A chilling new public service announcement reveals how devastatingly easy it is to overlook the warning signs of gun violence.

Sandy Hook Promise produced this powerful film about the issue of gun violence. @SandyHook pic.twitter.com/YxdTgTtnLJ

— Eric Alper (@ThatEricAlper) December 4, 2016

The eye-opening two and a half minute video was produced by Sandy Hook Promise, a nonprofit group founded by the families of Sandy Hook victims, as part of its “Know the Signs” campaign.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, the group formed with the intent to “honor all victims of gun violence by turning our tragedy into a moment of transformation by providing programs and practices that protect children and prevent the senseless, tragic loss of life.”

Nicole Hockley, co-founder and managing director of Sandy Hook Promise, lost her son Dylan, a first-grader, in the Sandy Hook massacre four years ago this month. Hockley told Ad Week:

When you don’t know what to look for, or can’t recognize what you are seeing, it can be easy to miss warning signs or dismiss them as unimportant. That can lead to tragic consequences.

The powerful ad concludes with the message, “Gun violence is preventable when you know the signs.” People Magazine summarized six potential warning signs listed in Sandy Hook Promise’s “Know the Signs Guide”:

1. School shooters typically exhibit a strong fascination or obsession with firearms.

2. School shooters often overreact or act out aggressively for seemingly minor reasons.

3. Perpetrators of self-harm or violence towards others may be victims of prolonged bullying and may also have real of perceived feelings of being picked on or persecuted by others.

4. These students also usually study firearm techniques and training, and are equally fascinated by mass shootings.

5. School shooters almost always have unsupervised, illegal or easy access to firearms, and often brag about such access.

6. One should also look for gestures of violence and low commitment or aspirations towards school, or a sudden change in academic performance.

Sandy Hook Promise states that 80 percent of school shooters and 70 percent of individuals who committed suicide told someone of their violent plans prior to taking action—yet nobody intervened.

“It is important for us to show youth and adults that they are not helpless in protecting their community from gun violence—these acts are preventable when you know the signs. Everyone has the power to intervene and get help. These actions can save lives, ” added Hockley.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sandy Hook Families Release Chilling Anti-Gun Violence PSA appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, two years and one day after a shooter took the lives of 20 elementary school students and six staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, families of nine of the victims filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the weapon that killed their loved ones.

The complaint asserts liability for wrongful deaths, arguing that Bushmaster Firearms Inc., the manufacturer, shouldn’t have been selling civilians the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle used in the massacre. Shooter Adam Lanza’s mother had purchased the rifle legally. Lanza shot and killed his mother with another gun before taking her Bushmaster AR-15 and heading for Sandy Hook.

The suit goes at lengths to argue that the AR-15 has no reason to be sold for civilian use. Although the rifle is useful to the military, it says, it is predictable that selling it to civilians could result in mass shootings:

The AR-15, however, has little utility for legitimate civilian purposes. The rifle’s size and overwhelming firepower, so well adapted to battlefield are in fact liabilities in home defense. … But there is one tragically predictable civilian activity in which the AR-15 reigns supreme: mass shootings.

The families filed the suit in Connecticut Superior Court and listed as additional defendants weapons distributor Camfour and Riverview Sales, the shop that sold the gun used in the attack, as well as its owner, David Laguercia.

The families have a formidable legal hurdle ahead of them called the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which protects gun manufacturers and dealers from liability when their products are used in crimes. The families are seeking to use an exception of the law for cases when the companies should be able to know that their guns could be used in a way that could injure others, the Associated Press reports.

Bushmaster faced a similar suit a decade ago, when families and victims of the Washington, D.C. area sniper shootings that left 10 dead settled with the manufacturer and a gun shop for $2.5 million. Laguercia also had recent legal trouble when he pleaded guilty last year to federal misdemeanor charges regarding his failure to keep proper records and selling weapons without completing background checks. However, those charges were not related to the Sandy Hook attack.

The suit says that the plaintiffs seek “nothing more and nothing less than accountability for the consequences” of the defendant’s choice to “disregard the unreasonable risks the rifle posed outside of specialized, highly regulated institutions like the armed forces and law enforcement.” Officially, they are seeking unspecified monetary damages.

Historically, government discussion on gun control has lived in legislatures, and not courts. The Sandy Hook case is very particular to the specific incident two years ago, so it may be better-suited in a court. However, it doesn’t come without major obstacles.

The families will have to link Bushmaster, Camfour, Riverview, and Laguercia to Lanza. This could prove especially difficult given that the gun was sold to his mother and not him. That is just the beginning of their problem. Whether or not they can make that connection, they have to successfully prove that any of the defendants could have foreseen the attack at Sandy Hook happen as a result of the sale of the rifle. Practically, this would rule out Bushmaster and Camfour, as they are far up the chain. However, it could be possible for the plaintiffs to hit Riverview and owner Laguercia, and paint him as negligent. Considering what is at stake, though, successfully suing a single gun shop and owner doesn’t seem like a really big win for gun control–although this could be a symbolic victory.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Newtown Families Sue Manufacturer of Gun Used in Sandy Hook Shooting appeared first on Law Street.

