How much is your kid worth? VT settlement

I'm with Playboy P on this but not in the mood to write a long diatribe.

The school also did little with warning signs as they misinterpreted some privacy laws and that might get them too.

As far as using the suit to manipulate their policy decisions, such is done all the time. You can have an ideological fit about it (and that might not be the parents' goal) - if it were my kid - I'd go for it.
 
You clearly stated right here that a case against VA i& VT could be raised because they are liable as a result of their no guns policy.

You are clearly stating that this is the grounds that a suit should be brought
Click to expand...
In no way do I ever speak for any victim in that statement. Your reading comprehension needs some work. I simply stated what grounds could be used as a suit against an establishment that denies a person their basic rights.
then asked you which VT family victims are making this arguement. 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.
Click to expand...
I never stated any family was using that approach, nor would I say they are not since I do not have access to that information.

That is nowhere near putting words in someone else's mouths. For an example of that just see your own wild misrepresentations of my post.
Taking your statements to their logical conclusion is not 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.
Click to expand...
You really think that wild misreading is logical?

One can be as careful with their wording as they like. That obviously does not prevent people from reading what they want to read. :rolleyes:
 
At the same time you claim not to be "stumping". I see a contradiction.

You are clearly stumping for your view and imposing it on this event. I renew my original objection. Your statements are disrespectful and distasteful.
 
At the same time you claim not to be "stumping". I see a contradiction.

You are clearly stumping for your view and imposing it on this event. I renew my original objection. Your statements are disrespectful and distasteful.
Click to expand...
Like I said, you are welcome to your opinion. You are obviously okay with being wrong. But state you opinions as such and work on your comprehension.
 
They are looking at the legal costs.

Will a suit succeed?
Maybe, but Virginia is a rather conservative legal state and has freely invoked sovereign immunity to halt cases against the state and its agencies and agents.

We do not have a court system clogged with frivolous suites for this reason.

In any case it would be a difficult case to pursue in the state courts.
An out of state student might actually have a better chance if they try in federal court.
 
And you keep stumping...
Click to expand...
Ha ha ha...once again a unique perspective.

You made a false accusation as to what I said, you then failed to back it up when challenged, and now you think you won something. Truly unique. You should go to work for the Brady Champaign..with your ability to misrepresent and then deny doing it while living in a opaque bubble of self delusion would come in handy. :)
 
No my ability to clearly see you dishonoring the victims of VT has nothing to do with the Bradys. What I do see is you and them as two sides of the same coin. I find both distasteful.

P.S. We can do this all day long if you would like.
 
Geeze, easy guys. Nobody is stumping here. Nobody (including myself) appear to know VA law concerning soverign immunity, state claims, political subdivisions, negligence, duty owed by universities, and none of it matters because (based on the limited info that I know), the university has merely offered compensation of $100,000.00 to the families.

So it boils down to this: the families can accept the offer (presuming apparently that enough families accept it, but we don't know many details), or they can sue in court. That's all we know. It will be the famililes (or the Estates of the victims? Who knows?) that'll have to make that decision.

I don't think that PP is trying to impose a political belief on anyone. The univeristy could be liable for negligency (maybe) for failing to protect its students from a nutball who entered university property and murdered a bunch of students. Then again, Virginia law may not allow such a lawsuit, and the university may just be trying to help compensate the Estates (families) of the deceased. Who knows? Nobody, because nobody knows the specifics of the offer or about Virginia law.

Now, everybody play nice, and give me a big hug. :D
 
No my ability to clearly see you dishonoring the victims of VT has nothing to do with the Bradys. What I do see is you and them as two sides of the same coin. I find both distasteful.
Click to expand...
Wow, another wild misrepresentation. You are a pro.
 
Again we can continue.

You clearly stated :

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.

I stated that you would not win that lawsuit and that you are inserting your personal politics into the issue.

You then respond with:

Obviously VT's lawyers and state officials feel differently or they would not be offering settlements.

In the first statement you clearly are placing your views onto the VT victims. In the second statement you claim to know what the state of VA and VT University officials think and feel.

But your not pushing your agenda. :rolleyes:
 
There is no dishonoring of VT students in this discussion except in the mind of one poster.

Using a tragedy in court to prevent another tragedy is quite legitimate (not that these parents have said that - just talking about the principle).

I find the discussion bizarre on this aspect.

There are real damages and punitive damages. The latter are to punish and to influence future actions. You may disagree with allowing the latter but goody-gum drop for you. Yes, we should play nice but Rellascout is over the line - IMHO.
 
These types of settlements disturb me I suppose. The families of the people the died in 9/11 get at least $1,000,000. The ones who died at VT get $100,000. My friend who died at the hands of a robber of a 7-11 and left a husband and two small children got condolences for her family.

Why was one death more tragic and valuable than the others? I know life isn't fair and it seems that neither is death.
 
"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."

Yeah, that sounds good, but as a Virginia taxpayer, I'll get to pay part of it one way or the other. And I didn't even vote for the folks in office or their policies.

John
Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Class of '72
 
I'd do the same in TX. If it was $31,000,000 - that amount is not much for a state or impact an individual taxpayer that much.

If the suit is for the greater good, one shouldn't complain about it.

If an African-American opposed the suits for equal rights way back when as it would raise his taxes, would that be sensible?
 
Every single person on VT's board who voted against allowing CCW on campus and every anti gun lobbyist in the state of VA should be sued for every dime they've ever made and ever will and relieved of any career, pension, etc. they have. No less.
 
"If the suit is for the greater good, one shouldn't complain about it."

The greater good?

Ah, the main point of Utilitarianism. "From this he derived the rule of utility, that the good is whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people."

Okay, I'll be quiet and pay my share as a Virginia taxpayer if it comes to that. Can I have my private donation back? ;)

I think the folks who were at fault should pay, not the common working taxpayer. And certainly not any of the state's citizens who pay taxes with their meager minimum wage paychecks.

John
Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Class of '72
 
Rellascout, I'm sure if it was one of your family members that got smoked, you'd feel different. It's easy to be clinically detached from something like this, until it hits close to home.
 
Rellascout, I'm sure if it was one of your family members that got smoked, you'd feel different. It's easy to be clinically detached from something like this, until it hits close to home.
Click to expand...

I live in VA. Innocent people got killed. They didn't get "smoked". You "smoke" meat not people.

My sister in law went graduated from VT. I have friends who were there now. . My feelings on this issue are anything but detached.

I was at the first football game of the year last year which was one of the biggest healing events for the community. I stood there as they release the balloons for the victims. I have been in the building where the shootings occurred.

I think you are way off base and would instead turn the same statement back to you. If you considered yourself part of the VT community you might feel differently.
 
Here is the Viginbia code for tort claims against the state and the authority to negotiate them

§ 2.2-514. Compromise and settlement of disputes.

A. Except as provided in this section or subsection B of § 23-38.33:1, the Attorney General may compromise and settle disputes, claims and controversies involving all interests of the Commonwealth including, but not limited to the Virginia Tort Claims Act (§ 8.01-195.1 et seq.), and may discharge any such claims, but only after the proposed compromise, settlement or discharge, together with the reasons therefor, have been submitted in writing to the Governor and approved by him. Where any dispute, claim or controversy involves the interests of any department, institution, division, commission, board, authority or bureau of the Commonwealth, the Attorney General may compromise and settle or discharge the same provided the action is approved both by the Governor, as provided in this section, and by the head, or his designee, of the department, institution, division, board, authority or bureau that is interested. However, when any dispute, claim or controversy arises under the Virginia Tort Claims Act (§ 8.01-195.1 et seq.) or otherwise involves the interests of any department, institution, division, commission, board, authority or bureau of the Commonwealth, and the settlement amount does not exceed $250,000, the Attorney General or an assistant Attorney General assigned to such department, institution, division, commission, board, authority or bureau, or such other designee of the Attorney General, may compromise and settle or discharge the same provided the action is approved by the head, or his designee, of the department, institution, division, board or bureau whose interests are in issue. When the dispute, claim or controversy involves a case in which the Commonwealth has a claim for sums due it as the result of hospital, medical or dental care furnished by or on behalf of the Commonwealth, the Attorney General or such assistant Attorney General may compromise and settle and discharge the same when the settlement amount does not exceed $250,000.

B. No settlement under subsection A shall be made subject to a confidentiality agreement that prohibits the Commonwealth, a state agency, officer or employee from disclosing the amount of such settlement except where such confidentiality agreement is imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction or otherwise is required by law.

C. No settlement under subsection A shall be made subject to a confidentiality agreement if such settlement requires that a matter or issue shall be the subject of (i) regulatory action pursuant to Article 2 (§ 2.2-4006 et seq.) of Chapter 40 of this title, or (ii) legislation proposed to be introduced in the General Assembly.

(Code 1950, § 2-92; 1956, c. 387; 1966, c. 677, § 2.1-127; 1973, c. 219; 1979, c. 266; 1986, c. 180; 1989, c. 75; 1995, cc. 359, 384; 2001, cc. 118, 844; 2004, c. 729; 2007, c. 217.)

If you actually sue Virginia and win, it requires an act of the state legislture to appropriate the money to pay a settlement, and they can refuse.

$100,000 is not a lot of legal work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top