Gonzaga Students On Probation For Defending Themselves With Gun

[Bazinga]

SPOKANE, Wash. - Two Gonzaga students are facing possible expulsion from the University after they pulled a weapon in self defense as a six time felon attempted to get into their on campus apartment. According to the student handbook, students may not possess handguns on campus or university owned property.

On Friday a university discipline board decided to move forward with sanctions, including possible expulsion, for using the weapons. The students will learn in the near future about their future with the school. It all happened late in the night on October 24th when roommates Erik Fagan and Dan McIntosh were hanging out in their university owned apartment.

At 10:15 Fagan answered the door and was greeted by John Taylor. Taylor is a felon with an extensive criminal history and when he arrived Fagan said Taylor showed him what appeared to be an ankle bracelet as he tried to intimidate him. Fagan said Taylor then demanded money and was frustrated when he was turned down.

Taylor then attempted to force entry into the apartment. At that point McIntosh brandished his pistol. McIntosh has a concealed weapons permit for the gun and did not know it was in violation of policy at the time. Once Taylor saw the gun he left the property. McIntosh said Spokane Police took Taylor into custody after their report because he was wanted on a Department of Corrections warrant.

http://www.khq.com/story/23919881/gonzaga-students-face-possible-expulsion-after-pulling-gun-on-home-intruder

Concealed carry on college campuses is kind of my hot button issue. I have been a student on both public and private university campuses that did not allow their students to provide for their own self-defense. I don't think it is right that students should be disarmed, especially in their own homes as these students would have been had they obeyed their school's firearms policy.

Although we can't say for sure what would have happened had Erik Fagan and Dan McIntosh chosen to follow the policy and thus been disarmed, we do know that the dangerous threat they faced ended as soon as armed resistance was demonstrated. Had they chosen to follow the policy, they would have been forced to rely on campus security that could not have been any closer than a few minutes away. My question is this; would the university take responsibility for damages or injuries incurred if that response time had not been not fast enough to prevent the assault? What if those injuries included death?

My opinion on this particular case is nuanced because it is a private university, but in general it is this; a public university has no right to disarm its students if it is unable or unwilling to provide absolute security for every single one of those students.

[gejohnston]

1. they also reported their guns as stolen to the police

after the guns were confiscated by campus security, who are most likely not sworn police officers.

[Bazinga]

3. That I didn't know.

though I'm not sure giving them up to campus security equates to having them stolen.

[Jenoch]

6. The guns were taken from them

If campus security did not give them a receipt with a promise to return them, I too would have filed a police report to make it official.

[Xipe Totec]

2. Personal opinion does not trump school policy.

You don't get to choose which rules you comply with and which rules you ignore.

Don't like it? Go to a school that meets your political agenda.

[Bazinga]

4. Which is the majority of the nuance in my opinion.

When I was a student at a private university I did not carry on campus, nor did I have a firearm in my residence when it was against the policy. I agreed to the policy as a condition of my acceptance, and I respected it. Part of me thinks these students are not entirely blameless for their probation, but the majority of me is glad they had a firearm to defend themselves.

Now that I am a student in a public university, I still honor their no-weapons policy, though I do so much more reluctantly.

I am curious, however, what you think regarding who should be responsible for injuries and damages that result from such a policy.

[Eleanors38]

8. Nuance? We don't need no stinking nuance.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. Gonzaga is a private catholic university but

any school receiving public funds has no right to infringe on constitutional rights.

[ileus]

5. More evidence 2A regressives love victims.

I have to say however, rules are rules....if they wanted the ability to protect themselves, they should have lived off campus.

Never agree to live where others get to choose your level of safety for you.

I don't buy the "I did know" they probably took risk assuming like many that they'd never be the victim of a violent attack.

[DonP]

7. They did live "off campus", but the University owned the apartment building

From what I've read the rules aren't written all that clearly.

It bans firearm possession on campus ... but reads less than clearly about off campus housing owned by the University. Which is, IMHO, probably why the University is backing down on the whole expulsion thing.

I'm guessing this will wind up in court, with the "offense" being purged from their records.

I still wonder what responsibility the University would have had, if they had been robbed or injured in any way by the thug/robber?