for the 21st C is what’s needed.

    Baby boomers are between the ages of 54 and 72. Most of us will be gone by mid-century. But the kids marching today all over the country about gun violence? This is THEIR century. Their still young and inexperienced. But so were we all. And I believe they are going to get it done.

    1. Exactly what will they “get done”? Basically disarm a population? That’s just a wonderful idea. Let’s take a look at our violent crime rates – oh dear, they’ve been going down for the last 15 years while the private ownership of firearms has been skyrocketing. What’s been happening in European countries? Unbelievable increases in acid attacks, rapes AND, oops, terrorist attacks using trucks and cars. 89 killed and 200 injured with a rental truck but, heck, they didn’t use a gun so you don’t care do you? I’m sorry, did I miss your demonstration against pressure cookers after that attack? No? Oh, that didn’t bother you either? So, it appears that you really don’t care about the number of people killed or injured just the weapon used! Ya know what they call that, a hypocrite!

        1. The highest number of gun deaths especially among the young occurs in the inner cities. Most of those guns are illegally held. How does the law you wish to pass alter that scenario?

          1. If those guns are illegally held, then police can take them away. That’s the whole idea of giving police that tool. But the NRA wants to let gangsters conceal & carry! How stupid can you get??

            1. Peter, we have courts that decide who is and who isn’t a gangster. Guns can be taken away from criminals and those with mental problems. It is the left that stops the police from stop, question, and frisk so that illegal guns can be removed and the policeman can protect himself and society for at least a short period of time.

        2. No, you hit someone who intensely dislikes those who blindly want change with no regard to the facts or the repercussions of what they’re proposing. Care to do some research, beyond Liberal talking points, feel free to return and I’ll be happy to continue.

      1. Disarm a population? I realize a few may be calling for that. But the vast majority want better background checks, a waiting period, and an end to guns that have no purpose other than a means of firing bullets as fast as possible in the general direction the gun is pointed at. Want to protect yourself at home? use a shot gun, the AR-15 is as likely to kill your neighbor across the street as the intruder.

        When Australia got rid of AR-15 type guns I am pretty sure the country neither became a crime infested swamp, nor a government controlled dictatorship. I am pretty sure by many standards, Australia is considered a freer society than the U.S. is.

        1. If the Democrats stopped politicizing these things and started to talk sensibly without attempting to destroy the second amendment I think there could be a lot of agreement, but first, one has to actually recognize what the problem is before one can find a solution. One also has to look at the benefits of gun ownership and what happens when gun ownership is restricted. In other words. if one got rid of the AR 15 would that end killing or would the AR simply be replaced by another weapon?

            1. “Where are guns mentioned?”

              “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

              Paul, Before you respond with the typical sound bite answer I urge you to read the history pertaining to a militia and the right to bear arms. That would mean some understanding of the debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

              1. I did’t see a Mention of guns. So by arms are you inferring a right to have a gun? A muzzle loading musket per 1786 America? Or do want to update the wording to modern usage and include stinger missiles?

                1. What’s going to happen in the not-too-distant future when improved technology makes firearms 1,000 more destructive than the framers of the constitution could ever have imagined? Maybe that’s already happened. Something has to give on this issue.

                2. Paul – I have always taken the position that a law-abiding citizen can own the same armament the police or armed forces can (if they can afford it). However, the Supreme Court does not agree with me, but I think they are wrong.

                1. There was no need to quote the entire 2nd amendment. It is readily available on the net. You “did’t see a Mention of guns.” That is your primary argument. I guess you didn’t take my advice about reading a bit of history and the arguments between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

                  You realize, of course, that what you are trying to do is treat the Constitution like toilet paper and make it disposable. There is a way to change the 2nd amendment and that is:

                  “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress….”

                  1. I know, I’m just an idiot. But here is the full text of the 2nd amendment “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” I see a single sentence, and I don’t see the word “guns”.

                    And thank you for the history lesson. I was not aware the constitution could be amended. Your point being?

                    1. There’s nothing in the first amendment about using your mouth for free speech. Should free speech only be allowed with sign language?

                      Also “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
                      Yes, it is a single sentence but there is the use of comma’s. One can trunkate the sentence to read much like “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.” and “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Much like the sentence, “I need apples, oranges and grapes.” Can be broken down to “I need apples”. etc.
                      If it was written as “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms to create a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.” You would have a point.

