as true for the purposes of pleading that the point of put forward is a case where a young man was killed outside of crane high school he was a public school student we have pled that the board of ed was fully aware that there were dangerous in the area that they had there were dangers near the school that students had been shot and additionally what we pled and more importantly is on this specific particular day there had been a problem in the school with certain children they sent those children home and then at the time this was going to be this charge to release the rest of the students they noticed that the people who had they had sent home were back and there was a mob outside of the school armed with paul clogs that they could see and other weapons that they could see and certainly they had reason to believe that if these people were there with these kind of weapons there was a danger to the students that were in the school i position is that there were foreign wakanda was not we're not saying they they should have had a police force we're not saying they should have provided security we are saying that all the things that we pledged regarding danger they were aware of the specific danger this wasn't like some of the other cases where there's a general danger they have seen known and it's not to any specific group of people at any specific date this is a specific day these danger were known they saw the people out there armed with clubs with bass with cough clubs with other items and they had known of the dangerous ness of the neighborhood and they chose to release the students right know this what i'm saying it but what i'm saying is i don't know the facts around again if he had come to school if they had had metal detectors like they said even if you brought a weapon in through those metal detectors and he shot them inside the school and they i don't know whether we'd be here to be quite honest with you i don't know whether that would have been one hundred percent actionable or they take the same position and said well you know we don't have to provide security even though we voluntarily undertook to put a metal detector in even though we voluntarily had security we can't stop everything i don't know whether that would be actionable how i see this case is closer to a premises like those are the case then to a failure to provide police protection or believe that the action that could have been taken should not be have deliberately disregarded a known risk was just to keep the students in school till it was safe to allow them to leave now or if it took then the police injury here is that they just let them out of the school knowing what was out there mr muscle and yes excuse me for interrupting  maybe a half a block down a half a block maybe on publix on the public sidewalk on the school property i don't recall whether he was shot up public sidewalk or or he was shot at school property and even a half a block to shoot him or a member of the mob to shoot them and he had also i think he was struck i don't think that there changes anything i think the duty exists when the student is in the school and the school people are aware of what's outside and they'd say ok here guys go ahead out there there it's why i see it said i don't believe it would have made a condition or the cause in this case after this was dismissed and while the appeal was pending we sought to stay the appeal to file an amended complaint naming the individual who had the actual physical control which was i believe the principal we didn't know his name before but i don't think it really should matter it's not you know this is be an agency case it's clearly within the scope of the municipal employees  adequate security in this case it and they keep using i mean to comes up almost in every municipal case now that anybody gets hurt or there could have been a policeman nearby they started saying well for one zero two trumps everything all  one or two i don't believe does trump anything i think under certain circumstances it's a absolute immunity and i think for one of those who was never intended to trump a situation like this for no two is if you don't create a police force or the police department doesn't stop a crime or arrest somebody before they commit a crime that's what i think for one of two is intended to do and you know we also have the issue here of special duty just to touch on it and there was zimmerman talks is the fact that the breach in our case as we see it the duty in the breach was the failure to keep the children safely in school not to provide a security force not take you have a security at the school benefit of well for long enough to well to and we have to prove that they were willful and wanton and not just reckless and i believe based on the way we pled the case it should have been allowed to proceed to see whether or not we could have proven that i don't believe this you obviously when you read the transcript you saw that he had to say because he believed although he believed for one of two was applicable he did not believe that was a fair result and  back to your original question i pleadings indicate throughout they at i don't we was the school jat the school board generally aware of the problems but the specific school was aware of the dangers in the area and on this particular day they were aware of students being sent home for fights and students being skinny out on the steps of the school at the time of release with weapons to allow people out into that isn't a no in school that means that once the students are there they're kept within the school the doors are locked because of the nature of the community because of the problems they've had in the school so people just can't come in and out and when schools or work they have to leave the doors unlocked and they have to be there basically sense of duty after they leave or where they can leave if they want it's my understanding and like i said this had been developed because we had no discovery but it was my understanding that they had to leave and then the doors are locked behind them once they left and so it is exact opposite in the to the school where you say persons were there when they were right out on the steps in front of the school i don't think that that's correct that well it depends on what your definition of police is it's not up to the police the situation it's the maintaining the status quo until the situation above either  they had i don't agree and the reason i don't agree is it brings me to the long form definition of proximate cause while the for the i don't believe that the board had the duty to disperse them but the chicago police department would have come and disperse them eventually the question is because there was a police officers who actually showed up there but the fact of the matter is all they had to do was to maintain the status quo and not have occurred on defendants premises and that the board of ed has confiscated weapons including guns that were found i could be in possession of the students upon school property in and that they that was at least at least  to stop crimes they had what i think it would be immunity as the immunity is so that if you're if there's a police officer standing on the corner and then someone gets raped out across the street here you can say oh my god i'm soon the police officer because he didn't stop this crime and also that people don't have to provide police protection or create least departments i believe that was a legislative intent for one or two i think for one of two has been stretched about as far as you can stretch to provide providing police protection or services appellants factual allegations contained in the complaint directly describe the system wide and school based security measures the had been in place in the days leading up to i instance because just meso is constituted the exercise of discretion and how does that m to limit my ability of local public entities and their employees to protect government from funds from being expended when certain measures are taken to protect people because the florida and