Va. Tech families reach $11M settlement

Neplusultra · Apr 11, 2008

imported post

The state is "compensating" the families. Isn't this nothing less than a tacit admission that they were liable for the safety of the students? And couldn't this action be taken as a precident for future legal action?

And BTW, the families who are taking the deal are probably the ones that would not have sued the state in the first place. The hold-outs are the ones that will eventually take them to court :^). Another example of the wise use of your tax money by your representatives.

Stories here:

http://tinyurl.com/6a4kae
http://tinyurl.com/5uahzg

Citizen · Apr 11, 2008

imported post

Yes. Tacit admission of responsibility.

But I'm concerned that it canend up taking a different turn:

"As long as we're responsible and have to pay, then we definitely need stricter gun control laws. Look at all the money this is costing us!"

They will never, ever acknowledge that people have the right to self-defense.

Citizen · Apr 11, 2008

imported post

Actually, the pro-rights world needs to take the tacit part out the picture and just run with it in a press release:

"VA Tech today admitted responsibility for getting 32 people killed and 23 more wounded by denying the right to self-defense and interfering last year with legislation designed to prevent just such a tragedy."

Neplusultra · Apr 11, 2008

imported post

I think the purpose of the offer is to entice the families not to sue the pants off the state and set a really bad precedent for "gun-free" zones.

The thing that gets me is why these families took the money, unless it was to pay for bills related to their family member's deaths (but didn't they already get money from the donations made to the foundation)? If the state was not negligent why take the money? If they've changed the policies to your satisfaction, why take the money? If the state was negligent why not sue them to make them change their policies? I may be wrong but somehow this whole deal sounds really disgusting.

Neplusultra · Apr 11, 2008

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Yes. Tacit admission of responsibility.

But I'm concerned that it canend up taking a different turn:

"As long as we're responsible and have to pay, then we definitely need stricter gun control laws. Look at all the money this is costing us!"

They will never, ever acknowledge that people have the right to self-defense.

Ha! You have a twisted way of thinking I see :^). They might try that but what a hornet's nest they'd stir up if they did !!!

They'll never acknowledge our rights willingly and honestly, but we can force them to by shear logic and scorn as more and more people wake and see the light.

Ric in Richmond · Apr 11, 2008

imported post

HEADLINE:
VIRGINIA TECH FIGHTS CONCEALED CARRY AND THEN PAYS PRICE WHEN THEY FAIL TO SECURE CAMPUS!!

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Unfortunately the safety was only a FEELING because a little more than a year later a student who took advantage of the gun free zone killed his classmates and professors at VT.

The State admitted liability in failing to protect the students by negotiating a settlement of 11 million dollars for the students.

Larry Hincker has been unavailable to comment.....

TUESDAY JANUARY 31st, 2006

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658
Gun bill gets shot down by panel
HB 1572, which would have allowed handguns on college campuses, died in subcommittee.
[font="Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular"]By Greg Esposito
[/font] 381-1675

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.

House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.

The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was unavailable Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the bill's defeat other than to say the issue was dead for this General Assembly session.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Del. Dave Nutter, R-Christiansburg, would not comment Monday because he was not part of the subcommittee that discussed the bill.

Most universities in Virginia require students and employees, other than police, to check their guns with police or campus security upon entering campus. The legislation was designed to prohibit public universities from making "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun."

The legislation allowed for exceptions for participants in athletic events, storage of guns in residence halls and military training programs.

Last spring a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit. Some gun owners questioned the university's authority, while the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police came out against the presence of guns on campus.

In June, Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities.

deepdiver · Apr 11, 2008

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Actually, the pro-rights world needs to take the tacit part out the picture and just run with it in a press release:

"VA Tech today admitted responsibility for getting 32 people killed and 23 more wounded by denying the right to self-defense and interfering last year with legislation designed to prevent just such a tragedy."

*DING* We have a winner!

hsmith · Apr 11, 2008

imported post

Pretty sad the cost of the lost children's lives is a mear $100,000.

Pretty pathetic hush money if you ask me.

Neplusultra · Apr 11, 2008

imported post

hsmith wrote:

Pretty sad the cost of the lost children's lives is a mear $100,000.

Pretty pathetic hush money if you ask me.

What I want to know is how many families are *not* taking the hush money. Why in the heck are they taking it anyway? The report says "most" families are taking the offer. How many are not. I wonder which party dominates each of those two groups?

casullshooter · Apr 11, 2008

imported post

Last report I heard had 20 families accepting the offer.........

roscoe13 · Apr 11, 2008

imported post

I'd bet the single biggest reason they're settling is closure...

Neplusultra · Apr 11, 2008

imported post

roscoe13 wrote:

I'd bet the single biggest reason they're settling is closure...

Might be, but still, why take the money? What does money have to do with closure? Why take *any* money from a group if they had nothing to do with the death of your loved one???? Haven't they already gotten a pile of cash from the foundation formed after the shooting? Are they just greedy or do they recognize responsibility but do not want to press the issue?

72Malibu · Apr 14, 2008

imported post

I cannot fathom how money can be considered compensation for something like the Virginia Tech massacre, unless that money is intended to cover financial expenses that families have had to deal with as a result of their family member being killed/injured.

"I'm sorry your child was killed. Here, go and buy yourself a shiny new car."

Anybody who thinks that any amount money is adequate compensation for the non-monetary costs of losing a loved one to the hands of a psychopath must be callous and shallow beyond any level of comprehension that I can muster.

ChinChin · Apr 15, 2008

imported post

hsmith wrote:

Pretty sad the cost of the lost children's lives is a mear $100,000.

Pretty pathetic hush money if you ask me.

So VT and Kaine say the going rate on a childs life is $100K huh? Seriously, how can Kaine be so asleep at the wheel that he doesn't find that insulting? ::sigh:: Well, next time an anti asks me why I carry, I can honestly say that being murdered in Virginia isn't cost effective.

roscoe13 · Apr 15, 2008

imported post

Neplusultra wrote:

roscoe13 wrote:

I'd bet the single biggest reason they're settling is closure...

Click to expand...

Might be, but still, why take the money? What does money have to do with closure? Why take *any* money from a group if they had nothing to do with the death of your loved one???? Haven't they already gotten a pile of cash from the foundation formed after the shooting? Are they just greedy or do they recognize responsibility but do not want to press the issue?

Money has nothing to do with closure... But, accepting the settlement means you don't have to keep poking a stick in the open wound for a lengthy lawsuit...

Neplusultra · Apr 15, 2008

imported post

ChinChin wrote:

hsmith wrote:

Pretty sad the cost of the lost children's lives is a mear $100,000.

Pretty pathetic hush money if you ask me.

Click to expand...

So VT and Kaine say the going rate on a childs life is $100K huh? Seriously, how can Kaine be so asleep at the wheel that he doesn't find that insulting? ::sigh:: Well, next time an anti asks me why I carry, I can honestly say that being murdered in Virginia isn't cost effective.

Or, My life is worth more than $100K, as if you would ever see that unless you bought the big one while in the midst of some big dramatic nationally televised shootout, ala VT.

timf343 · Apr 17, 2008

imported post

Neplusultra wrote:

The state is "compensating" the families. Isn't this nothing less than a tacit admission that they were liable for the safety of the students? And couldn't this action be taken as a precident for future legal action?

That's an interesting thought. Arizona CDL proposed some controversial legislation this year in Arizona which didn't pass. The gist of it was that private property owners (employers, shop-owners, restaurants, etc) are free to restrict possession of firearms, but if they do, and an armed criminal hurts innocent civilians disarmed by such a policy, the private property owner is civilly liable for injury damages.

This type of liability would likely result in many companies removing such policies. Civil penalties for wrongful death can be huge, so agree with the law or not, I doubt many companies, especially large companies, would risk being sued over such an incident.

On the other hand, playing devils advocate, what if such a law takes effect, companies remove their restrictions, and an employee, no longer restricted from carrying, goes crazy and starts shooting. What is the risk then? The company didn't take proper steps to protect its employees? Now we all know that a criminal (including a crazy employee) is going to ignore a "no weapons" policy, but the anti's feel it's as good as kevlar. Anyone know of any court cases in which a company was sued for inadequate protection from workplace violence, as a result of not having a "no firearms" policy? Or similar...

Neplusultra · Apr 17, 2008

imported post

timf343 wrote:

Neplusultra wrote:

The state is "compensating" the families. Isn't this nothing less than a tacit admission that they were liable for the safety of the students? And couldn't this action be taken as a precident for future legal action?

Click to expand...

