How much is your kid worth? VT settlement

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
March 25, 2008
Virginia Tech Seeks to Avoid Lawsuits
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Families of those killed in the Virginia Tech massacre would receive $100,000 each under a settlement the state is proposing to prevent lawsuits, according to a victim’s relative who received a copy of the proposal.

Medical and counseling expenses would be provided to the families of the 32 killed and dozens of surviving victims, said the person, who asked Monday to remain anonymous because those involved were told not to discuss the settlement.

Families were asked to say by March 31 whether they were comfortable with the proposal. If they agree, they cannot sue the state government, including Virginia Tech.

The gunman, Seung-Hui Cho, a mentally disturbed student, committed suicide on the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg after the April 16 shootings.

The proposal would require all families to agree and says the state can withdraw the proposal if not enough parties accept it, the family member said.

-- Kind of disgusting, IMHO. :barf: I wouldn't sue for the money for my luxury but for punitive damages to make the state and VT realize that their policies were causal to this tragedy.
 
Right.....just as the sign in the Nickel Mines Amish schoolhouse "Visitors brighten our day" demonstrates how the school authorities "allowed" the tragedy to occur.
 
Why are the families of adult (over 18) college students "damaged" at all by this?

I could see civic government liability for a public high school where attendance is compulsory, but the school should really be treated much like a mall or hospital in this regard.

Malls and hospitals often have "no firearms" policies and seem to be immune from civil suits.

I'm on the pro-gun side on this one, but I fundamentally fail to see any "claim" that could be made for any family on account of a dead student of the age of majority.

Frankly, it angers me to see college students (as well as members of the armed forces) constantly referred to as "children." But the high school dropout waiting tables at Denny's at age 19 is somehow not a "child."
 
To me there should be no settlement. The University is not liable in this tragedy. Cho is responsible not the University.
 
To me there should be no settlement. The University is not liable in this tragedy. Cho is responsible not the University.
Click to expand...
One could very easily argue that the schools denying people the right to defend themselves causes an unsafe environment. They make a public display of "we allow no weapons" and then gather large numbers of young people into a small space with inadequate security.
Why are the families of adult (over 18) college students "damaged" at all by this?
Click to expand...
So parents no longer care for children that have reached the age of eighteen and suffer no loss at their passing? :confused:
 
I'll guess (and it is just a guess) that the Estate of each deceased student could file a a negligence claim against VT, seeking compensation from VT (or the governing board of VT, which is probably a State entity). That's how it works in many states; the deceased person's Estate (and the executor of the Estate) sue for wrongful death, negligence, etc.

But that's just a guess. :confused:
 
One could very easily argue that the schools denying people the right to defend themselves causes an unsafe environment. They make a public display of "we allow no weapons" and then gather large numbers of young people into a small space with inadequate security.
Click to expand...

You could argue it but I doubt you would win that case in court. In the end the school is not responsible for what Cho did. I cannot stand when people use someone else's tragic death to push their political agenda like you are here.

These parents and families have suffered a tragic loss. They need help with grief and learning how to live with the loss. I think that helping these people get that help is what is called for.

Stumping for your political agenda on their dead bodies is distasteful. IMHO
 
You could argue it but I doubt you would win that case in court.
Click to expand...
Obviously VT's lawyers and state officials feel differently or they would not be offering settlements.
Stumping for your political agenda on their dead bodies is distasteful. IMHO
Click to expand...
Noone is "stumping" for any political agenda. People are trying to use VT as an example and trying to prevent the additional loss of life. Sorry you cannot see that.
 
Obviously VT's lawyers and state officials feel differently or they would not be offering settlements.
Click to expand...

You are assuming that would be the basis of their case. Please show me the family of any of the victims that has called for concealed guns on campus. If you have statements from the families involved then you have a point. If not you are stumping for your cause. Please provide the info from VT parents that led you to this conclusion.

Again you are pushing your gun agenda onto these people and their tragedy. To me that is shameful.
 
Noone is "stumping" for any political agenda. People are trying to use VT as an example and trying to prevent the additional loss of life. Sorry you cannot see that.
Click to expand...

I disagree. When you assume that the families would sue based on VT no gun policy you are putting your agenda and your views ahead of theirs. You are super imposing your desire to see concealed carry on campuses on to these families.