other local employ local public entities can't prevent everything bad from happening there are certain things that they can do and the and they do them but this conduct falls right with them for we're no tale based on appellants own factual allegations regarding the drastic security measures that were taken at and which was a similar case that applied to schools as far as a matter of metal detectors were concerned so just because we're not the scope police department does not affect or we know to immunity applying to the board a local public entity at the school so far when i was he would apply to anything that occurred before dismissal as well pled that there was knowledge of the neighborhood we played that there was danger knowledge of the competing gains in the school that there had been prior problems with the completing competing games within the school that came from the two different neighborhoods the the competing games one was from the elbow homes one was from rockwell and that was part of the problem we also played that in this particular that there had been weapons in the school we played that they were completely the school district and board was and people in this school were completely knowledgeable about those facts which were present we played that on this particular day there had been a fight in the school between these two rival factions that one of the rival factions had then sent out of the school and not allowed back in and then at three o'clock or whatever time they were to be dismissed their school was uniquely aware actually aware of the presence of the people they hit thrown out for fighting now be back and the porch of the school or the skip steps and the property of the school with golf clubs and other weapons we played that in spite of this knowing that there's a danger existed they deliberately this regarded it and dismissed the students out for the school just as an aside judge warrants complimented my partner did the complaint mr sandberg complimented him on the well in our second amended complaint which was the complaint which was dismissed and going back to what causal saying is that we insufficiently plaid judge warrants that not dismiss it on insufficient pleading he persisted on the for one of two issue we pled sufficient facts which as you know well pled facts are taken this true for the purpose of pleading and based on that we pled sufficient facts for willful and wanton failure to supervise situation here plead the knowledge that we believed we would be able to prove me at trial that existed that coupled with the specific event of this day made it i guess more egregious not you know we were not saying that every single day everybody s to be walked in their cars or you know anything like that happens what we're saying is that i need a given day when you have a mob carrying weapons and those people were the leaders of that mob were thrown out of school for fighting well here's what for want to go to says and i'm sure you're aware of it neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department we are not saying that they didn't establish a police department but otherwise to provide police protection services or police protection is provided for failure to provide adequate police protection or service or failure to prevent the commission of crimes detectors solve crimes and failure to identify or prevent criminals that's not i don't believe that's true at all i believe that if we had pled that the chicago who school police force or the chicago police force or the school security force did went out there and attempted to stop it and couldn't stop someone from getting shot right greed that that's what it would have happened the breach happened before the crime was committed and it didn't happen because the police failed to commit up that they know any police force was created or police protection was failed it again i don't i don't see this as the school's failure to prevent the commission of the crime of a crime i don't believe that they had they fixed what they did i suppose we're what i'm trying to say is that while i understand for one of the two is very bright and has been applied from the plaintiff's view ad nauseum but it is the law i don't believe it's applicable here because i don't believe it was ever intended and i'm not asking you to turn a blind eye to it and not i don't believe it was ever intended to apply to a situation like this i believe it was intended and even has been carried forward to the point of like and this is mark this is closer to the facts in i forget if it's dull were decent that where the police officer was outside he had control of the situation and then chose not to go in the stop the raid and they held that for one of two did not back their complaint that was the appellate court reversed in that case but they knew who the actor was the specific police officer who had control this is closer to that situation than it is to all the other situations which talk about the failure to provide police protection because this is a situation where  talking about police protection here what's necessary we just look at a narrow part of the statute that refers to the failure of revenge commission of a crime if a crime had been prevented we wouldn't be in the school your theory then the crime would we didn't want to hurt because and if it had occurred it wouldn't have been at the fault of the board of that if it here now or later two hours later but if  something we can't say well we read with this lawyer because we like this argument you know it seems like a good argument to us how do we write a legal opinion that gets around the brain of for one or two it's a very broad statute designed to then i would suppose that i don't think for want to cause this far that any time there's a crime which is a as a public through a public situation th can't think of an analogy to be honest where you would be able to say that an injury occurs and it's not a crime that would not be covered under for one or two and again when i wasn't talking about a specific police thing when i was talking about the some that are don't persist calumet they act is just that was applied it doesn't matter if it was a police officer or the person that opened the doors from the school and let the kids out not a bar that's what happened in the case that i talked to you about and that's why i believe that if you want to you know obviously for want to is there and if you find it to be applicable the way around it that the courts have allowed is exactly what they did and i forget if it's the cement or go where they said ok this guy he happened to be a police officer but it could have been any public employee that was there had control of the situation i understand that but it was a public employee who had control of the situation which that is the children in the school and that allowed them out they had it done worse than was not police it doesn't matter if he was a police person he was a my theory of the legislator my understanding a legislative intent would not protect that individual in our case but would have protected the individual and he said that and even though all the dead individual had police and the shi for one or two was an exception was carved out to say because they had individual he had control over the situation and didn't act on that control and a crime occurred which was the injury that for one zero two did not bar their case that's how i see this case and i think that that's a stronger argument for four one zero two because it was a police personnel involved that was still allowed to go forward then in this case where the board had  the agent of the board had control of the situation was aware of the games or and chose not to act willfully disregarded act willfully rightly disregarding the known risks and that's the best way i can explain it based on the status of the case law well there could they still talk about a special duty exception even though they don't apply it in that situation they still say it exists and it clearly would exist here and i don't believe that for one or two trumps