A discussion of the legal ramifications of declaring a "Safe Space"

NOTE: This is not the MudPit. I intentionally did not place this thread there as I want to try to keep this a civil discussion, and stay on the topic. I know, it's a high bar, but I think we at ATS can rise to the occasion and discuss our different positions without resorting to personal attacks.

The recent (as in within the last 20 years) idea of "Safe Spaces" has gained traction not only in the United States but all over the world. As a concept, it makes some sense if that declaration of safe can be guaranteed. The topic I would like to discuss is the responsibility aspect of making that declaration. For centuries, people were responsible for their own safety, and making their own decisions on how best to keep themselves, family, and friends safe around them.

The concept of an organization (government, institution, company, etc...) declaring a safe space should, IMO, take on the responsibility of guaranteeing those that enter that space will be safe from attack. If, while in that safe space, they are attacked, the victims, or their families, should be able to take legal means to charge the organization for negligence. After all, the organization declaring a place is safe should be legally responsible for the safety of that space. If the organization is unwilling to take on that legal responsibility (and all the negative legal aspects) then they should not be allowed to make that declaration at all and be forced to allow individuals to exercise their own legal means of self protection to be safe.


So, ATS, your thoughts on this?

Should an organization that declares a "safe space" be held legally responsible for any injuries or deaths that occur in that space?

Should an organization that declares a safe space but does not take upon the responsibility (legally) for those in that space be forced to allow people to exercise their own means of legal self-defense while in that space?

And again, I want to foster a civil discussion, from all sides. I don't want the discussion to address the person with the opinion, but the opinion itself. What positives and negatives are there to each idea? How can we work together to come up with a forward looking solution that addresses the safe space ideal while maintaining individual liberties?

Everywhere I go is a safe space, bless the 2nd.

originally posted by: eXia7
Everywhere I go is a safe space, bless the 2nd.

I'll assume you mean that you are taking responsibility for your own safety? That is a good thing. However, what if you needed to go somewhere that claims you cannot do that? Imagine that it is not an option to simply choose not to go there, but for whatever reason, you are required to go there. Yet, the declaration that it is a safe space and you are not allowed to provide your own legal protection.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: eXia7
Everywhere I go is a safe space, bless the 2nd.

I'll assume you mean that you are taking responsibility for your own safety? That is a good thing. However, what if you needed to go somewhere that claims you cannot do that? Imagine that it is not an option to simply choose not to go there, but for whatever reason, you are required to go there. Yet, the declaration that it is a safe space and you are not allowed to provide your own legal protection.

I try to avoid victim disarmament zones. On average, I've yet to encounter a very sketchy situation where I felt I was going to be shot or need to shoot somebody, and I'm from a stand your ground state. The media has just hyped the fear up by sensationalizing all these acts of crime. Everybody should take their own safety into their hands, there is a high chance that nobody will actually help you, they much rather pull out their cell phone and record it all.

originally posted by: eXia7

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: eXia7
Everywhere I go is a safe space, bless the 2nd.

I'll assume you mean that you are taking responsibility for your own safety? That is a good thing. However, what if you needed to go somewhere that claims you cannot do that? Imagine that it is not an option to simply choose not to go there, but for whatever reason, you are required to go there. Yet, the declaration that it is a safe space and you are not allowed to provide your own legal protection.

I try to avoid victim disarmament zones. On average, I've yet to encounter a very sketchy situation where I felt I was going to be shot or need to shoot somebody, and I'm from a stand your ground state. The media has just hyped the fear up by sensationalizing all these acts of crime. Everybody should take their own safety into their hands, there is a high chance that nobody will actually help you, they much rather pull out their cell phone and record it all.

Again, I understand. However, what if you MUST go into one of these safe zones (like a court house)?

a reply to: eXia7
I prefer safe spaces without instruments of terror, m'self.

originally posted by: TheMadBird
a reply to: eXia7
I prefer safe spaces without instruments of terror, m'self.