Security cameras are a common facet in many places that we frequent, from office complexes to shopping malls. Closed circuit security cameras (CCTV) are mainly put in place to keep people safe, but one notable place where CCTVs are missing is our schools.

Tragedies such as the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012 have raised alarms for increased school security and the use of technology to keep children safe. Many schools have security cameras at their entrances and, in some cases, in hallways and other high-traffic areas. In the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and other nations, schools are beginning to experiment with the idea of placing closed-circuit security cameras in classrooms. Read on to learn the arguments about whether or not we should extend CCTV coverage to our public school classrooms.

What are the arguments for putting CCTVs in classrooms?

Those who support the addition of cameras to public school classrooms argue that they will increase school security while providing a useful tool for teacher collaboration. Many claim that the presence of the cameras alone would be enough to deter many students from committing crimes or engaging in common misbehavior while in the classroom. Cameras can also provide evidence if students are accused of a crime, saving administration from conducting lengthy and probing investigations.

Cameras could also be used by teachers as a tool to share effective learning methods and to connect with parents. Experienced, highly effective teachers could videotape segments of their lessons to be used in professional development programs and teacher training courses. Advocates have also argued that cameras could serve as deterrents to those bad teachers who do exist, particularly in special needs classrooms where students may have difficulty communicating instances of abuse to their parents. Parents would also have the ability to become in tune with what their children experience in the classroom, creating a closer marriage of a student’s education and home life and allowing parents to understand and supplement that education.

What are the arguments against CCTVs in classrooms?

Opponents are cautious about the installation of CCTVs due to the intrusion upon public school classrooms. Some administrators have indicated plans to use CCTVs to evaluate teacher performance and determine teacher effectiveness. Many professionals in American education oppose this method of teacher evaluation, as it seeks to make direct links between teacher methods and student achievement without accounting for other variables, such as socio-economic conditions and student behavior.

Additionally, using constant video surveillance of teachers as a form of evaluation would lead to a system where teacher merely imitate specific behaviors and methods they know evaluators are looking for while lacking creativity, individuality, and maverick methods that often characterize the best teachers and drive innovation. Many opponents also indicate that the presence of cameras could create a “Big Brother” atmosphere in the classroom, dampen student participation, and dissuade many students from exercising free speech.

Others worry that it infringes upon the relationships that teachers can have with their students. Teachers often have the ability to engage with their students about sensitive topics, including problems at home, difficulties in school, and the like. Teachers worry that installing CCTV cameras will make it less likely that students can confide in them, and therefore less likely that they are able to provide help or advice for those students. This worry is compounded by the fact that in most cases where cameras are installed, they are not able to turned off by the teachers themselves.

CCTVs in Classrooms in the UK

The idea of CCTVs has gained great momentum in Britain, where 85 percent of schools currently have CCTVs, and some schools, such as Stockwell Park High School in South London, have over 100 cameras inside its buildings (two in each classroom and 40 in hallways, cafeterias, and other areas).

The CCTV-based monitoring has had mixed reception in the UK. Teachers don’t really seem to like the institution of the cameras, citing concerns that they’re not in place for safety reasons, but rather to judge teachers. A teachers union conducted a study in the UK and discovered that 41 percent of teachers claimed that the cameras were used to find evidence that led to “negative views” of the staff being monitored.

There have also been cases of students in the UK being unhappy with the CCTV cameras placed in their schools. In a school in Essex, a student named Sam Goodman started a protest after discovering that cameras that were said to have been placed in his school for training purposes had actually been switched on. Goodman took many issues with the implementation of CCTV cameras, pointing out, “We’ll end up with all teachers being the same. And pupils will grow up thinking that it’s acceptable to be monitored like this.” He also was suspicious that the cameras were just supposed to be used for teacher training, claiming that the equipment seemed too extensive for such a narrow purpose. He eventually started a walk-out to protest the CCTV cameras.

There’s also a debate ongoing in the UK that the placement of CCTV cameras has gone too far. According to a British watchdog group called Big Brother Watch, more than 200 schools had installed CCTVs in restrooms and changing rooms (locker rooms). The only way that Big Brother Watch got that information was by filing a Freedom of Information Request with the government. A statement from Big Brother Watch claimed:

The full extent of school surveillance is far higher than we had expected and will come as a shock to many parents. Schools need to come clean about why they are using these cameras and what is happening to the footage. Local authorities also need to be doing far more to reign in excessive surveillance in their areas and ensuring resources are not being diverted from more effective alternatives. The Home Office’s proposed regulation of CCTV will not apply to schools and the new Commissioner will have absolutely no powers to do anything. Parents will be right to say that such a woefully weak system is not good enough.

While CCTV surveillance has become a sort of norm in the UK, many are still not happy about it. Those who are advocating for CCTV cameras in classrooms in the U.S. may be able to improve on the UK’s experiment to avoid the problems found there, while those who oppose the implementation may use the UK’s problems as reasoning for avoiding CCTV cameras in classrooms here.

Conclusion

Given the concentration of cameras in certain institutions, it’s no surprise that we’re now talking about implementing them in public school classrooms. While there are certainly benefits, such as added security and deterrence from fighting, there are also strong arguments against the practice, such as privacy concerns. Taking a cue from the UK’s book may be a smart idea, but whether or not the practice will catch on in the U.S. remains to be seen.