That is stumping my friend. I will say again that it is distasteful.
 
Right.....just as the sign in the Nickel Mines Amish schoolhouse "Visitors brighten our day" demonstrates how the school authorities "allowed" the tragedy to occur.
Click to expand...

Posting a welcome sign is not the same as disallowing lawfully licensed adults from defending themselves (or at least possessing the means to) in a public space.


Also, while I think the political debate that started about 17 minutes after the shots stopped was profoundly distasteful, I think at some point it becomes appropriate to point to the event as an example of why our polices might need to be re-evaluated. Probably not relevant to this thread, though, since I doubt any of the family members would sue on these grounds anyway (or would even be able to unless their kids were licensed).

Though perhaps if the kids were unable (due to age) to get a license you could sue on the grounds that any that were licensed in the building were unable to carry and thus unable to prevent what happened. I doubt it, and that's beyond my knowledge of the law anyway.
 
Also, while I think the political debate that started about 17 minutes after the shots stopped was profoundly distasteful, I think at some point it becomes appropriate to point to the event as an example of why our polices might need to be re-evaluated. Probably not relevant to this thread, though, since I doubt any of the family members would sue on these grounds anyway (or would even be able to unless their kids were licensed).
Click to expand...

I agree with you at some point one must address what happened but Playboy Penguin is putting words into the VT families mouthes. He is stating what he would do not what they are doing. He is expressing his view on concealed carry on campus not theirs. That is hijacking this tragedy for his gain and it is distasteful 1 year later as it was 17 minutes after the event.
 
I agree with you at some point one must address what happened but Playboy Penguin is putting words into the VT families mouthes. He is stating what he would do not what they are doing. That is hijacking this tragedy for his gain and it is distasteful 1 year later as it was 17 minutes after the event.
Click to expand...
Really? You got all that from what I wrote? Talk about reading between the lines and obviously well beyond them. From now on keep your opinions as your own and only reference things to me that I actually said.
 
and the anti's never do that? This is, IMO, an obvious outcome to gun free zone policies. Until those policies are challenged in court, property owners are free to make decisions that are consequence free. The fact that the property owner in this case is the tax payer makes the shooting and the policy all the more tragic.
 
Really? You got all that from what I wrote? Talk about reading between the lines and obviously well beyond them. From now on keep your opinions as your own and only reference things to me that I actually said.
Click to expand...

It is pretty clear. I will also voice my opinion in a respectful manner anytime I choose.

I am making reference to exactly what you said. I am not reading between the lines I am taking your statements at face value. I am objective and a can see the bias of your post that you apparently cannot.
 
and the anti's never do that? This is, IMO, an obvious outcome to gun free zone policies. Until those policies are challenged in court, property owners are free to make decisions that are consequence free. The fact that the property owner in this case is the tax payer makes the shooting and the policy all the more tragic.
Click to expand...

Right so the best thing to do is not take the high road on this complex issue but instead get right down into the mud with them. That makes no sense to me.
 
It is pretty clear.
Click to expand...
I am making reference to exactly what you said.
Click to expand...
Really? Point out to me where in my post am I "putting words into the VT families mouthes" or where I am "stating what he/I would do."
I will also voice my opinion in a respectful manner anytime I choose.
Click to expand...
Voice your opinion all you want...but like i said, keep them as your own and do not credit me with saying things i did not or with things you somehow "think" I said.
 
One could very easily argue that the schools denying people the right to defend themselves causes an unsafe environment. They make a public display of "we allow no weapons" and then gather large numbers of young people into a small space with inadequate security.
Click to expand...

You clearly stated right here that a case against VA & VT could be raised because they are liable as a result of their no guns on campus policy. You are clearly stating that this is the grounds that a suit should be brought. One can assume that is your position because I have not read a single report of a VT victim's family making such and argument

I then asked you which VT family victims are making this arguement. This is for clarification. I want to know if this is your belief or the belief of the people who actually suffered a loss.

You cannot reply with an example because there are none. Thus one would logically conclude that you are putting your agenda into the mouths of others. These are your words not the victims words.

Taking your statements to their logical conclusion is addressing exactly what you said. If you don't like it maybe you should be more careful with your language and the content of your posts. Do not be intellectually dishonest about your agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top