                    2. I am glad to have helped you, Paul, with your education. Jim22 below was busy educating you about punctuation and how that affects the meaning of sentences. I don’t even think that is necessary, but it is of great value. Apparently, you didn’t bother reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist arguments and what the 2nd amendment was attempting to do nor did you bother to look at the nation’s history respecting the 2nd amendment.

                      It comes down to one thing, whether a person is willing to set aside their ideology and live under the Constitution or they would rather set aside the Constitution and live under their ideology. You seem to have chosen the latter which not only appears to be set by your ideology but also your indignation.

                      I pointed out the amendment process for that is where an indignant person can effectuate change while still placing the Constitution ahead of their ideology. After all the Preamble to the Constitution says “promote the general welfare”. If we wish to use your knife to cut up our Constitution then we never needed to write anything other than those three words because they mean whatever you want them to mean. That, of course, was not the purpose of the Constitution which listed what government was permitted to do in order to limit the power of the federal government.

        2. Australia doesn’t have blacks, and does not allow the immigration of Muslims. Demographics matter.

          1. TIN – Australia does have a black indigenous population that they have suppressed.

            1. Which is apparently just fine by the quotes of a number of people on this blog. How sad.

        3. Paul

          Your problem is, that Australia was never a crime infested swamp. Because Australia is mostly white people. Here is a link where you can check out the numbers:


          But, we don’t live in Australia. We live in America, which has about a 12% Black population. Which group, commits over half of our crimes and over half of our murders. Many of our cities have a higher number of murders than the entire nation of Australia. Because of blacks.

          Baltimore, for example, had 343 murders in 2017. That is more than the yearly total for all of Australia for over the past 12 years or so.

          If I lived in Australia, I might not feel the need for an AK47. But I don’t. I live in a city that is 55% black, and getting worse every year.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. So if we incarcerate, incinerate, and liquidate all the blacks, there would be no need for assault rifles?

            1. Incarceration might not be necessary if we quit paying black women to turn out b*st*rds left and right. They’re up to 77% of their spawn being out of wedlock now. Sooo, can I count on you to join in the chorus to make black women pay for their own kids? To where maybe they will start getting married again, like they did before The Great Society???

              Somehow, I bet not.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

        4. “A freer society than the US is..”. Really? First, Australia never had a Second Amendment or the Right to self defense even though human beings have that Right inherently. Second, the Australian confiscation was exactly that, a confiscation Of firearms under threat of inprisonment and rape.

          Now, finally, let’s take a factual look at your supposed utopia. And note I said factual, not what the Govt. sugar coats and hands out:


        1. Sure we can do things, Peter! Except that, the Democratic Left doesn’t really want to do anything. The Democratic leadership loves the votes from the barefoot, pregnant blacks. And the Democratic base loves the virtue signalling they get by “rescuing” the barefoot, pregnant blacks.

          And it works sooo well for the Democrats, that they want to bring in millions more barefoot, pregnant Hispanics! From a country with 29,000 murders last year, and a governmental system that works off bribery!

          Sooo, sure theoretically we can do things, but as a practical matter, you should buy a few AK47s while you can, and plenty of ammo. Maybe the AR15s too. Their ammo is cheaper and lighter. Plus, some handguns for close range, and a Smith and Wesson HRT knife, and a MTech USA MT-20-14GY Fixed Blade Neck Knife. Also an aluminum baseball bat. And canned goods and water.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

        1. Yes! They are paper tigers! David Hogg would just intimidate the beejesus out of them! One or two words from his lips, and these guys would be laying their guns at his feet! And crying!

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

        1. The Morlocks did not need them because the Eloi did not have guns. Guns would have been the great “equalizer” between the physical strength of the Morlocks, and the relative weakness of the Eloi. But alas, the Eloi were the descendants of Liberals! David Hogg would have made a great Eloi!

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

    2. Julia – here’s the thing about the young. They have enormous enthusiasm, and no life experience or understanding of the systems they are trying to change.

      Case in point:

      Problem: There is income disparity.

      Solution: An 18 year old would declare that all money be banned, and everyone just be given when they need to survive.

