Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Why settle before they are even sued

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    If Tech did everything to protect those students, why are they so anxious to settle and why in secret?
    http://www.nbc12.com/news/state/16978516.html

    The answer is pretty clear. By helping defeat the student carry bill the year before, the President and Chief of Police killed those kids just as surely as if they had pulled the trigger themselves!:X


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Blacksburg, VA, , USA
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    More importantly, where are they getting the money for this? That's $3.2 million they're offering... I don't want the money I paid in tuition for that year or the semester after it to be put towards that, when they could just as well put it towards hiring and keeping on more instructors.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran T Dubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Va, ,
    Posts
    892

    Post imported post

    Anterus wrote:

    I don't know if this is gun related, but I will bite.




    That's $3.2 million they're offering.
    What about the other 15 that got injured? What are they going to get? The State of Virginia is not liable and neither are her taxpayers. It's wrong.

    I might get flamed for this, and I really don't want to make this personal with any Va. Tech fan or alumni, but Va. Tech is liable. They should be sued for every asset they have. If they decide to turn their schools into victim disarmament zones then they have a duty to provide security.
    "These are the shock troops (opencarry.org) of the gun lobby. And, they are not going away."
    Ceasefire NJ Director Brian Miller, NJ.com, August 20, 2009

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Blacksburg, VA, , USA
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    Well, I'd argue that, not knowing any of the people involved at the time, nor the few I've met after that well, I've no idea if their thrice-damned-stupid policy actually disarmed someone who'd otherwise have been armed. Also, I'm certain, watching how the 'families of the victims' have reacted in other legislation, they'd not hold the School liable on the grounds that students who want to stay in school and faculty and staff who want to keep their jobs are disarmed. And it's not reasonable to expect the university to post guards at every door who frisk and bag-search every person who enters, so I'm not sure what, exactly, they'd be liable for. Most of us here have no problems with the school's handling of the situation (9.5 minutes from the OTHER crime scene they were processing, and through a chained door? That's not bad), except for those of us who rankle at the notion we should be disarmed to 'promote safety.'


    Now that I've graudated, though, they can't do anything more to me than ask me to take the weapon off campus, so I CC on-campus all the time ( I carry everywhere I can). I've too many things to get done on-campus to force the issue by open-carrying.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    peter nap wrote:
    If Tech did everything to protect those students, why are they so anxious to settle and why in secret?
    http://www.nbc12.com/news/state/16978516.html

    The answer is pretty clear. By helping defeat the student carry bill the year before, the President and Chief of Police killed those kids just as surely as if they had pulled the trigger themselves!:X
    Why was the US Government so anxious to settle for $1,000,000+ for every person that got killed on 9/11. Is it because the people on the planes weren't allowed to have a gun? Seems like they would have learned and now require all passengers to be armed.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran T Dubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Va, ,
    Posts
    892

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    Why was the US Government so anxious to settle for $1,000,000+ for every person that got killed on 9/11. Is it because the people on the planes weren't allowed to have a gun? Seems like they would have learned and now require all passengers to be armed.
    Negative, that's not the same. The airlines provided security. They cleared people into a secure area with the knowledge that their screening procedures were adequate.

    The image that has been burned in my head is hearing gunshots while law enforcement were running with machine guns hiding behind trees, and walls.
    "These are the shock troops (opencarry.org) of the gun lobby. And, they are not going away."
    Ceasefire NJ Director Brian Miller, NJ.com, August 20, 2009

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Anterus wrote:
    And it's not reasonable to expect the university to post guards at every door who frisk and bag-search every person who enters
    Why not? Airports do it. Many government organizations do it (prisons, courts, military installations). Heck, some public elementary and secondary schools do it.

    If VA Tech wants to keep guns off campus, then they should spend the money needed to do it right. If they don't care, then they should allow anyone who can legally carry to do so. This middle ground of disarming the law-abiding while doing nothing to stop criminals gets people killed.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Colleges all over the country could always be absolutely sure no-one is armed on campus by going to the Co-ed Naked College Campus plan. :shock: :celebrate

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    peter nap wrote:
    If Tech did everything to protect those students, why are they so anxious to settle and why in secret?
    http://www.nbc12.com/news/state/16978516.html

    The answer is pretty clear. By helping defeat the student carry bill the year before, the President and Chief of Police killed those kids just as surely as if they had pulled the trigger themselves!:X
    Most College Police Departments aren't even real police officers anymore. The liberal left has pushed them down so far some can't even arrest or cite a student unless it's a real bad violation. I don't know how they could have done different with this case though. It seems the mental health department failed the students as well. The cops went in right after they were told of the attack. Not much else could have been done on the response part of it.

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    nitrovic wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    If Tech did everything to protect those students, why are they so anxious to settle and why in secret?
    http://www.nbc12.com/news/state/16978516.html

    The answer is pretty clear. By helping defeat the student carry bill the year before, the President and Chief of Police killed those kids just as surely as if they had pulled the trigger themselves!:X
    Most College Police Departments aren't even real police officers anymore. The liberal left has pushed them down so far some can't even arrest or cite a student unless it's a real bad violation. I don't know how they could have done different with this case though. It seems the mental health department failed the students as well. The cops went in right after they were told of the attack. Not much else could have been done on the response part of it.
    Thank you for that informative piece of information Vic.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    399

    Post imported post

    I heard on Fox 5 that they are trying to settle it this way to prevent a lawsuit against the state. There is a stipulation if they opt to take the money saying that they can't sue. Maybe that's why? Only speculation on my side though...

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    235

    Post imported post

    T Dubya wrote:
    Anterus wrote:

    I don't know if this is gun related, but I will bite.




    That's $3.2 million they're offering.
    What about the other 15 that got injured? What are they going to get? The State of Virginia is not liable and neither are her taxpayers. It's wrong.

    I might get flamed for this, and I really don't want to make this personal with any Va. Tech fan or alumni, but Va. Tech is liable. They should be sued for every asset they have. If they decide to turn their schools into victim disarmament zones then they have a duty to provide security.
    and they failed.

  13. #13
    Regular Member VAopencarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The 'Dena, Mаяуlaпd
    Posts
    2,147

    Post imported post

    I don't think the school or state owes anyone anything.

    It's part of our society always looking to blame someone. No school policy or state law will stop a homicidal maniac. Was VT negligent? I think not.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

  14. #14
    Regular Member Virginiaplanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    402

    Post imported post

    It appears that under Virginia law and the cap on damages, even if they went to court and lost, the government would pay out the same as if they had settled. A Settlement is usually less than the full amount had it gone to trial.

    So the question again is why is the government willing to settle for what they would at most have to pay anyway if they lost?

    Is it because they know they will lose and then the guilt will then attach to the money? Will those words by the School at the General Assembly once again become a catalyst for future firearms legislation on campus? Kaine doesn't want that, so settle for top dollar.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    My guess is that they are trying to save legal fees. If they can get agreement on $2 mil, everyone will end up with more money, except the attorneys.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Blacksburg, VA, , USA
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    Most College Police Departments aren't even real police officers anymore. The liberal left has pushed them down so far some can't even arrest or cite a student unless it's a real bad violation. I don't know how they could have done different with this case though. It seems the mental health department failed the students as well. The cops went in right after they were told of the attack. Not much else could have been done on the response part of it.
    VTPD is a real, accredited police department, though, and they mostly do a good job. At least at Tech they make a provision for legally storing your weapons on campus for use off campus, by having some gun lockers at the police station. Still... The anti-gun policies are just silly. They didn't protect anyone on April 16, and they won't protect anyone in the future, either. Alas, I think it's going to take the legislators to pass a law preventing the public colleges from banning weapons to do anything about it, and we all saw how that went. Delegate Sherwood (Chairman of the House Committee on Militia, Police, and Public Safety) said she wasn't planning to let that bill out of subcommittees until she thought there was adequate support in the Senate, and maybe the Governor, so... Gotta talk to our Senators! And Delegates. It actually IS for the children (except that the armed ones will be 21+, having gone through background checks and training).

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    410

    Post imported post

    T Dubya wrote:
    Negative, that's not the same. The airlines provided security. They cleared people into a secure area with the knowledge that their screening procedures were adequate.
    Airline Security is regulated by the government too. I'm pretty sure they couldn't arm their pilots or anyone else if they wanted to because the FAA has oversight on airport security.


  18. #18
    Regular Member fairfax1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    246

    Post imported post

    mpg9999 wrote:
    I'm pretty sure they couldn't arm their pilots or anyone else if they wanted to because the FAA has oversight on airport security.
    http://www.tsa.gov/lawenforcement/programs/ffdo.shtm
    Under this program, eligible flight crewmembers are authorized by the Transportation Security Administration Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Service to use firearms to defend against an act of criminal violence or air piracy attempting to gain control of an aircraft. A flight crew member may be a pilot, flight engineer or navigator assigned to the flight. In December 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law legislation that expanded program eligibility to include cargo pilots and certain other flight crewmembers.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    410

    Post imported post

    fairfax1 wrote:
    mpg9999 wrote:
    I'm pretty sure they couldn't arm their pilots or anyone else if they wanted to because the FAA has oversight on airport security.
    http://www.tsa.gov/lawenforcement/programs/ffdo.shtm
    Under this program, eligible flight crewmembers are authorized by the Transportation Security Administration Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Service to use firearms to defend against an act of criminal violence or air piracy attempting to gain control of an aircraft. A flight crew member may be a pilot, flight engineer or navigator assigned to the flight. In December 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law legislation that expanded program eligibility to include cargo pilots and certain other flight crewmembers.
    Yes, but prior to sept. 11th they could not.

  20. #20
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448

    Post imported post

    So VT screws up (in theory) and the state pays with a smile on it's face. Maybe they don't want to explain why they allow VA public colleges to deny the human right of self defense...
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •