Isn't it actually a school and government negligence issue? The ball was dropped at various bureaucratic levels and they want to defer blame to 99.99999% of the gun owners who just went about their lives that day.If the schools don't voluntarily modify their policies, surely their liability insurance carriers will do it for them.
YepIsn't it actually a school and government negligence issue? The ball was dropped at various bureaucratic levels and they want to defer blame to 99.99999% of the gun owners who just went about their lives that day.
(Hey liberal trolls and lurkers, do you comprehend the above statement?)
My best guess: the school has deeper pocketsWhat happened to the old way,? Sue the person/people actually responsible for a negative action. You know, in this case, the shooter!
I hate these people!
This kid has like 800.,00 in inheritance .. Who gets it first .. His defense lawyers or the folks shot. . The folks that were shot will ask for what .. A million per child .. Lots of money any way one looks at it.What happened to the old way,? Sue the person/people actually responsible for a negative action. You know, in this case, the shooter!
I hate these people!
Let's hash this out for a minute... my initial thought is I hope they do win. But if they don't and the ruling by the Supreme Court is used as justification for denying the lawsuit, that should only strengthen an argument for the average citizen to have the right to defend themselves. Perhaps it could be an argument used to defeat the gun free zone laws??? Im no legal eagle so im just throwing some of my own thoughts out there.Well, can't blame them for trying. Tough row to hoe. SCOTUS has ruled in the past law enforcement has no duty or obligation to protect an individual citizen, only the public at large. Maybe because it was a public school failure they'll win. Hope they do.
I got no argument with that. However, it has been said, many times, in the past.Let's hash this out for a minute... my initial thought is I hope they do win. But if they don't and the ruling by the Supreme Court is used as justification for denying the lawsuit, that should only strengthen an argument for the average citizen to have the right to defend themselves. Perhaps it could be an argument used to defeat the gun free zone laws??? Im no legal eagle so im just throwing some of my own thoughts out there.