Columbine Victims to Sue

Svt

Moderator
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
“We don’t want the public to think that these are a bunch of insensitive lawyers or greedy plaintiffs filing lawsuits on the eve of this tragedy when everyone is just trying to heal and mourn.”[/quote]

So sue for 50 million? WTF?


Columbine Victims to Sue
Lawyers Want Millions From Government
The Associated Press
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/columbine000408.html

D E N V E R, April 8 — A flood of lawsuits filed shortly before the April 20 Columbine High School shooting anniversary may be the only way for victims to ensure some type of aid after the White House on Friday rejected a $50 million request for disaster relief aid, lawyers for the victims said.
White House officials said the federal government has already funneled more than $1.5 million into the Columbine community through the Justice Department’s Victims’ Assistance Fund. Any additional money would have to be appropriated by Congress, officials said. Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and Attorney General Ken Salazar had rejected a similar request.
Walter Gerash, a lawyer for wounded student Sean Graves and his family, said he was outraged at the White House decision, and that drawn-out litigation now seems inevitable.
Victims Want Cash, Not Sympathy
The announcement came as lawyers for the victims’ families push for a settlement of all potential Columbine litigation days before President Clinton is to visit Denver on Wednesday.
“He [President Clinton] is coming here and we are going to get more flowers and tears and crosses and monuments,” Gerash said. “Nothing else. I’m disgusted.”
He said Owens and Clinton should be ashamed.
“Let them put their money where their mouth is,” Gerash said. “Now there is going to be a legal war. It’s the only recourse.”
Bob Schuetze, who represents the family of slain student Kyle Velasquez, said seeking congressional approval might also be worth exploring.

Lawyers May Sue Sheriff
Gerash and lawyers for other families said they may have to file lawsuits against the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office on the eve of the rampage’s first anniversary. Lawyers said the timing comes from a state law requiring a decision on whether to sue a law enforcement agency be made within a year of the event.
Twenty victims’ families have filed notices of intent to sue the sheriff’s department or school district over the April 20 shootings, which left 15 people dead and 23 injured.
The lawyers said the county rejected a plea to extend the April 20 filing deadline another three to six months to conduct settlement negotiations. Bill Tuthill, an assistant Jefferson County attorney, said the deadline extension is under consideration.
“We really feel that filing lawsuits on the eve of this tragedy is a very bad thing,” Schuetze said. “We don’t think it serves anybody’s interest. The only reason to do it is to protect the rights of those people.
“We don’t want the public to think that these are a bunch of insensitive lawyers or greedy plaintiffs filing lawsuits on the eve of this tragedy when everyone is just trying to heal and mourn.”
A measure moving through the state legislature would earmark up to $5 million in donations to victims of the shootings for their lifetime medical needs and college tuition.
Donations would come from an income-tax checkoff as well as a program that would allow people to buy the right to own special license plates designed to memorialize the victims of Columbine
 
There is a silver lining to this....


Now the Feds will see how Tobacco and Gun Industries feel....victims and survivors now begin to chip away at the Feds. Whether they win or lose isn't especially important....it will still result in extremely bad PR for the Feds. They created this "gimme more" culture and now the chickens come home to roost. Others will also begin to sue. Beware unintended consequences, what goes around comes around :)

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Okay--I'm fixing to hurt some feelings here.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>A measure moving through the state legislature would earmark up to $5 million in donations to victims of the shootings for their lifetime medical needs and college tuition.[/quote]

If people want to donate to this thing, then they can do it with private donations. So I don't see why the Legislature needs to drip its' slime over the whole deal. Unless the Legislature wants to donate some tax money.

I'm sorry, and it was a terrible thing, but it's time to get over it. And there are victims of violence who need the money worse than the kids in Columbine. When do they get their 5 million?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>“We don’t want the public to think that these are a bunch of insensitive lawyers or greedy plaintiffs filing lawsuits on the eve of this tragedy when everyone is just trying to heal and mourn.”[/quote]

Oh, Heaven forbid.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Twenty victims’ families have filed notices of intent to sue the sheriff’s department or school district over the April 20 shootings, which left 15 people dead and 23 injured.[/quote]

Wrong. 13 people dead, and two critters put down like any other rabid dogs.
I demand that the politicians who made it unlawful to exercise your rights on school property be a defendant in those lawsuits.
I further demand that parents too damn busy worshipping Mammon to give a rats @$$ about their children be a defendant in those lawsuits.
Every free man or woman those little rabid goblins passed on their way to school that dreadful morning, the free men and women who are denied their right to arm themselves, those free men and women who were denied the ability to stop that tragedy, should be plaintiffs in that suit.

Each member of the Media that refuses to stop picking at the scab of the 'Columbine Killings' needs to be dragged to the courthouse square and horsewhipped.

And each politician who waves that tragedy in our faces, day after day, month after month, for the sole purpose of furthering his or her private agenda, needs to get some strokes from the same horsewhip.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>...said he was outraged at the White House decision,[/quote]

Well, welcome to the party, pal.
Your outraged self will just have to get in line behind the rest of the United States. Line starts behind me.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>A flood of lawsuits filed shortly before the April 20 Columbine High School shooting anniversary may be the only way for victims to ensure some type of aid after the White House on Friday rejected a $50 million request for disaster relief aid, lawyers for the victims said.[/quote]

Why do these people deserve 50 million? Some got killed. Some got badly hurt. I feel for them, but at the risk of sounding callous--so what makes these people worth 5 or 50 million? 38 dead or wounded. Minus the two little bastards that caused it. There are events that cause a casualty list of 36 several times a year. Where's the call for 50 million every time a passenger jet augers in?

Morons.

:mad: LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited April 09, 2000).]
 
Originally posted by Oatka on March 25.

"A Letter from Davy Crockett

Not Yours to Give (From The Life of Colonel David Crockett)
The Freeman
96 Leonard Read

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor.

I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and—'
"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett, I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

"This was a sockdolager . . . I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
"'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. . . . But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'

"'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.'
"'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'

"'Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'

"'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.

"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"'Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'

"He laughingly replied: 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

"'If I don't,' said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'

"'No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.'

"'Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.'
"'My name is Bunce.'
"'Not Horatio Bunce?'
"'Yes.'
"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had every seen manifested before.

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him--no, that is not the word — I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted — at least, they all knew me.
"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"'Fellow-citizens — I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.'
"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"'And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"'It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'

"He came upon the stand and said:
"'Fellow-citizens — It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday.

"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men — men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it.

Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased — a debt which could not be paid by money — and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighted against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

Holders of political office are but reflections of the dominant leadership — good or bad — among the electorate.
Horatio Bunce is a striking example of responsible citizenship. Were his kind to multiply, we would see many new faces in public office; or, as in the case of Davy Crockett, a new Crockett.

For either the new faces or the new Crocketts, we must look to the Horatio in ourselves!" -- posted by Oatka on March 25

IF these people need relief it should be done through private donations, not by taking money out of the Treasury. -- Eric

[This message has been edited by Eric Conaway (edited April 09, 2000).]
 
I think some of you are missing the point here. I, too, do not feel that the taxpayers owe the victims anything but our sympathy. However, our government has set an example for us to follow. If someone commits a crime with a gun, let's sue the gunmakers. In some communities, if someone breaks in and takes your gun (a crime in it of itself), you are at least particially responsible for the crimes commited with your stolen gun.

It's time to start fighting fire with fire. Our government passed laws making it illegal to be on school grounds with a firearm and them failed to enforce that law -- this was all done "for the children". But because of this, some teachers and/or administrators of the school who might have been armed, were not. If they were armed, they might have been able to "protected the children" and themselves instead of everyone being sitting ducks for these two lunatics. Or, if the shooters knew that there was at least a possibility of some people in school being legally armed, they might have thought twice about going on their rampage. At least, "the children" would have had more of a fighting chance than they did.

Instead, our government restricted our ability to protect our children (and ourselves) and they also failed to provide that protection as well. For these reasons, I think that all levels of government should be held responsible. How much is a single high school student's life worth? I would say a whole lot because they had their whole life ahead of them. Either our government protects us or they do not restrict our ability to protect ourselves and our families.

Share what you know, learn what you don't -- FUD
TFL-flame.gif


[This message has been edited by FUD (edited April 09, 2000).]
 
Eric, thanks for posting that again. I don't think we have many 'Crockett's' left in Congress.

And, FUD, I don't think your point is inconsistent with the 'Crockett' speech. Your point is also well taken.

It would be interesting, and I believe appropriate, for suits to be filed against Congress for their complicity in creating higher risks for our school children. Those who are willing to consider the logic of such laws are often in agreement that 'no weapons' policies are deadly, especially when there are insufficient, additional security measures to protect the undefended 'sheep'.

Logic seems to be in such short supply these days ...
 
I believe that the Colimbine victims should name the Congress of the United States and the Federal Government, the school ,state and local authorities all as defendants in the
Colimbine lawsuits.

On the one hand there are federal,
state and local laws and school policy & rules preventing the teachers from being lawfully armed and thus being able to stop the human violence that occured before it was off to a good start.

So now, by law, the teachers are legally rendered unarmed and defenseless
and unable to protect either themselves or the childern entrusted to their care.

And at the same time wholly inadaiquate and unacceptable security measures or more appropiately lack thereof
are taken to provide for the protection of our school childern.

If the government is to take away our means of self defense, which they have; they then become responsible for the defense we are no longer allowed to have the tools to preform for ourselves.

The Government,state police ,local police and school authorities failed missrabilly to live up to and provide the protection with whick we have entrusted us.

They deserve a vote of" NO COFIDENCE"
and bear the full legal responsibility of their pitifull lack of preformance and lack of protection and abuse of our trust.

They deserve to be sued and prosecuted to the full extent that the law allows.

It is ok for politicians to have armed body guards, bullet proof vests and armored bullet proof lemozines and live in gated
armed security communities; all paid for by our tax dollers; but I am outraged to see
that they believe that the rest of us should be unarmed and defenseless and unprotected and left to fend for ourselves; up the creek without a paddle in a sinking boat.

The anti civil firearms rights politicians deserve whatever they get and thensome for abanding us and our childern unarmed to fend for ourselves.
 
I would consider having the police dept of Columbine in a lawsuit. As I recall the police had been notified of they two animals many times. Reports of them exploding bombs were on police files over a year before the shootings. Other students had gone in with their parents and evidence of terrostic threats. There didn't seem to be any records of officers even calling the home to check on any of it. Also what about the off duty cop that was hired as security??? As I recall he "might" have fired off a single round but then "lead" a group of students away from the shooting. IMO his job was to delay/contain/STOP the threat. I would hope if in a similar situation I could do more "if armed" then just run away. If he could have wounded one of them many lives might have been saved.
I am perminently disabled due to a pair of JR college students on drugs. Should I be able to sue the government??? I know I should have sued them but hate the idea of working with lawyers.
 
DC, I was surprised that you would miss this point:

The government is NOT getting a taste of what tobacco and gunmakers are going through. The gun makers are playing with their own money and their own livelihoods. The government is playing with our money and they've proven over and over again that losing or wasting large amounts of someone else's money doesn't bother them. If they lose $50 million and it makes a dent in their budgets, they'll simply take $50 million from all of us the next time around. Problem solved.

Lawdog, your point about that stupid "15 victims" crap is well-taken. Hate to sound stupid, but I've never examined a list of the victims and it never occurred to me that the number 15 included Klebold and Harris. I shouldn't have assumed, but honestly, it flies in the face of common sense to put the murderers on the list of victims; it didn't occur to me that anyone would do that and expect to be taken seriously.
 
Oh - the two evil murderers are victims too dont you see! Society is at fault and everyone is a victim. So they deserve 50 million of our tax dollars.
:mad:
Bullsh!t knows no bounds.

To the government 50 million aint that much.
Price of 1 F-14 Tomcat and operation costs for 6 to 12 months. Not much at all.
Or you could look at it as equall to Everyone in my company working our butts off for 1 year worth of taxes for these guys...
Sympathy is all they deserve. They dont warrant any million. Sorry. Bad things happen... thats your lot in life guys.
I understand the pain off a loss or of injury... I feel bad for those guys. I do.
But Sueing for 50 million? BS.
People trying to cash in. Oportunistic Bungholes.
 
George (and others), right now the anti's have nothing to lose while we are slowly losing our right to keep & bare arms. If more people start suing the government because their ability to protect themselves was restricted and the government also failed to provide protection, it might make a difference. In order to pay for these lawsuits, taxes are going to have to go up. Your taxes, my taxes and the anti's taxes. I wouldn't mind having my taxes double as long as I had the satisfaction that Rosie had her taxes doubled as well. If you START hitting people in the pocket book, thnings quickly start changing. It's a whole lot better than just sitting back and watching our gun rights disappear one by one.
 
Back
Top