Then you better not leave your house, because bare hands are an instrument of terror.

originally posted by: TheMadBird
a reply to: eXia7
I prefer safe spaces without instruments of terror, m'self.

OK, and if while in that space, you are confronted by an attacker with one of those instruments? You or someone you love is harmed or worse killed by that attacker while in that space. Should you be able to take legal recourse against that place/organization?

Or, are you resigned to just accept that the space was not really safe to begin with and it was merely a false sense of security (in that particular case)?

I am truly interested in your thoughts on that aspect.

a reply to: Krakatoa

If a shooting or other attack occurs in a court house, school, or any building that has been mandated "gun free zone" by the local lawmakers, then those lawmakers should be fully financially culpable for restitution in the event of an attack. Yeah, that means tax payer dollars will be involved, but maybe after seeing taxes soar to cover the ass-end of dimentia decisions of their politicians, voters will wake the eff up and stop sending imbeciles and agenda pimps to elected positions and instead start voting in personal responsibility advocates who acknowledge the importance of the Constitutional Rights guaranteed us all... including the right of self defense via a carried firearm.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: eXia7

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: eXia7
Everywhere I go is a safe space, bless the 2nd.

I'll assume you mean that you are taking responsibility for your own safety? That is a good thing. However, what if you needed to go somewhere that claims you cannot do that? Imagine that it is not an option to simply choose not to go there, but for whatever reason, you are required to go there. Yet, the declaration that it is a safe space and you are not allowed to provide your own legal protection.

I try to avoid victim disarmament zones. On average, I've yet to encounter a very sketchy situation where I felt I was going to be shot or need to shoot somebody, and I'm from a stand your ground state. The media has just hyped the fear up by sensationalizing all these acts of crime. Everybody should take their own safety into their hands, there is a high chance that nobody will actually help you, they much rather pull out their cell phone and record it all.

Again, I understand. However, what if you MUST go into one of these safe zones (like a court house)?

Been there done that, But, obviously I'd have to comply with the law and go by their rules, I have no choice but to "trust" them with my safety. I believe they shouldn't declare anywhere a safe space as crime can happen anywhere.

Unfortunately I can't carry into the court house so I mean I don't know what else to say.

originally posted by: TheMadBird
a reply to: eXia7
I prefer safe spaces without instruments of terror, m'self.

So your plan is to ban selected ideologies within the safe spaces? I can support the concept behind that. Skinheads, Nazis, ANTIFA, Islamists, etc free spaces would be safer spaces, certainly... but safer is not necesarrily "safe" as safer indicates an imporved but not perfect situation while "safe" would be making a blanket statement that an area is perfectly freed from risks.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krakatoa

If a shooting or other attack occurs in a court house, school, or any building that has been mandated "gun free zone" by the local lawmakers, then those lawmakers should be fully financially culpable for restitution in the event of an attack. Yeah, that means tax payer dollars will be involved, but maybe after seeing taxes soar to cover the ass-end of dimentia decisions of their politicians, voters will wake the eff up and stop sending imbeciles and agenda pimps to elected positions and instead start voting in personal responsibility advocates who acknowledge the importance of the Constitutional Rights guaranteed us all... including the right of self defense via a carried firearm.

Thank you for your thoughts and position. It is a legal minefield to be sure. Because, by declaring it a safe zone (typically an overlap with gun-free zone) then it is in effect stripping a person's ability to defend themselves against an armed attacker. In the case of a courthouse, then at least there are metal detectors, bag scanners, and armed guards there to hopefully prevent that from occurring. However, I have seen cases where that has also failed to protect people from those determined to not adhere to that regulation.

I have also seen situations where safe spaces (or gun-free zones) are established that do NOT have any protections in place for those in that space (houses of worship, schools, restaurants, public libraries, etc...). Protections include metal detectors an/or armed security onsite.