      Unintended consequence: Working nets you jack, so no one wants to work anymore. It does nothing for you, and you get paid the same to sit on your parents’ couch and play video games. No one works, the economy tanks, and you get Venezuela.

      Problem: There are a lot of homeless people on the street

      18 year old’s solution: Tax the rich to get lots of benefits for the homeless, and put up bathrooms and food venders. Waive environmental regulations to let them live in riverbeds.

      Unintended consequence: Massive disease outbreaks, dirty needles left on the sidewalk in front of schools, and human sewage, needles, and biohazards washed down the ephemeral streams to the ocean, where kids prick their little feet on dirty needles when they go visit the beach.

      The young do not bother to learn the inner workings of the system they want to change. They just think, that’s not fair! And they want to wave their hand and make it all better.

      You need more than enthusiasm to actually improve a system.

      1. The other problem is, that many young people grow up to be Liberals. And they keep the same old mind set. They do not learn. That is why you see so many Boomers still waxing wroth about Blacks as if it was still 1950 or something, and they have to Freedom Ride to their defense.

        And unless there is something to disconfirm their belief, they will not change. And even if an act of disconfirmation occurs, many will not change their beliefs as long as there are others who go along with them. It used to be said that a Conservative was a Liberal who got mugged. But I am not sure that even a good mugging would change many of the Boomer minds.

        Because many Boomers have led a good life, and avoided the seedier areas of town both in residence and work, they simply have no conception of how bad things are for many Americans. They do not live in a house where they hear gunfire every night, or where they are constantly broken into and have to put up Iron Security Bars, sooo how can they relate? They don’t need guns because life is safe and good for them. Therefore, nobody else needs guns either.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

  11. The answer to a gun going off in a school is obviously more guns in school. Olly says it’s simple, just don’t put a bullet in the chamber. Sure, guns that have been checked for bullets in the chamber have never been found with a bullet in the chamber and discharged. The prisons are also full of innocent people. The school in Florida had an armed security guard, who ran and hid. There are reports every few days of some gun somewhere going off when no bullet was in the chamber. This incident happened during a gun safety exercise by a “trained” person.

    Yep, the answer to guns in schools is more guns in schools.

    1. Oh no! The answer is to pass more gun laws! Because all Americans obey the law!

      BTW, exactly who is going to go and get the guns from the gang members? The MS13 guys? The Crips? The Bloods? The local Gang du Jours of your town? Oh, that’s right! NOBODY! Because those guys are already not supposed to have guns, and guess what? They tell us to go f*ck ourselves. To take our gun control laws and shove them up our a$$e$.

      Because what the Gun Control Advocates believe is, if law abiding people hand in their guns, there will be a “trickle down” effect, so that eventually the criminal class will no longer have a source for their guns! In the meantime, the law abiding people are at the mercy of the criminals.

      And how long will it take for the “trickle down” effect to work??? Funny, but I have never heard that discussed. 10 years? 20 years? 40 years?

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. “Oh no! The answer is to pass more gun laws! Because all Americans obey the law!”

        It is amazing how many people like Paul cannot understand what your sentence means. I think we should pass a law stating that all Democrats stop breathing and see how many of them follow the law.

        1. I agree. They are quick to holler “Gun Control!”, but that is sort of like a primal scream thing. Emotional, but not much reasoning going on. In a country that has guns, bad things are going to happen, because bad people and crazy people are going to get their hands on them. But, that is why good law abiding people need guns. . . to protect themselves from the bad and crazy ones.

          Sensible gun control laws can reduce the number of bad things. I think the 21 year old threshold to buy a gun makes sense. But in reality, in actual practicality, do we really think that 17 year old Trevarius of the Hood isn’t going to have a gun??? And that is where most of the gun violence comes from.

          Then, to compound the problem, Liberals holler bloody murder over things like “Stop and Frisk”, which tend to reduce gun violence. Nuttiness abounds.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. “I think the 21 year old threshold to buy a gun makes sense.”

            Why? I think you are being a liberal here. You feel like it will help. Why ahould the rights of most 18-20 year olds should be removed because a very small percentage do bad things.

            1. Because as a group, less than 21’s are not very mature. One could make the same argument for booze, that most teenagers do not drive drunk and kill people.

              But if you are going to recognize as a legal reality that people under 21 are not mature enough to drink, then recognize the same for AK47s.

              OTOH, I could also support that 18 is a grown adult, period. No more coddling. They can vote, they can drink, they can buy guns, and they can do without child support because they are no longer legally children.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

          2. “But in reality, in actual practicality, do we really think that 17 year old Trevarius of the Hood isn’t going to have a gun???”

            Sometimes the law doesn’t prevent what you want it to prevent but it can give the police the power to act before an incident occurs.

          3. I should have added that an increased age limit need not be used in an absolute way. It might be a way to place more scrutiny in that age range. Personal liability laws could also be utilized as people with assets frequently take out insurance and insurers try and reduce their risks by targetting bad players.

      2. Remember Funky Winkerbean? The machine gun nest for the hall monitor? Is that really where you want this to go?

        1. No. I don’t. But that is the reality of the world we live in. You see, Paul, things change over time. For example, Cancun used to be great vacation spot. Now, Cancun is one of the Murder Capitals of the World. Here, in our country, there are such things as “criminal gangs”. They exist, in large numbers, and are growing all the time. Particularly since the spigot has been opened on Hispanic gang entry into the U.S.

          In Chicago alone, there are estimated to be about 70,000 gang members. In Chicago, things have gotten so bad that there are now special police units to protect funerals. So let me ask you, do you want a machine gun nest for a funeral? Is that where things are going? The answer is “Yes.”

          Chicago-area officials trying to prevent funerals for gang members from turning into shootouts say the issue has gotten so far “out of control” that one cemetery has started hiring off-duty police officers.

          Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart met Thursday with political, religious, and funeral industry leaders to discuss the problem following a funeral procession in December that was marred by gunfire.

          “It’s getting out of control, it really is,” Hillside Police Chief Joseph Lukaszek told FOX 32. “The gangs just think that it’s a safe haven for them and they do whatever they want to do.”

          Dart – who hopes to come up with proposals ready to be put into action by May – says the shootings have been escalating “over the last 10 to 15 years from where it was not much of a problem… to now it occurs more frequently.”

          He said that at least one cemetery has been hiring off-duty officers whenever a gang member is set to be buried.


          You see, that is our new normal. The things that might change this new normal can’t happen in our current political situation. Because Liberals will not acknowledge the failures of their social programs, and on immigration, and the damages it has wreaked on the black community. And, the Hispanic community. And soon to be on the white community.

          Sooo, this is the situation where you want the decent law-abiding people to be disarmed.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. Squeeky, disarmament works from the head down. First, the brain, then the eyes, ears, and mouth with censorship, then they tie our soldier’s hands behind their backs and relieve Americans of self-protection, …

            Finally, Paul awakens from his Rip Van Winkle sleep and wonders what happened to everything he loved and wanted? What happened to his freedom?

            1. Yes. It is the only way to end the drug gang problem. Shoot them down in the streets. Round them up in gangs and mow them down with machine guns. Duterte is smart enough to see that is the only way to end the problem.

              Mexico should start that tomorrow, They are a failed state because they refuse to kill their criminals.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter.

    1. Paul C
      As you say, “Accidents happen”.
      Even a top lawman like Fearless Fife had his share ( and then some) of accidental gun discharges.

  12. Well, you KNEW this was going to happen. Gotta know how to handle them if they are going to bring them to schools.

  13. So, Trump repeals Obama’s move to link government data bases that can identify applications for gun purchases with the mentally unstable. Trump meets with the Peter and reneges on raising the age limit and other intelligent moves; moves he broadcast as his response to the slaughter in Miami. Trump knows which side of his toast lies the butter and who holds the knife. Trump eclipses all previous Presidents for spinelessness in the face of the treasonous NRA. This is your hero??? Trump is a spineless hypocrite and coward.

    Instead of making sure that ALL gun purchases are checked, limiting the murderous capability of weapons, raising the age limit, or doing any reasonable thing to stem the slaughter, Trump keeps insisting that arming the teachers is the way to go. This is the same mentality that promotes a society where everyone walks around with a Glock strapped to their hip. Good for business and not getting smeared on NRA paid for billboards. Is there one politicians with minerals?

    1. Funny how you ignore the real hard issue problem here. The breakdown of the American family is what is responsible for the collapse of morals which manufactures killing machines known as humans. It’s down right laughable that idiots in Hollywood feel they have a say in any of this when it is their product which is a major contributor to the family breakdown. But for people like you, it is much easier to remove the rights of the 99.9% of law abiding citizens.

      Don’t worry though, your side will win. You have the govt. monopolized indoctrination camps known as the public school system refusing to actually teach kids about their own rights, the press and Hollywood all working together to give the state more power than God or nature.

      1. Family values/families generally are alive and doing better than ever before because violent men no longer are allowed to freely abuse women and children.

        1. I’m pretty sure the statistics on single parent mothers would disagree with families doing better. This is for all races. But keep that head in the sand and blame violent men.

          Such a typical response.

      2. Jim22

        What is pathetic, not funny, is the idiots trying to find ‘a’ reason for the carnage. There is no one reason. There are many reasons. What is treasonous is that the NRA will destroy any politician, including the spineless President, if they do ‘anything’ to regulate-not restrict guns. The Peter, the head traitor to America, constantly states that there is no proof that regulation stops the carnage. The idiots that believe this are his lap dogs. There is no way to determine proof when there has not been any realistic regulating.

        Comparing the manner in which other more advanced nations regulate-not restrict the obtaining of weapons is more proof than needed. The US has the worst record, per capita, regarding gun violence and death of all its peer nations, by a long and disgusting distance. Those that are proud of this are not what the founding fathers fought for.

        The bottom line, and argue if you can, is that in our oligarchy, money talks and politicians walk. We have just witnessed one of the most disgusting examples of the NRA oligarchs reigning in the President of the US, spineless Donald Trump, the guy with the bone spurs. Trump responded to the applause of most Americans when he advocated raising the age to 21, and making it obligatory to undergo more stringent background checks for ‘any’ gun purchase. Little Donnie was called into the office of The Peter and when he came out, Bone Spur had lost his minerals. No one has denigrated the office of the Presidency to the degree of Donald Trump.

        It’s not about the Constitution or freedom. It is about common sense. When common sense is thrown aside, then what?????

        1. It’s not about the Constitution or freedom. It is about common sense. When common sense is thrown aside, then what?????

          California??? The Democratic Party??? Liberals??? Social Justice Warriors??? Nanci Pelosi???

          Was that a trick question???

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. Squeeky, Issac’s statements border on the absurd and demonstrate the absurdity of his ideology. Take note “including the spineless President”. This President is anything but spineless so don’t expect anything of great meaning to be uttered from his mouth.

            …And I continue to wonder why Issac left Canada.

            1. Oh, I never expect anything intelligent to proceed out of Isaac’s mouth. He has a bad tendency to over analyze things and deconstruct things to the point that all you have left is a mush of words.Add to that his insane obsession with Trump, and there is just not much there.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

  14. Absolutely insane for a teacher to be armed with gun-and the one/s allowing it is/are culpable.

    1. Your comment is without basis in fact. That would be the same as saying that just because police officers have negligent discharges with firearms it’s insane for them to be armed.

      The answer is: 1. Observe proper firearms safety at all times. 2. Treat all firearms as though they are loaded. 3. For classroom demonstrations NEVER use your carry firearm. It should never leave the holster. Use a “blue gun” or a gun that is designated for demonstration purposes only, and has no ammunition near it.

  15. My daughter who is a teacher, said that there was unanimous agreement among teachers in her school teachers’ lounge that they would resign if anyone in their school carried a loaded gun. They are preparing a letter to send to several decision-makers signed by all the teachers who would resign.

    1. Then don’t load them. It’s not that difficult. You put the full magazine in the weapon but you do not chamber a round. Or keep the magazine out of the weapon but on your person. I’m surprised teachers, who’ve spent numerous hours to learn how to teach and then teach themselves, don’t understand gun safety is teachable.

        1. They anti-gun folks rely on a lack of critical-thinking.

          One of my jobs onboard ship was to teach our security teams. Many of these were kids right out of high school that had never held a weapon until they joined the Navy. No one was allowed to carry a weapon on drills or actual security alerts until they were properly trained. They were given night sticks instead. It is rare to hear of stories of an accidental discharge of a weapon onboard ship. That’s not because these sailors are special; it’s because they are trained properly.

          1. ‘They anti-gun folks rely on a lack of critical-thinking.’


            Herein lies the problem, the crux of the problem. You must have a thing for The Peter. Your black and white statement is pure Peter. Almost all, if not all, Americans who want stricter and more encompassing regulations, including limiting the weaponry and ammunition available, more comprehensive background checks, on all gun sales; are not ‘anti-gun’. They are pro intelligent gun, anti irresponsible gun. The objectives of those Americans who would see this nonsense stopped do not argue against even the second half of the 2nd amendment, but for that it be taken in the context of a complex society, a society much more complex than the one that authored it.

            The spineless that owe their political life to The Peter and the money machine that makes or breaks them have nothing but the black or white position to present. If someone wants any regulation at all, then they are anti-gun. What is amazing is how many Americans are suckers for this con. It’s the same con that labeled anything that had to do with developing America as a safe, well educated place with decent healthcare at affordable costs, a communist. Now the moniker is snowflake or progressive or ??.

            It would be refreshing to hear intelligent comments about the mechanisms of gun procurement and what the government can do to stop nut cases from accessing guns. Oh yeah, Obama passed a bill that would connect the Social Security data base of people on mental disability with the FBI and Trump repealed it. Trump got a spanking from The Peter. Trump said stuff. The Peter said that Trump didn’t mean it. The Peter called Trump into his office. Trump reneged on his previous statements. Perhaps Trump was told by The Peter that the NRA would down grade him and label him ‘anti-gun’.

      1. So is it OK if the government forces them to take gun safety courses? Should a state or nation make laws that you have to carry a gun? If so, who picks out the gun course and who to pick out to use a gun? A lottery? Do you go to public places and sit next to someone who may or may not depending on state laws sit next to you with a loaded weapon? There is enough jerks out there that drive a car and don’t know what they are doing, I do believe in the amendment to protect yourself, but has it gone to far in a modern society that any idiot can get a gun as easy as the idiots out there that drive a car? Either way a problem that America does not want to confront.

        1. “There is enough jerks out there that drive a car and don’t know what they are doing”

          How far do you apply this logic in your opinions? Does this mean that you are against legalizing pot? There is enough jerks out there that drive a car high…..
          Are you against abortion? There is enough jerks out there that get pregnant and us it a a form of birth control…
          How about speech? There is enough jerks out there that spout out….

          The point is, if you really believe that the goal of the govt. is to create a “jerk-less” society, then you will be just a subject of the state and not a free being.

    2. Baloney. Tough talk but I wonder how tough that talk would be if an active shooter walked into their classroom and started slaughtering their students in front of them? Let’s suppose they were offered the chance to grab a gun and, all of a sudden, defend their students and themselves from being murdered, think they’d just cower in a corner and say “nope, not me, I don’t want that horrible gun, go ahead and kill all of us”? Their oh so Liberal values would be out the nearest window so fast you’d never know they had them.

      It’s easy to sit in a teachers lounge and wax poetic about your lofty goals. Not so easy when you see the person next to you bleeding out on the floor and the police haven’t even arrived yet. You’ll do ANYTHING to stay alive.

      1. Vanns, I wonder how many of those teachers that professed they would leave the country if Trump were elected actually left?

        Maybe the wrong people are teaching our children.

        1. That’s right – we need God-fearing, Bible-thumping rednecks to teach all classes everywhere.

          1. No Jay, we need teachers with brains that have been taught critical thinking. Based on your foolish response above that is something you have not been taught

    3. What, you have a daughter??? From your post above, I feel sooo sorry for her, because you must have abused her and her mother! Violently! Like all men! Oh, her mother should have divorced you long ago, you evil violent man, you!

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. Rex Frost – actually they are under contract and the school can refuse to let them resign. I have seen it happen.

  16. I have never heard of Sand City, NC. However, there is a Sand City, California. Northern California is mentioned in your article. The headline is wrong!

  17. Assuming that teachers interested in carrying a weapon at school follow a bell curve, and that accidents follow a bell curve, and that students follow bell curves, these sorts of incidents will always occur, along with teachers losing their weapons and students stealing weapons.

    Doesn’t make me feel very hopeful towards the groups saying we need to arm teachers.

Comments are closed.

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: