SandyHook: Victims vs The State of Connecticut?

[CreepersWiener]

I kind of agree with this lawsuit. The state should be held responsible for not protecting children that are hurt or killed at school. It will get those schools thinking about ways to protect the children better than what has been done in the past. (somewhat related would have been the airlines being sued for the terrorist attacks on 911 instead of establishing the TSA). If this family wins, every school in America will be shitting bricks!

[Phatscotty]

I kind of agree with this lawsuit. The state should be held responsible for not protecting children that are hurt or killed at school. It will get those schools thinking about ways to protect the children better than what has been done in the past. (somewhat related would have been the airlines being sued for the terrorist attacks on 911 instead of establishing the TSA). If this family wins, every school in America will be shitting bricks!

The schools will be yelling "TO ARMS! TO ARMS!!!!!!!!"

[notyou2]

Home schooling for all americans.

[CreepersWiener]

I kind of agree with this lawsuit. The state should be held responsible for not protecting children that are hurt or killed at school. It will get those schools thinking about ways to protect the children better than what has been done in the past. (somewhat related would have been the airlines being sued for the terrorist attacks on 911 instead of establishing the TSA). If this family wins, every school in America will be shitting bricks!

The schools will be yelling "TO ARMS! TO ARMS!!!!!!!!"

And then when the next mass shooting happens from either a mentally ill teacher or a student that overpowers a teacher and grabs their gun to kill a class of twenty kids we can go through the lawsuits again until we get it right. Eventually gun control laws will evolve into what needs to be.

[rdsrds2120]

Home schooling for all americans.

Horrifying! I wouldn't be half the robot I was today if I would have had to be home-schooled.

BMO

[AAFitz]

I kind of agree with this lawsuit. The state should be held responsible for not protecting children that are hurt or killed at school. It will get those schools thinking about ways to protect the children better than what has been done in the past. (somewhat related would have been the airlines being sued for the terrorist attacks on 911 instead of establishing the TSA). If this family wins, every school in America will be shitting bricks!

The schools will be yelling "TO ARMS! TO ARMS!!!!!!!!"

And then when the next mass shooting happens from either a mentally ill teacher or a student that overpowers a teacher and grabs their gun to kill a class of twenty kids we can go through the lawsuits again until we get it right. Eventually gun control laws will evolve into what needs to be.

Let me be very clear here. He does not care who dies. He just wants what he wants, and in this case it just happens to be Semi-automatic assault rifles.

Arguing against such insanity while ignoring the pure corruption of soul is just a complete waste of time.

I am sorry to critique what is a balanced, insightful and unfortunately obvious post on your part, but its all for naught when used against corrupt individuals.

[AAFitz]

I kind of agree with this lawsuit. The state should be held responsible for not protecting children that are hurt or killed at school. It will get those schools thinking about ways to protect the children better than what has been done in the past. (somewhat related would have been the airlines being sued for the terrorist attacks on 911 instead of establishing the TSA). If this family wins, every school in America will be shitting bricks!

The schools will be yelling "TO ARMS! TO ARMS!!!!!!!!"

More likely "NO ARMS! NO ARMS!!!!!!!!

Unless of course they are ridiculously stupid.

[Evil Semp]

I kind of agree with this lawsuit. The state should be held responsible for not protecting children that are hurt or killed at school. It will get those schools thinking about ways to protect the children better than what has been done in the past. (somewhat related would have been the airlines being sued for the terrorist attacks on 911 instead of establishing the TSA). If this family wins, every school in America will be shitting bricks!

The schools will be yelling "TO ARMS! TO ARMS!!!!!!!!"

More likely "NO ARMS! NO ARMS!!!!!!!!

Unless of course they are ridiculously stupid.

+1

[AAFitz]

I kind of agree with this lawsuit. The state should be held responsible for not protecting children that are hurt or killed at school. It will get those schools thinking about ways to protect the children better than what has been done in the past. (somewhat related would have been the airlines being sued for the terrorist attacks on 911 instead of establishing the TSA). If this family wins, every school in America will be shitting bricks!

The schools will be yelling "TO ARMS! TO ARMS!!!!!!!!"

More likely "NO ARMS! NO ARMS!!!!!!!!

Unless of course they are ridiculously stupid.

+1

There best legal defense of course would be to argue how ridiculous it was to allow semi-automatic rifles to be available to the general public. They should counter sue the maker of the weapon, and all should sue the makers of such weapons, just as when one type of car or other product is responsible for a disproportionate amount of deaths.

Without the availability of semiauto weapons, some of those children would be alive, and that is the simple, basic truth, the gun-huggers just refuse to accept.

[PLAYER57832]

I kind of agree with this lawsuit. The state should be held responsible for not protecting children that are hurt or killed at school. It will get those schools thinking about ways to protect the children better than what has been done in the past. (somewhat related would have been the airlines being sued for the terrorist attacks on 911 instead of establishing the TSA). If this family wins, every school in America will be shitting bricks!

The schools will be yelling "TO ARMS! TO ARMS!!!!!!!!"

And then when the next mass shooting happens from either a mentally ill teacher or a student that overpowers a teacher and grabs their gun to kill a class of twenty kids we can go through the lawsuits again until we get it right. Eventually gun control laws will evolve into what needs to be.

I certainly don't agree with Phattscotty's view on this, but I cannot agree with you, either.

Gun control is not going to solve THIS problem. I can see some value in limiting certain high intensity weapons, high count ammunition clips, etc. However, these psycopaths are not to be confused with people who commit more "everyday" violance. These people don't just rush out, grap a gun and start shooting. They think long and hard, have very detailed plans. They tend to be very intelligent people, with goals and the ability to carry those nefarious goals out. They will go a LONG way to obtain the weapons they need. If its not assault rifles, they really will start building bombs or take other dangerous action.

Stopping THOSE people is less about gun control and more about mental health care, evaluation and determining just who is going to do something like that. That is very, very difficult. A LOT of people sort of "match the profile" of each of these shooters, but never go do these kinds of acts. It gets back to the old question, how much harm are we willing to endure to keep ourselves "safe". We could solve everything by locking up every human being on Earth, needs met by robots... but I, for one prefer actually living!


HOWEVER, if you are talking about more "normal" or "random" violance, then there is a debate. There are also a seperate debates that involves hunters and sportsshooters.

A lot of violance IS "opportunistic". Time limits to obtain a gun actually do cut down on some kinds of domestic violance deaths, vengeance killings. Universal background checks do keep a lot of people who have no business owning guns from owning them.. and give law enforcement IMMEDIATE justification to remove guns from someone who obtained them illegally even without any other type of crime being involved, which can be a benefit in many situations (particularly drugs and gang stuff where proving another crime can be tricky). ETC.

For hunters and sportshooters, the debate should be about responsibility and safety. Hunters, in particular, traditionally are very responsible people, despite what the "knee-jerk" anti-hunting groups like to claim. This extends to handling guns safety AND, traditionally, to taking care of wildlife upon whom they depend for sport and food. It was not eco-environmentalists who gave us wildlife refuges, who faught to support wildlife protection and re-establishment measures. These things were all driven by hunters who saw that irresponsibility, both from other hunters and unthinking development, were taking away one of America's greatest resources.. namely its wildlife. For example, it was hunters that actually faught for taxes on weapons that would be then earmarked for protection of wildlife. Many state fish and game departments are heavily supported by the license fees people pay to pursue these activities. BUT.. unfortunately, some of that ethic has begun to change. How would you act if a 20 something kid, fresh out of college, likely supported by his parents, starts arguing and insulting you for hunting, basically telling how smart they are, how much more knowledgeable and how stupid you are? Even when the conversation is more mannerly than that, more casaul (perhaps even in the hunter's own home, with his own kids) -- what do you think really happens?

Then, of course, you have a whole group of folks who go out, major in whatever, get some money and decide to go to the nearest Cabella's (or even a higher end outfitter) and suddenly "become a hunter". Too many of these guys are just plain arrogant and competetive to boot, figure since they are experts in business (or law or whatever), well, tackling this hunting thing is just another challenge, one they are certainly up to. Hire a guide? what for?? OR, maybe they do hire a guide who scouts, chases the animals basically into the line of fire.. and then the "hunter" decides that this is what hunting is and makes decisions based on that idea. OR, perhaps he did not even go to the wilds, maybe he was in a game farm.... In any case, the whole idea of hunting and hunters and game become just another commodity to be "managed" like any other commodity. Except.. nature isn't.
Hunters would do well to remember that. If hunters want hungting to continue, they need to go back to taking more responsibility for ALL aspects.

Sportshooter and hunters each share responsibility to pass on safety to the young. However, that involves provided reasonable access to youth who might not otherwise get the chance to shoot, or who might shoot under negative conditions. If all your average "soccer mom" sees of guns is the latest news broadcast of killings and robberies, then how freindly do you think she will be toward the sports? Making it an exclusive club, like they do in Europe, making hunting something that only the wealthy can pursue, is yet another major threat to gun use in America.

[oVo]

Was the school at fault for the tragic events that day?
I don't think so.

[Phatscotty]

I kind of agree with this lawsuit. The state should be held responsible for not protecting children that are hurt or killed at school. It will get those schools thinking about ways to protect the children better than what has been done in the past. (somewhat related would have been the airlines being sued for the terrorist attacks on 911 instead of establishing the TSA). If this family wins, every school in America will be shitting bricks!

The schools will be yelling "TO ARMS! TO ARMS!!!!!!!!"

And then when the next mass shooting happens from either a mentally ill teacher or a student that overpowers a teacher and grabs their gun to kill a class of twenty kids we can go through the lawsuits again until we get it right. Eventually gun control laws will evolve into what needs to be.

Really? So then why are you not afraid of mentally ill police officers being overpowered by children? There are 100,000's more cops with guns than there are teachers with guns, yet you don't see children, or even adults, overpowering police officers.

[Phatscotty]

I kind of agree with this lawsuit. The state should be held responsible for not protecting children that are hurt or killed at school. It will get those schools thinking about ways to protect the children better than what has been done in the past. (somewhat related would have been the airlines being sued for the terrorist attacks on 911 instead of establishing the TSA). If this family wins, every school in America will be shitting bricks!

The schools will be yelling "TO ARMS! TO ARMS!!!!!!!!"

More likely "NO ARMS! NO ARMS!!!!!!!!

Unless of course they are ridiculously stupid.

+1

There best legal defense of course would be to argue how ridiculous it was to allow semi-automatic rifles to be available to the general public. They should counter sue the maker of the weapon, and all should sue the makers of such weapons, just as when one type of car or other product is responsible for a disproportionate amount of deaths.

Without the availability of semiauto weapons, some of those children would be alive, and that is the simple, basic truth, the gun-huggers just refuse to accept.

good luck in the court of la-la land. I have to ask, if the gun is so much to blame, and the gun maker is so much to blame, and the bullet maker is so much to blame, and the mother is so much to blame, and the second amendment and America is so much to blame, while the school gets none of the blame, how much blame is left for the fucking murderer?

Newsflash for ya. The schools are going to be armed, and it's for protection and defense. So I guess you are just gonna have to continue living in fear that the children are in danger from those who are protecting them which is so far beyond stupid it's complete paranoia...

[Woodruff]

Newsflash for ya. The schools are going to be armed, and it's for protection and defense. So I guess you are just gonna have to continue living in fear that the children are in danger from those who are protecting them which is so far beyond stupid it's complete paranoia...

How these sentences don't resonate as complete irony with you, I do not understand. You're such an unbelievably dishonest f*ck.

[Phatscotty]

Newsflash for ya. The schools are going to be armed, and it's for protection and defense. So I guess you are just gonna have to continue living in fear that the children are in danger from those who are protecting them which is so far beyond stupid it's complete paranoia...

How these sentences don't resonate as complete irony with you, I do not understand. You're such an unbelievably dishonest f*ck.

well, not like your opinion about me is going to change anything, so all irrelevant driveling aside, I guess you will have to just wait and see.

Of course, New Jersey, Arizona, and Michigan are already making changes to arm teachers and principles and armed professionals in schools, but don't let your obsession with irony and not being able to understand get in the way of observing reality

[pimpdave]

Instead, they should sue the Tea Party.

[Woodruff]

Newsflash for ya. The schools are going to be armed, and it's for protection and defense. So I guess you are just gonna have to continue living in fear that the children are in danger from those who are protecting them which is so far beyond stupid it's complete paranoia...

How these sentences don't resonate as complete irony with you, I do not understand. You're such an unbelievably dishonest f*ck.

well, not like your opinion about me is going to change anything, so all irrelevant driveling aside, I guess you will have to just wait and see.

Of course, New Jersey, Arizona, and Michigan are already making changes to arm teachers and principles and armed professionals in schools, but don't let your obsession with irony and not being able to understand get in the way of observing reality

Oh, I understand irony just fine. I also understand hypocricy. Those are two of the primary reasons why I understand you all too well.

[Phatscotty]

Newsflash for ya. The schools are going to be armed, and it's for protection and defense. So I guess you are just gonna have to continue living in fear that the children are in danger from those who are protecting them which is so far beyond stupid it's complete paranoia...

How these sentences don't resonate as complete irony with you, I do not understand. You're such an unbelievably dishonest f*ck.

well, not like your opinion about me is going to change anything, so all irrelevant driveling aside, I guess you will have to just wait and see.

Of course, New Jersey, Arizona, and Michigan are already making changes to arm teachers and principles and armed professionals in schools, but don't let your obsession with irony and not being able to understand get in the way of observing reality

Oh, I understand irony just fine. I also understand hypocricy. Those are two of the primary reasons why I understand you all too well.

obviously.

Do you understand how your posts are completely meaningless? It seems you are all done talking about guns in schools, and just want to talk about me. I like how you pretend to want to talk about the subject for the first response, but then lose controll.

[Woodruff]

Newsflash for ya. The schools are going to be armed, and it's for protection and defense. So I guess you are just gonna have to continue living in fear that the children are in danger from those who are protecting them which is so far beyond stupid it's complete paranoia...

How these sentences don't resonate as complete irony with you, I do not understand. You're such an unbelievably dishonest f*ck.

well, not like your opinion about me is going to change anything, so all irrelevant driveling aside, I guess you will have to just wait and see.

Of course, New Jersey, Arizona, and Michigan are already making changes to arm teachers and principles and armed professionals in schools, but don't let your obsession with irony and not being able to understand get in the way of observing reality

Oh, I understand irony just fine. I also understand hypocricy. Those are two of the primary reasons why I understand you all too well.

obviously.
Do you understand how your posts are completely meaningless? It seems you are all done talking about guns in schools, and just want to talk about me. I like how you pretend to want to talk about the subject for the first response, but then lose controll.

Phatscotty, the Viceroy63 of American civil liberties.

[chang50]

Phatscotty, the Viceroy63 of American civil liberties.[/quote]


What's Viceroy ever done to you?

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty, the Viceroy63 of American civil liberties.

What's Viceroy ever done to you?

I don't get it either

[stahrgazer]

The stupidity of our legal system actually allows a lawsuit against a school because a maniac got in.

Maybe their should be another lawsuit suing the taxpaying community for not fronting the taxes that would've been required to put bulletproof glass, metal detectors, a law enforcement officer in every classroom, and a tower with a law enforcement sniper ready to drop the perpetrator. I'm sure if the community had argued to put the additional taxes for 'school security' on the ballot, the school officials would happily have hired the architects, builders, and security forces that would've been required to keep that particular maniac out of the classrooms.

After 9/11, did anyone have the gall to try to put in a lawsuit against the airlines for "allowing" those terrorists on the planes? If the maniac at Sandy wasn't responsible, but instead the school was, then aren't the airlines responsible for all the deaths in New York, Pennsylvania, and DC?

Maybe the truck companies should be sued when folks manage to make a truck bomb?

I agree with Phatscotty: how much blame is left for the fucking murderer?

[AAFitz]

The stupidity of our legal system actually allows a lawsuit against a school because a maniac got in.

Maybe their should be another lawsuit suing the taxpaying community for not fronting the taxes that would've been required to put bulletproof glass, metal detectors, a law enforcement officer in every classroom, and a tower with a law enforcement sniper ready to drop the perpetrator. I'm sure if the community had argued to put the additional taxes for 'school security' on the ballot, the school officials would happily have hired the architects, builders, and security forces that would've been required to keep that particular maniac out of the classrooms.

After 9/11, did anyone have the gall to try to put in a lawsuit against the airlines for "allowing" those terrorists on the planes? If the maniac at Sandy wasn't responsible, but instead the school was, then aren't the airlines responsible for all the deaths in New York, Pennsylvania, and DC?

Maybe the truck companies should be sued when folks manage to make a truck bomb?

I agree with Phatscotty: how much blame is left for the fucking murderer?

If the font was at 250 and italicized you'd have had me completely, but only underlined, bold and at size 200, its message was too weak...

Also, suing one party does not eliminate BLAME FOR ANOTHER

not to mention suing a dead person is a complicated legal procedure. Further, Phatscotty was one of the ones arguing schools got too much money in the first place.

[ender516]

I kind of agree with this lawsuit. The state should be held responsible for not protecting children that are hurt or killed at school. It will get those schools thinking about ways to protect the children better than what has been done in the past. (somewhat related would have been the airlines being sued for the terrorist attacks on 911 instead of establishing the TSA). If this family wins, every school in America will be shitting bricks!

The schools will be yelling "TO ARMS! TO ARMS!!!!!!!!"

And then when the next mass shooting happens from either a mentally ill teacher or a student that overpowers a teacher and grabs their gun to kill a class of twenty kids we can go through the lawsuits again until we get it right. Eventually gun control laws will evolve into what needs to be.

Really? So then why are you not afraid of mentally ill police officers being overpowered by children? There are 100,000's more cops with guns than there are teachers with guns, yet you don't see children, or even adults, overpowering police officers.

Police officers are trained to handle their weapons and to avoid being overpowered. Do you have the money and time to do that with school personnel? If so, why not spend it on education?

[stahrgazer]

If the font was at 250 and italicized you'd have had me completely, but only underlined, bold and at size 200, its message was too weak...

Also, suing one party does not eliminate BLAME FOR ANOTHER

not to mention suing a dead person is a complicated legal procedure. Further, Phatscotty was one of the ones arguing schools got too much money in the first place.

It's a frivolous lawsuit congesting our court system, but if it wins, it certainly will MINIMIZE BLAME FOR ANOTHER

I tend to agree that the schools get too much money; but that's not to say that the TEACHERS get too much money.

And just as I did with yours, I simply copied the font used by the prior poster.