help with this scenario.

[Hemingway]

I'm looking for the input of some of the more legally minded here.

It's related to carrying on school property.

Assume:

-group of 5 or six IN residents.
-none of them are employed by the school in any way but are associated with the school in the sense that their kids go there or they volunteer their time, etc.
-it is a private school located in Indiana
-none of the people are leo's but they all are ltch holders.
-the school is very pro 2nd Amend, or rather the school admin is.
-the school gives this group of individuals official, written, notarized, official as can be permission to carry on school property.
- they do this because they know these responsible individuals and realize that between all of them, normally at least one of them will be there all the time, providing de facto armed security.

Up until this point, I think we will all agree that they are permitted to carry beacuse of the "permission" exception. (If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me)

Here's where my questions start to arise:

These are not employees of the school, but have they become "security guards" by the nature of their understanding with the school?

If yes, do they now require some sort of security license to function as security guards in Indiana? Does this require recurrent training, etc?

Is the school now liable for the actions of the individuals or can the school hold that the individuals are acting as individuals? For examplen one of the people shoots at an armed intruder, hits a kid and now the school is on the hook? Granted every lawsuit is looking for the deep pockets, so they'll name the school, but do they have a legitimate shot at nailing the school?

Is there specific insurance related to security guards/companies/contract, etc?

Anything else you think would be pertinent would be appreciated. Keep in mind the distinctions in this case is that they are not an officially contracted secruity force, they are not paid and the school is private, meaning less likely to ever have any actual police patrolling.

I appreciate all constructive thoughts.

 

[CathyInBlue]

There is no such thing as a security guard license in Indiana. The special permission slip from the particular school to carry on the grounds of that particular school is entirely sufficient, modulo encountering a LEO who doesn't know that law attempting to enforce non-law as law.

Keep in mind, anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time. This is no different from if you as an individual were carrying while undertaking a munchies mission to the local 7-11 when Armando Robbery robs the joint. You spray lead, every round hitting true, but one JHP fails to blossom, over penetrates, and hits and kills Sister Mary Katherine Louise who happened to be standing perfectly behind Armando. Can you be sued for the Sister's death? Sure. Will you? Prolly not. Will the suing party prevail, even less likely. The fact that 7-11 tacitly allowed you to carry in their stores does in no way put them on the hook for your actions as a result.

Again, no insurance requirements. These are not paid employees or contractors. There is no employer/employee relationship, nor indeed, any commercial relationship occurring at all.

 

[92ThoStro]

Having written permission to carry does not equal a security guard. You are not a school employee, or paid with taxpayer money. They are simply allowing you to carry. I don't see the school being liable for anything. Although anyone can sue anyone else for anything, like CIB stated.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Just my opinion, but the school should not consider the parents "security", but just parents who volunteer their time at the school.

 

[Hemingway]

Good.

The only thing I was unsure was whether Indiana had any type of code against an "unlicensed security guard" vs some sort of registered, licensed security guard. So, thanks for that clarification.

Thanks. Any other thoughts or differing opinions, keep them coming.

 

[ModernGunner]

I wish people wouldn't post things as certainty if they don't know.

Don't need 'written' permission from the school, as long as you'd have permission. Though, I would agree something in writing is MUCH better because, IF something should happen, the moron school officials and everybody else is going to deny they okayed it. Why? 'Cause school administrative types are almost always whackjob libtards, and have NO hesitation in lying to save their butts.

The concept that you might be sued for hitting Sister Mary is false, and that's covered in acting to defend yourself and hitting your target. However, the perpetrator you accurately hit COULD be charged with Sister Mary's wounds.

However, *I* hold you morally responsible for hitting Sister Mary because you, obviously, violated the 4th rule of safety - Know your target AND what is behind it. If one can't use better judgment than that, probably should not be carrying a gun in the first place, period. Which scares the hell outta me with all the similar thinking individuals at the mall with LTCH's.

Nope, not going to be considered a security guard, so no such license needed, and it doesn't exist, anyway. ALTHOUGH, many such companies also have a P.I. license, which you ARE required to have for P.I. work.

 

[Hemingway]

Don't need 'written' permission from the school, as long as you'd have permission. Though, I would agree something in writing is MUCH better because, IF something should happen, the moron school officials and everybody else is going to deny they okayed it.

I agree. The law does not state written permission. I only used "written" in my scenario to reinforce the fact that permission is not in doubt in this case. Written permission is 100% obtainable in this case, signed by everyone from the principal to Jose the janitor.

 

[CathyInBlue]

The concept that you might be sued for hitting Sister Mary is false, and that's covered in acting to defend yourself and hitting your target. However, the perpetrator you accurately hit COULD be charged with Sister Mary's wounds.

The indemnity law for self defense is only for criminal charges. It doesn't insulate against civil suits. It just makes civil suits a tad bit harder to win.

 

[daddymikey1975]

The indemnity law for self defense is only for criminal charges. It doesn't insulate against civil suits. It just makes civil suits a tad bit harder to win.

There are some policies that can be had to assist with legal defense in the case of a self defense related shooting. They help with criminal and civil cases.

The OP might look into something like this just in case.

The USCCA, NRA, and one other (that I can't remember) offer some sort of protection or assistance.

Worth checking out.

Search this forum for "insurance" or something of the like. I'm feeling too lazy this morning. I just got up and haven't had enough coffee yet LOL

 

[jkwparrott]

Excellent answer CIB, I agree completely. As far as law suits go, idiots can sue for anything these days. I honestly wouldn't be surprised in a few months if the OP posts that they have been sued by a parent who says that their child, after seeing someone with a gun in the school is now emotionally scarred and they should be compensated for it.

If more judges started throwing these cases out and making it known to the general public that stupid suits cannot be made, maybe it would at least slow down the idiots.

 

[Jack Burton]

However, *I* hold you morally responsible for hitting Sister Mary because you, obviously, violated the 4th rule of safety - Know your target AND what is behind it. If one can't use better judgment than that, probably should not be carrying a gun in the first place, period. Which scares the hell outta me with all the similar thinking individuals at the mall with LTCH's.

Nonsense. A thru and thru can happen from many different circumstances and can cause harm to other innocents in a dozen different directions and distances.

It's highly undesirable and preferences are that it never, ever happens... but it does and even to cops in their performance of duty. Unless there is willful, knowing negligence behind the shot such as using a .500 S&W in a 7/11 holdup at two feet distance then there is nothing that invokes a sense of "morality".

 

[88GT]

However, *I* hold you morally responsible for hitting Sister Mary because you, obviously, violated the 4th rule of safety - Know your target AND what is behind it. If one can't use better judgment than that, probably should not be carrying a gun in the first place, period.

So the only reason a round discharged from a firearm doesn't hit the bad guy is because the shooter didn't use better judgment?