That's an interesting thought. Arizona CDL proposed some controversial legislation this year in Arizona which didn't pass. The gist of it was that private property owners (employers, shop-owners, restaurants, etc) are free to restrict possession of firearms, but if they do, and an armed criminal hurts innocent civilians disarmed by such a policy, the private property owner is civilly liable for injury damages.

This type of liability would likely result in many companies removing such policies. Civil penalties for wrongful death can be huge, so agree with the law or not, I doubt many companies, especially large companies, would risk being sued over such an incident.

On the other hand, playing devils advocate, what if such a law takes effect, companies remove their restrictions, and an employee, no longer restricted from carrying, goes crazy and starts shooting. What is the risk then? The company didn't take proper steps to protect its employees? Now we all know that a criminal (including a crazy employee) is going to ignore a "no weapons" policy, but the anti's feel it's as good as kevlar. Anyone know of any court cases in which a company was sued for inadequate protection from workplace violence, as a result of not having a "no firearms" policy? Or similar...

All of these scenarios can be answered by one point that we should all strenuously work towards and that is the "individual" is formost responsible for his own safety and protection. It is the height of arrogance and immorality IMO, to require someone else, for a mere wage, to risk his life to protect your sorry ass when you could and should do so yourself !!! If this principle became the accepted norm for society then no company who allowed guns could successfully be sued (by law preferably) and no company that forbade guns could successfully defend itself.

And as we all know the cop/security guard is only going to protect you if he chooses to at the moment. He has no legal requirement to do so, and rightfully so. Is his life worth less than yours? What an elitist you are if you think so !!! If you ever hear someone talking about police or security in this manner - remind them what elitists they are.

ODA 226 · Apr 17, 2008

imported post

Neplusultra wrote:

timf343 wrote:

Neplusultra wrote:

The state is "compensating" the families. Isn't this nothing less than a tacit admission that they were liable for the safety of the students? And couldn't this action be taken as a precident for future legal action?

Click to expand...

That's an interesting thought. Arizona CDL proposed some controversial legislation this year in Arizona which didn't pass. The gist of it was that private property owners (employers, shop-owners, restaurants, etc) are free to restrict possession of firearms, but if they do, and an armed criminal hurts innocent civilians disarmed by such a policy, the private property owner is civilly liable for injury damages.

This type of liability would likely result in many companies removing such policies. Civil penalties for wrongful death can be huge, so agree with the law or not, I doubt many companies, especially large companies, would risk being sued over such an incident.

On the other hand, playing devils advocate, what if such a law takes effect, companies remove their restrictions, and an employee, no longer restricted from carrying, goes crazy and starts shooting. What is the risk then? The company didn't take proper steps to protect its employees? Now we all know that a criminal (including a crazy employee) is going to ignore a "no weapons" policy, but the anti's feel it's as good as kevlar. Anyone know of any court cases in which a company was sued for inadequate protection from workplace violence, as a result of not having a "no firearms" policy? Or similar...

Click to expand...

All of these scenarios can be answered by one point that we should all strenuously work towards and that is the "individual" is formost responsible for his own safety and protection. It is the height of arrogance and immorality IMO, to require someone else, for a mere wage, to risk his life to protect your sorry ass when you could and should do so yourself !!! If this principle became the accepted norm for society then no company who allowed guns could successfully be sued (by law preferably) and no company that forbade guns could successfully defend itself.

And as we all know the cop/security guard is only going to protect you if he chooses to at the moment. He has no legal requirement to do so, and righfully so. Is his life worth less than yours? What an elitist you are if you think so !!! If you ever hear someone talking about police or security in this manner - remind them what elitists they are.

Ahem brother!

deepdiver · Apr 17, 2008

imported post

Neplusultra wrote:

All of these scenarios can be answered by one point that we should all strenuously work towards and that is the "individual" is formost responsible for his own safety and protection. It is the height of arrogance and immorality IMO, to require someone else, for a mere wage, to risk his life to protect your sorry ass when you could and should do so yourself !!! If this principle became the accepted norm for society then no company who allowed guns could successfully be sued (by law preferably) and no company that forbade guns could successfully defend itself.

And as we all know the cop/security guard is only going to protect you if he chooses to at the moment. He has no legal requirement to do so, and righfully so. Is his life worth less than yours? What an elitist you are if you think so !!! If you ever hear someone talking about police or security in this manner - remind them what elitists they are.

QFT

Va. Tech families reach $11M settlement

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran