San Bernardino shooting victim lawsuits begin

It's California,,,

I thought LEO could not be sued for responding to acts of terrorism?
Click to expand...

It's California,,,
Those socialist types will sue for anything.

Some progressive judge will okay it to go forward,,,
After all, someone has to be held responsible.

Aarond

.
 
I'm not going to run in and condemn this suit, not just yet. The deep pocket always gets sued, it's a tradition.

The family has had a great loss, just the financial aspect alone is pretty big. Loss of main provider, next 25 years, loss of spousal pension benefits, health insurance benefits, they've taken a hit.

What has been unstated in any article I've seen about this event, is if anyone in the workplace had initiated a discussion with management about the male shooter. Seems there had been discussions in the office about Islam, Israel, terrorism, such as that, but no information about whether or not the co-workers considered him to be opinionated enough to cause concern, yet these discussions were often enough to be remarked upon after the shooting.

It took days for this to be reported as terrorism, and not 'workplace violence'. Was there similar inaction or cover-up by staff at the workplace prior to the event? We'll find out as the suit progresses. I guarantee you that the County has a protocol in their manuals about handling employee concerns.
 
9x45 said:
I thought LEO could not be sued for responding to acts of terrorism?
Click to expand...
Where in the article did it say she is suing the cops?

The workplace was a county government facility. The county has regulations in place prohibiting firearms in its facilities. It's not a major stretch to argue that, where a government (or private) entity prohibits employees (and visitors) from having the means to defend themselves, the host entity assumes the responsibility of ensuring the safety of the occupants and employees. This was such a case, and the county failed to make any effort to back up its useless, toothless regulation.

Just like at Sandy Hook. Just like at Fort Hood (TWICE!). Just like at the Washington Navy Yard. Just like at ______ [fill in the blank] ...
 
9x45 said:
That building has a police presence just like schools
Click to expand...
I don't know of a single school in my county that has a police presence.

What's your source for the information that the San Bernardino building has (or had) a "police presence"? I don't recall reading that anywhere. It's a multi-building complex, and the community building where the party was being held was described as not being secured when functions are being held.
 
Last edited:
>The workplace was a county government facility. The county has regulations in place prohibiting firearms in its facilities. It's not a major stretch to argue that, where a government (or private) entity prohibits employees (and visitors) from having the means to defend themselves, the host entity assumes the responsibility of ensuring the safety of the occupants and employees. This was such a case, and the county failed to make any effort to back up its useless, toothless regulation<

In a world of sound bite crap, this is a very plain, intelligent and heavy weight statement regarding limiting the natural right of people to be able to defend themselves from lethal attacks.
 
Aguila Blanca, in California, all public schools have LEO on property. And most private schools also. Don't know what your state does.
 
9x45 said:
Aguila Blanca, in California, all public schools have LEO on property. And most private schools also. Don't know what your state does.
Click to expand...
And the documentation for your assertion that the community building at the Inland Regional Center had police protection ...?
 
California certainly has creative ambulance chasers without any moral character to devise such a lawsuit.
 
Why not sue the employer and state for denying the right to arm and protect themselves?
Click to expand...

First, it is likely not a winnable case. Second, the lawsuit filed is more apt to actually win a settlement faster. Third, the victims likely don't give one iota about the 2nd Amendment and have no wish of tying up their potential winnings through the years of a protracted civil rights suit (that they are not likely to win).

We have seen hundreds of such shootings. Nobody or virtually nobody sues for denying being allowed to carry a gun because it isn't likely to be winnable and to date, nobody has ever won. You notice that the NRA and its lawyers haven't just jumped all over these cases either?

The real question is, if people are truly worried about their right to arm themselves, is why haven't they initiated a suit already?
 
If you are concerned about being able to defend yourself in the workplace, then get a pistol permit and deep carry. A lawsuit will do no good whatsoever.
 
The county has regulations in place prohibiting firearms in its facilities. It's not a major stretch to argue that, where a government (or private) entity prohibits employees (and visitors) from having the means to defend themselves, the host entity assumes the responsibility of ensuring the safety of the occupants and employees.
Click to expand...

+1

The only flaw in this statement is the part where you describe this line of reasoning as "Not a major stretch to argue"..

Seems like common sense to me.. If you take away my right to defend myself, you assume the liability for that defense. Seems very simple, should be the prevailing thought pattern for all....
 
The real question is, if people are truly worried about their right to arm themselves, is why haven't they initiated a suit already?
Click to expand...

That is not a valid argument when one considers the cost of legal representation...

Or did I take that out of context some how?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top