Resources

Primary 

Change.org: Cameras in Special Needs Classrooms

Hudson Park High School: CCTV Report

Additional

PR Web: CCTV Cameras Can Prevent Violence in the Classroom

SelfGrowth.com: Classrooms Should Have Closed-Circuit Cameras

Boss Closed Security: School Closed Circuit TV: How Does it Work and Why?

TES Connect: CCTV is Used to Spy on Teachers

Sydney Morning Herald: School Surveillance Puts Trust at Risk

LoveToKnow.com: Keep Security Cameras Out of School Classrooms

Salon: Big Brother Invades Our Classrooms

National Education Policy Center: Cameras in the Classroom: A Good Idea?

Guardian: Someone to Watch Over You

Learn By Cam: CCTV in Schools and Classrooms

USA Today: Who’s Watching the Class?

ZD Net: Should CCTV Be Allowed in Schools and Universities?

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post CCTV Cameras in Classrooms: Big Brother Watching? appeared first on Law Street.

Tucson. Aurora. Newtown. What did these shootings have in common? The weapon and the ammunition. Or the types at least. Semi-automatic firearms allow the shooter to fire as fast as his finger can pull the trigger. Pair one of those with oversized ammunition magazines and he is capable of causing unthinkable damage in a matter of minutes. Rachel Maddow highlighted the correlation between the capacity of the ammunition magazine with the duration of the shooting spree and how many people are shot. But New Jersey Governor Chris Christie doesn’t seem to understand this correlation in the gun debate — that’s why he vetoed a bill that would limit the size of magazines.

For that, I am furious. Personally, I choose not to remember the names of the monsters who committed these acts because they should not be granted notoriety for their crimes — that would only make their twisted dreams come to fruition. We must pay attention to and deal with the issue at hand: mental illness and access to weaponry. I am no cheerleader for the NRA but I do believe in the right to bear arms. For self protection and even *shudder* hunting, we cannot deny our fellow countrymen (the sane ones) these rights.

Can we compromise?

Both sides are extreme, but I think we could come to an agreeable compromise. But not Gov. Christie, he’s definitely not on board with that. In his eyes we either abolish the Second Amendment entirely, or we continue allowing 15-round magazines to be produced and accessible to the armed public. Last week Christie vetoed a bill that would limit the size of gun magazines to ten rounds. This bill was petitioned by two families who lost children at the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. Christie avoided them, even when they personally delivered the petition to the governor’s office. He denied them, point blank, period. And this was his weak defense:

So are we saying then that the ten children on the clip that they advocate for, that their lives are less valuable? If you take the logical conclusion of their argument, you go to zero. Because every life is valuable. And so why ten? Why not six, why not two, why not zero? Why not just ban guns completely?

This is a joke…right? I mean, if we can’t save five people in the next shooting, we should just let all 15 victims get shot because everyone’s life is equally valuable. Yeah, that totally makes sense. What’s the big deal about five bullets?

Size matters

The heroine of the Tucson story is a woman who bravely tackled the shooter in the moments when he ceased fire. He was equipped with a magazine that held more than double the standard amount of rounds (15). When the shooter paused to refill his Glock with another 33-round magazine, Patricia Maisch, then 61, wrestled the ammo from him while a few men threw the shooter to the ground. The number of victims from that shooting could have been fewer if he had had to reload sooner.

The same goes for the 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting. That shooter had a drum magazine capable of carrying 100 rounds attached to his AR-15 rifle. Could you imagine how the number of victims from that massacre could have been reduced if he were forced to reload about six times? Christie obviously cannot because that would be favoritism, or something.

Most importantly, I’d like to point out the difference this would have made at the Newtown shooting. The shooter in this case was armed with three different weapons and unfathomable amounts of ammunition, which he carried on his body. This guy came from a family with a long history of love for guns. He grew up with that whole culture and was granted access to guns, despite his Aspergers. The Daily Beast described the frightening amount of weaponry the shooter was armed with that day:

At the school, he emptied three magazines completely, leaving his 26 victims with as many as 11 gunshot wounds. Either because his weapon jammed or because he was overexcited, he ejected three more magazines when they still had 10, 11, and 13 rounds, respectively.

All told, he expended 154 rounds, killing 20 small children and 6 adults. The Bushmaster had one round in the chamber and 14 rounds in the magazine when he took his own life with one of two handguns he carried. A shotgun with two magazines containing 70 rounds was found in the black Honda he parked in the fire lane at the school entrance.

All that gore occurred in about five minutes. He could not have caused that many deaths in so little time with smaller magazines. How can Christie try to defend his veto with such illogical banter, to the parents of the victims of this shooting? Christie says it’s just a fundamental disagreement, though how his argument could be valid in any reality I do not understand. If the decision were up to you and you could choose between the hypothetical death of 15 children or 10 children, what would you do?

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno) 

Featured image courtesy of [Eugene Smith via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Thanks to Governor Christie the Gun Debate Just Reached a New Low appeared first on Law Street.