Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do we know that the boys were not told about the dangers of the river? Even so, do teens often listen to everything? Again, even if the chaperone was right there watching, it's hard to watch all those kids at once and even if they noticed him in trouble there would not have been anything they could do other than call for help and hope it arrives in less than 7 minutes. As for a safety line, it's really not practical to string a line across a river like they do with a pool, that's why you never see it done.
Yes, this is why I posted that I hope more info about the case is forthcoming. Kids can be reckless, which is why chaperones need to be vigilant.
The Belize coastline has mangroves that stretch into the rivers to a certain point. There might be places where one could string a line parallel to the shoreline, IDK, but that's what I had in mind. You're right that we don't have enough info, but still; there were several chaperones; they all could have been watchful during the group swim. And with everyone out of the water, it should have been obvious that the one Black kid in the group wasn't there. And he was calling repeatedly for help. Sound carries over water; someone should have heard it. It's really hard to understand how this tragedy happened. I suppose if it was a particularly wide river (I just looked up some photos online), he could have been far enough away, that nobody heard.
Reading through this thread, it is quite obvious some are not fully reading the entire story, and some don't even care. They'll just stick to their usual comfort zone of casting automatic judgement on a grieving parent despite the awful truth of what actually happened. The usual diatribe about how this mother is being 'petty' and 'frivolous' with her lawsuit. Speaks volumes about the 'character' of these people (or lack thereof).
Now, for the umpteenth time. The school district in fact refused to tell the mother the full truth of what happened to her son on the trip. For 14 months they did not tell her any details.
It so happened that her son had a video camera on him, and he filmed his last moments. This video camera was believed to have been found by a fisherman or local, and over a year later was given to her. The footage was at least able to give the mother details about what happened to her son.
Imagine the mother. For 14 months the school refused to tell her anything about what happened to her son. It took a chance video footage taken by her son for her to realize the horrible, painful truth of what actually happened. Why did the school say nothing to the mother? If it weren't for that video, the school would have continued to hide the truth.
I'm all about criticizing frivolous lawsuits. This is not a frivolous or baseless lawsuit. Not even close. The school treated her with disrespect and gave the impression of covering up what happened to her son. The school deserves to be sued and I hope they get hit hard. No one deserves to be treated like that.
Reading through this thread, it is quite obvious some are not fully reading the entire story, and some don't even care. They'll just stick to their usual comfort zone of casting automatic judgement on a grieving parent despite the awful truth of what actually happened. The usual diatribe about how this mother is being 'petty' and 'frivolous' with her lawsuit. Speaks volumes about the 'character' of these people (or lack thereof).
Now, for the umpteenth time. The school district in fact refused to tell the mother the full truth of what happened to her son on the trip. For 14 months they did not tell her any details.
It so happened that her son had a video camera on him, and he filmed his last moments. This video camera was believed to have been found by a fisherman or local, and over a year later was given to her. The footage was at least able to give the mother details about what happened to her son.
Imagine the mother. For 14 months the school refused to tell her anything about what happened to her son. It took a chance video footage taken by her son for her to realize the horrible, painful truth of what actually happened. Why did the school say nothing to the mother? If it weren't for that video, the school would have continued to hide the truth.
I'm all about criticizing frivolous lawsuits. This is not a frivolous or baseless lawsuit. Not even close. The school treated her with disrespect and gave the impression of covering up what happened to her son. The school deserves to be sued and I hope they get hit hard. No one deserves to be treated like that.
Yes, they do. The government entity here screwed up BIG-TIME. As a result, they have to pay. Simple.
Ironically, the mother is one of those taxpayers.
This is probably one reason why sovereign immunity exists. The government is not a private individual with a personal fortune (or lack thereof). People know that the money WILL come from somewhere (public funds) and they would take advantage and sue any government entity and municipalities themselves, and for any little thing. People sue people or companies they know they will collect from. The government would be/is no different. And no, it really isn't fair for taxpayers. Allowing one case like this into the system opens the door for anything remotely similar.
This is probably one reason why sovereign immunity exists. The government is not a private individual with a personal fortune (or lack thereof). People know that the money WILL come from somewhere (public funds) and they would take advantage and sue any government entity and municipalities themselves, and for any little thing. People sue people or companies they know they will collect from. The government would be/is no different. And no, it really isn't fair for taxpayers. Allowing one case like this into the system opens the door for anything similar.
IMO, government immunity exists for historical reasons that are not good ones. It goes back to the fact that America takes its basic legal system from England. Under English law, the king was omnipotent, and one had no right to sue the head of state. As a result, from their formation, states took the position that they could not be sued either. Many injustices resulted from this over the years and certain things became clear. For example, we came to realize quickly that most injuries and deaths which occur to people occur from motor vehicle accidents. No one could state any logical rationale why a motor vehicle accident that was caused by a state employee should be treated differently than motor vehicle accidents by ordinary citizens. As such, state legislatures began to realize that there were circumstances where immunity should not exist. They began to write statutes that waived governmental immunity under different conditions.
In some states, government immunity was abolished by the state supreme court. Cases were brought on the theory that government immunity is a denial of equal protection of the law because the state and its employees are treated differently that private citizens. However, most states preserve immunity in some cases.
There are arguments for maintaining governmental immunity in some cases. For example, do we really want lawsuits against the government based on highway design? If you have a big enough budget it is always possible to design a better and safer road than the one currently being used. Do we want suits against a state parole board when it exercises its discretion to release a criminal and he/she goes on to injure or kill a citizen by committing another crime? Such a decision is a difficult one and it is impossible to predict whether someone will go straight or not after incarceration. Do we want lawsuits against schools when one student attacks and injures another student and the argument is the school administration should have restrained the offending student? This would impose a burden on schools that would be virtually impossible to meet.
I offer these as questions, rather than conclusions, because, to be honest, my own mind is not made up when it comes to many of these topics. These were complex topics we wrestled with almost daily in the attorney general's office during the time I was employed there.
What the people posting on this thread need to understand is that regardless of the merits of this particular case, there is a very good chance that the law in this state will not allow this case to be brought.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 5 days ago)
35,620 posts, read 17,948,343 times
Reputation: 50641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburban_Guy
Reading through this thread, it is quite obvious some are not fully reading the entire story, and some don't even care. They'll just stick to their usual comfort zone of casting automatic judgement on a grieving parent despite the awful truth of what actually happened. The usual diatribe about how this mother is being 'petty' and 'frivolous' with her lawsuit. Speaks volumes about the 'character' of these people (or lack thereof).
Now, for the umpteenth time. The school district in fact refused to tell the mother the full truth of what happened to her son on the trip. For 14 months they did not tell her any details.
It so happened that her son had a video camera on him, and he filmed his last moments. This video camera was believed to have been found by a fisherman or local, and over a year later was given to her. The footage was at least able to give the mother details about what happened to her son.
Imagine the mother. For 14 months the school refused to tell her anything about what happened to her son. It took a chance video footage taken by her son for her to realize the horrible, painful truth of what actually happened. Why did the school say nothing to the mother? If it weren't for that video, the school would have continued to hide the truth.
I'm all about criticizing frivolous lawsuits. This is not a frivolous or baseless lawsuit. Not even close. The school treated her with disrespect and gave the impression of covering up what happened to her son. The school deserves to be sued and I hope they get hit hard. No one deserves to be treated like that.
Suburbanguy, no one knew what happened to her son until this video surfaced, which was taken by her son's camera on his body and didn't surface until the camera was sent to the family with the rest of his effects.
No one knew. That's the thing I think everyone is missing. With all the shouting and splashing and laughing and carrying on, no one knew his last moments where he yelled for help and his calls were not heard.
No one ignored him. His cries for help went unnoticed because of all the other noises around him.
No one covered up what happened. The truth was, no one knew the circumstances of his going missing until this camera was returned to the family.
This is probably one reason why sovereign immunity exists. The government is not a private individual with a personal fortune (or lack thereof). People know that the money WILL come from somewhere (public funds) and they would take advantage and sue any government entity and municipalities themselves, and for any little thing. People sue people or companies they know they will collect from. The government would be/is no different. And no, it really isn't fair for taxpayers. Allowing one case like this into the system opens the door for anything remotely similar.
Well, then, gov't entities better have procedures in place to prevent them from screwing up. How hard is it for a group of chaperones to watch some teens, teens involved in a moderate-risk activity, like swimming? When chaperones should be on alert? How hard is that?
Suburbanguy, no one knew what happened to her son until this video surfaced, which was taken by her son's camera on his body and didn't surface until the camera was sent to the family with the rest of his effects.
No one knew. That's the thing I think everyone is missing. With all the shouting and splashing and laughing and carrying on, no one knew his last moments where he yelled for help and his calls were not heard.
No one ignored him. His cries for help went unnoticed because of all the other noises around him.
No one covered up what happened. The truth was, no one knew the circumstances of his going missing until this camera was returned to the family.
Or anyway, that's how I understand it.
So-o-o, they thought he must have wandered off? They just shrugged? What did they do upon realizing he was missing? What a horrible feeling the adults in charge must have felt, realizing he was missing, and having no idea what could have happened! And how did his classmates feel? How did everyone feel, having to return home without their classmate, I wonder?
Awful. Just an awful, horribly tragic story.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 04-27-2017 at 11:25 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I suppose if it was a particularly wide river (I just looked up some photos online), he could have been far enough away, that nobody heard. 
