Slimeball lawyer seeks to profit off shooting

CedarParkFan

CedarParkFan

1,000+ Posts
Well, I guess this was bound to happen. Why can't we, as a society just accept the fact that these things sometimes happen and, unfortunately, there may be little that could have prevented it? It's pretty sad that some are so morally and ethically bankrupt that they would try to profit off such a tragedy. If the gunman had survived, then sue him. That's the ONLY place to lay the blame. But, to sue the state? Really? I'm sorry his client was traumatized. That's Lanza's fault. It's not the fault of the state, the school, the NRA, the doctors, or anyone else. The total lack of shame that some possess never fails to amaze me. What a sleezebucket.

Anything for a buck
 
I wish they'd go after the manufacturers of the AR and the sellers and the NRA. Just like with the civil rights victories and against the mob - make it so expensive for these groups to operate that they cease to exist.
hookem.gif
 
I suppose that you are saying the constitution doesn't matter. However, apparently you did not know that the 14th amendment superseded your quoted non sequitur. This means that politicians at that time thought enough about the constitution to change it through an amendment rather than through legislative creep.
 
They should ban cars knifes ropes chains bats drugs doctors ladders etc. they all kill people. You agree Roger
 
CPF,

A few things. First, as the article says, he's asking permission to sue the state. A state can't be sued for tort liability unless it consents to it. All the State of Connecticut has to do is say "No," and the girl has no lawsuit at all. My guess is that they'll deny the request. If this girl is allowed to sue, then who in the school wouldn't be allowed to sue? Basically, the entire student body would become plaintiffs. That's a lot of plaintiffs and a lot of money. (Since workers compensation benefits are the exclusive remedy for employees, they would not be able to sue, unless the Legislature actually passed a special law permitting them to recover beyond comp benefits, which definitely won't happen.)

Second, even if the State says "Yes," that doesn't mean the school becomes the guarantor of everybody's safety. The Connecticut court system would have to impose a duty on the school to provide reasonable security for its students. Furthermore, it would have to review the evidence against the school and find it legally sufficient to allow the case to proceed. Finally, a jury would have to find it sufficient. Personally, I know nothing about the case these folks would present, so I can't even begin to judge its merits.

Third, you express outrage at the idea of the school or anyone facing liability for not protecting someone from the criminal acts of someone else, and usually the law agrees with you. However, in some unique situations, the law sees it differently (most commonly when the property owner knows or has reason to know of a risk of harm to invitees on the premises that is unreasonable and foreseeable), and I would assume you would too.

Consider this example. Suppose you hire a security company to install a security system in your home and contact the police if there's a break-in. Suppose that an intruder breaks in, and the security company fails to call the police like they had promised, and because of their failure, the intruder is able to completely clean out your entire house instead of just grabbing the few things he could get before the police arrive. Obviously the intruder should be primarily responsible for your losses, but if you can't get at him for whatever reason (he was never identified or he was insolvent), would you really just take it in the shorts for the value of everything in your house and let the security company off the hook for its failure to do what you paid it to do? (Disregard the issue of homeowners insurance. That's a separate transaction between you and your insurer and isn't relevant to the duties of the security company.) I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't hesitate to sue the security company, even though a criminal most directly caused your losses.

Fourth, like I said earlier, as a general rule, the law doesn't impose liability for failing to protect others from the criminal actors, and I agree with that. However, I also agree with a few exceptions. I'm not necessarily ready to impose such a duty on a school without more thought and consideration, but a case can be made for it.

Two things make a school unique from other situations and therefore give possible justification to set aside the general rule. First, the students are a captive audience. They don't get to choose whether or not to go. If they don't go, they get charged with a crime (truancy) themselves. Second, the school prohibits the students and others inside from defending themselves with weapons or even fighting. I think a pretty fair argument can be made that if you prohibit someone from defending themselves, you automatically take on a duty to defend them yourself.

Hell, if a restaurant had a "no weapons" sign and the law abiding CHL licensees dutifully left their weapons in their cars, but the restaurant did nothing to prevent a crazy shooter who obviously didn't care about their stupid sign from sneaking in with a weapon and blowing away a few dozen people, would you really sympathize with the restaurant for not letting its customers defend themselves while doing nothing to defend them? I sure as hell wouldn't. Frankly, that's a situation where I'd rather have conservatives on my jury than liberals.

Again, I'm not necessarily on board with this kid's case, but it is more complicated than just "a slimeball lawyer' trying to profit. A legitimate argument can be made to impose liability on a school if it forces kids to attend defenseless but does nothing to protect them.
 
Apparently, we need armed guards everywhere.

What happens when one of the armed guards goes on a shooting spree?

Do we need guards for the guards?
 
Good point Pasotex. I think it should be pointed out that the only time we have complete invulnerability to people with weapons, ability and evil intent is when we are no longer breathing.
 
My original point was that the school is not to blame, nor is the state. The shooter is the only one to blame. To even attempt to shift a share of the blame is, IMHO, unethical. Unfortunaeltely there is evil in the world and we (schools, businesses, etc . . . ) can only do so much. Some incidents, such as this one in Connecticut, can not be stopped with the reasonable measures that were in place. Even asking for permission to sue the state is an attempt to extort $$$ in an unethical manner. As far as I can discern all reasonable measures were in place. Public schools are just that -public schools. They go about their business and take common sense approaches to stem such atrocities. By the same token, when taken by surprise by a criminal bent on perpetrating a violent outcome, the school personel react in the most efficient way they can to ensure the safety of all students and district employees. Sometimes there's only so much that can be done. No frivilous lawsuit will change that. It will only serve to line the pockets of those who are shameless enough to pursue the almightly dollar in the wake of such a horrible situation.
 
CPF,

You're making a boatload of assumptions - that reasonable or "common sense" measures are always taken by schools to protect kids. What exactly are these measures that schools take? From what Larry says, the guy shot his way into the building. Obviously, I wouldn't fault the school if the school was actually secured. However, for the sake of discussion, suppose school personnel didn't lock the doors and a gunman just walked in or let the guy in without making sure he had business in the school. Would that make a difference to you?

What about my restaurant and security system hypotheticals? Where would you come down on those?
 
CPF,

We obviously disagree on the restaurant owner, and I think many pro-gun people would be on my side on the issue. However, I'll give you props for at least having the balls to take your stand on the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top