How can these places strip a person from legally protecting themselves like that without any responsibility if anything happens?

a reply to: burdman30ott6
Why is it so bad that decent, peace loving people want places where devices whose sole purpose is killing aren't allowed? Guns don't make me feel any safer. In fact, usually only the shooter, forgive me, "good guy", feels any safer, and that's solely because he knows he can snuff out any life he chooses.

originally posted by: TheMadBird
a reply to: burdman30ott6
Why is it so bad that decent, peace loving people want places where devices whose sole purpose is killing aren't allowed? Guns don't make me feel any safer. In fact, usually only the shooter, forgive me, "good guy", feels any safer, and that's solely because he knows he can snuff out any life he chooses.

Because it infringes on the Rights of someone other than yourself, particularly in regards to places the government mandates someone be present at (such as schools, courthouses, and federal buildings.) You have no Constitutionally enumerated Right to a society which panders to your personal definition of "feeling safer," but we all do absolutely have an enumerated Right to "keep and bear arms."

Let me flip the table on you, though. You're basing your position on what you personally feel you gain from others carrying a firearm and exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights. How about I point out the obvious and say I gain nothing, whatsoever, from a woman having an abortion so I don't believe I should see a single cent of my earnings go towards that end, be it via insurance, taxes, or otherwise? The courts have ruled that my opinions on that matter don't mean jack squat. How about I point out that I gain nothing, whatsoever, from allowing someone to exercise their right to vote when they vote for someone I don't want representing me? The courts have ruled that my opinions on that issue don't mean jack squat and I am demanded to accept the results of elections despite having a right to feel like I am represented in Congress. How about I point out the obvious and say I gain nothing, whatsoever, from allowing environmentalist protesters to stand outside federal buildings with signs calling for more taxes on oil companies, criticisms of mining and the logging industry, or protesting a pipeline? The courts have ruled my opinion doesn't mean jack squat and those protesters are simply exercising their First Amendment Rights and there's nothing I can do or say to prevent them from exercising those Rights on public lands.

Why are you and your irrational fear of firearms special?

originally posted by: TheMadBird
a reply to: burdman30ott6
Why is it so bad that decent, peace loving people want places where devices whose sole purpose is killing aren't allowed? Guns don't make me feel any safer. In fact, usually only the shooter, forgive me, "good guy", feels any safer, and that's solely because he knows he can snuff out any life he chooses.

It is well within your right to leave the responsibility for your protection to someone else. IMO, that is irrational and dangerous, but, that is only my opinion. And I would not block you from abdicating that right to someone else. However, do you now hold them responsible if you are injured in that space? Yes? Oh, is that space public? If so, then all taxpayers will foot the bill....and that is not right. You, and you alone should bear the responsibility for any and all medical or other bills needed in the event you are injured in that space.


However, in turn, you do not have the right to strip me (or anyone else) from their right to take responsibility for themselves and personal protection. By making a public space a "safe space" or "gun-free zone" you include EVERYONE in that requirement. And, as I stated, you do not have that right.

The problem with a safe space is that it is exclusionary of certain groups, and inherently falls into the "Separate but Equal" realm.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Not sure I understand.

If by "safe space" you mean I can't wear my MAGA hat publicly, then no.

That "safe space" would be an infringement on my rights to free expression.

What people do in the privacy of their own property or on private property is of no concern to me as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krakatoa

Not sure I understand.

If by "safe space" you mean I can't wear my MAGA hat publicly, then no.

That "safe space" would be an infringement on my rights to free expression.

What people do in the privacy of their own property or on private property is of no concern to me as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

Good question DB. Does "safe" include being attacked due to your choice of attire?
Or, does it only include those scary guns?
What about knives?
What about people with TB? (that is a deadly disease that is easily passed between people)

originally posted by: eXia7


Then you better not leave your house, because bare hands are an instrument of terror.

Straitjacket for all, problem solved

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

Why are you and your irrational fear of firearms special?

I'm trying to understand how would a gun make a place unsafe...