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.
Really? This suit is without basis. It was a nice school in a sleepy town with added security at the door. Anything more would've been a waste of money (previously at least). It's very sad that it occurred, but there is no negligence nor was it foreseeable.
There is no merit to this lawsuit. Yes they will settle out of court and the lawyer will take 1/3 off the top. This in term makes everything more expensive for all of us. It doesn't make things safer.
If the suit really does have no merit then it will be dismissed, but I would wait to hear the actual facts they are presenting before making that call. And this suit in particular might not make things safer, but lawsuits have made many products and areas much safer and helped to take unsafe products off the market.
Short of following Wayne LaPierre's recommendation of
armed guards, what could the school have done differently?
If I were on the jury, all they would get is my sympathy.
I read that it took 20 minutes for the police to arrive. Maybe the suit should go against the police dept.
I read that it took 20 minutes for the police to arrive. Maybe the suit should go against the police dept.
Part of the problem with the gun control argument is that the police follow procedure. People think we don't need armed citizens because we have police. But when the police get a report a heavily armed person shooting people, they need to prepare before engaging. This takes time and with every minute the police take preparing and responding more people are killed.
I really hope that lawsuit doesnt go forward or they dont win. I live in that state and taxed enough already. That money can be better used else where. On top of that, the lack of morals in people to do this is disgarceful.
The lawsuit doesn't go far enough, from what I can see. Aside from the punitive damages, it should also include requirements to release details and corroborating video evidence of how the shooter gained access to the school. Aside from that, there aren't nearly enough parties being charged in the suit. Everyone from the shooter's family (mia father) to the Federal government should be a party in this lawsuit for fostering a situation which led to the shooting.
All I could think is how grateful I would be that my child survived. I bet any one of the parents that lost a child would give ANYTHING - including their own life - if it could bring back their child. Children are resilient and with the proper care their child will come out of this fine.
If they are awarded anything I hope it is put in a trust fund for the child because more than likely the parents will blow through it in record time.
The lawsuit doesn't go far enough, from what I can see. Aside from the punitive damages, it should also include requirements to release details and corroborating video evidence of how the shooter gained access to the school. Aside from that, there aren't nearly enough parties being charged in the suit. Everyone from the shooter's family (mia father) to the Federal government should be a party in this lawsuit for fostering a situation which led to the shooting.
Well that's all they want are punitive damages. They want the money is what it comes down to.
Well that's all they want are punitive damages. They want the money is what it comes down to.
That's the way I see it as well, unfortunately. I don't really support this lawsuit as it stands, since it does seem to be about the money rather than anything else. However, if it were actually a lawsuit about calling people onto the carpet for what has happened, I'd be supportive.
It's not a function of government to ensure that its citizens have access to affordable mental healthcare, but it is a function of schools to arm themselves and protect their students from armed lunatics???
For what it's worth (even though I don't think this conversation between us will amount to much), It wasn't all that long ago I was in school, and I can tell you with absolute certainty: There is no god damn way I would trust a gun in the hands of at least a handful of teachers in that building, let alone the janitors and cooks.
No, it's not a function of government to provide mental health care. And it's not governments job to make sure anything in the private sector is "affordable." Mental health care would be very affordable for everyone if the government got out of it. Everything else is.
And as long as the government owns and operates schools they have the obligation to provide security for its occupants.
And how many of those teachers and janitors and cooks brought a gun to your school and shot people? Zero. Nothing was stopping them. So what's the difference? If someone wants to kill people it doesn't matter if they are using a government approved weapon or not. And if one teacher started shooting people another armed teacher could shoot them long before police arrive. Possibly saving numerous lives.
Teachers are allowed to carry weapons to school in Utah. Never once has a school official shot a student. Big article in it in this weekends USA Today.
And schools can provide security without using guns.
If they are negligent in keeping kids safe then parents should be able to sue.
No, it's not a function of government to provide mental health care. And it's not governments job to make sure anything in the private sector is "affordable." Mental health care would be very affordable for everyone if the government got out of it. Everything else is.
And as long as the government owns and operates schools they have the obligation to provide security for its occupants.
And how many of those teachers and janitors and cooks brought a gun to your school and shot people? Zero. Nothing was stopping them. So what's the difference? If someone wants to kill people it doesn't matter if they are using a government approved weapon or not. And if one teacher started shooting people another armed teacher could shoot them long before police arrive. Possibly saving numerous lives.
Teachers are allowed to carry weapons to school in Utah. Never once has a school official shot a student. Big article in it in this weekends USA Today.
And schools can provide security without using guns.
If they are negligent in keeping kids safe then parents should be able to sue.
It's a function of our teachers and faculty to act as armed security guards, but it is not a function of government to ensure that its citizens have access to quality, affordable mental health care?
Sorry, I'm stuck there. Looks like we're at an impasse. Nice chattin' with ya.
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.
