No IMMUNITY for Charles Steger - lawsuit will proceed

Repeater · Nov 23, 2010

Perhaps justice will be served.

Virginia Tech officials can be sued over '07 shooting deaths

AND

Judge rules suit against Tech officials will proceed

But Larry Hincker says that officials were disappointed with the ruling but said the school believes it can show that appropriate actions were taken the day of the shootings.

But are Gun-Free Zones appropriate?

TFred · Nov 23, 2010

Of course the Roanoke Times article is not taking comments. I found a Washington Post blog that was.

Here's mine:

Steger and his administration should ABSOLUTELY be held liable for their role in these deaths. They blindly followed the Politically Correct Pied Piper and imposed a fallacious "Gun Free Zone" upon the helpless student and faculty victims of this horrific crime.

What of consequence has changed since that tragic day? Nothing. Only more murders inside imaginary "Gun Free Zones." Cho KNEW he would be shooting helpless fish in a barrel, and that is the direct and exclusive fault of the VT Administration, who imposed rules, which criminals never obey, that prevented anyone from being equipped to stop Cho before he got started.

I honestly don't know how Steger sleeps at night, knowing how his policies enabled the massive scale of this crime.

Learn the truth:

http://www.google.com/search?q="gun+free+zone"+shootings

TFred

Repeater · Nov 23, 2010

Wild & crazy comments there

TFred said:
Of course the Roanoke Times article is not taking comments. I found a Washington Post blog that was.

Here's mine:

I honestly don't know how Steger sleeps at night, knowing how his policies enabled the massive scale of this crime.

Learn the truth:

http://www.google.com/search?q="gun+free+zone"+shootings

TFred

I like your comments, but have you read some of the others? Like this:

All of this extended blame is getting out of control. The shooter bought his weapon legally, the school had no idea that he had bought a weapon, and it's an open campus. The shooter is 100% responsible. I understand the need to hold someone accountable who is still around to be so, but enough is enough.

Well sure, but that's beside the point. The law-abiding obeyed the campus policy; the POLICY is partly responsible. Those who created and defended that policy are partly liable.

palerider116 · Nov 24, 2010

At the end of the day, you can always find SOMEONE to blame. You can blame the shooter, rightfully. You can blame the administration for creating a disarmament zone. You can blame the students who agreed to abide by the policy. You can blame the gun manufacturer. The ammo manufacturer... and the whole thing keeps snowballing.

The whole massacre should emphasize the NEED to be PROACTIVE in your own defense. Agreeing to be disarmed in an institution of higher learning is neither reasonable nor necessary. Having a degree issued posthumously is of no value. There comes a time when the prestige of the name of institution on the degree is utterly pointless. You can't use that degree to defend yourself. Instead of relying on VA TECH on the degree, rely on Glock or S&W et cetera in the hand.

user · Nov 24, 2010

I take the position that an organization that interferes with the right of citizens to defend themselves on its property or in relation to its programs, thereby assumes a duty to protect those citizens against the depredations of violent third-parties.

Uber_Olafsun · Nov 25, 2010

user said:
I take the position that an organization that interferes with the right of citizens to defend themselves on its property or in relation to its programs, thereby assumes a duty to protect those citizens against the depredations of violent third-parties.

I would agree. You interfere with my rights then you are now responsible. This thing of you don't have to go to college, the mall etc is garbage. If a place is open to the public then there should be no restrictions of rights upon entering them. I am also for no liability of said locations if my rights are not restricted. It is not their duty to protect me. It is mine. As soon as you restrict you take on the duty.

Grapeshot · Nov 25, 2010

user said:
I take the position that an organization that interferes with the right of citizens to defend themselves on its property or in relation to its programs, thereby assumes a duty to protect those citizens against the depredations of violent third-parties.

Uber_Olafsun said:
I would agree. You interfere with my rights then you are now responsible. This thing of you don't have to go to college, the mall etc is garbage. If a place is open to the public then there should be no restrictions of rights upon entering them. I am also for no liability of said locations if my rights are not restricted. It is not their duty to protect me. It is mine. As soon as you restrict you take on the duty.

I have long held a similar position that some see as in conflict with personal property rights. My argument puts forth the proposition that when you invite or solicit the public, you give up the privilege of shelter/protection of that defense. Now I realize that their is little (nothing?) supporting this in the Code of Virginia, but adamantly think there should be and clearly so.

My response continues to be that not only are the universities and merchants responsible in part for bad things that have happened but so too is our General Assembly. This fallacious thinking/condition needs to be remedied.

While it may be an over simplification, strong pro self-defense laws and attitudes reduce crime. Weak pro-gun areas or predominate anti-gun laws provide the petri dish for the bacteria to multiply and infest our society.

Darkshadow62988 · Nov 25, 2010

I hope they win this case and it goes to be shown as an example to anyone who believes in the effectiveness of gun free zones.

Unlike many other state, Virginia allows for the universities themselves to decide on their weapon polices. Had Virginia Tech chosen to allow carry on campus, the events could have gone entirely differently. Whether they would have is irrelevant because the policies took away the option for those that died to be able to defend themselves.

nova · Nov 26, 2010

Darkshadow62988 said:
Had Virginia Tech chosen to allow carry on campus, the events could have gone entirely differently.

I prefer to word it as "Had Virginia Tech not illegally banned the exercise of a constitutional right, the events could have gone entirely differently.

I just hope the VA Supreme Court also sees it that way when they decide on the GMU case.

Grapeshot · Nov 26, 2010

Darkshadow62988 said:
I hope they win this case and it goes to be shown as an example to anyone who believes in the effectiveness of gun free zones.

Unlike many other state, Virginia allows for the universities themselves to decide on their weapon polices. Had Virginia Tech chosen to allow carry on campus, the events could have gone entirely differently. Whether they would have is irrelevant because the policies took away the option for those that died to be able to defend themselves.

It is not that Virginia allows universities to decide for themselves. Whether these schools are included in preemption and other avenues (via acceptance of public funds) or if they have an exception is something presently before the Va. Supreme Court. I have confidence that the VSC will decide favorably - otherwise it will be up to our General Assembly to readdress this.

PeteXD · Nov 26, 2010

From the top link:

""Though we're disappointed with today's ruling ... we are pleased that the judge clearly indicated that the Virginia Supreme Court has not given adequate guidance on the issue of absolute sovereign immunity for leaders of Virginia institutions of higher education, which are major state agencies," university spokesman Larry Hincker said in a written statement."

Va institute of higher learning are state agencies?! Doesn't that mean they fall under preemption??? Or am I wrong? Did the university spokesman just say EXACTLY what we needed to hear???

Uber_Olafsun · Nov 26, 2010

It sounds like it. State agency huh??? Ok we will give you that. Oh by the way......

Grapeshot · Nov 26, 2010

PeteXD said:
From the top link:

""Though we're disappointed with today's ruling ... we are pleased that the judge clearly indicated that the Virginia Supreme Court has not given adequate guidance on the issue of absolute sovereign immunity for leaders of Virginia institutions of higher education, which are major state agencies," university spokesman Larry Hincker said in a written statement."

Va institute of higher learning are state agencies?! Doesn't that mean they fall under preemption??? Or am I wrong? Did the university spokesman just say EXACTLY what we needed to hear???

More a case of hearing what we want to hear I think. He may be the "spokesman", but he is not their attorney before the bar either.

Besides, he can claim that what you thought you heard when you claimed to have heard him say what he did or didn't say is not what he meant to say when you said what you heard him say........well you get the idea.

:uhoh:

PeteXD · Nov 26, 2010

Well then I bet their attorney(s) wish they knew what the eff they are talking about. Haha

He does seem to at least be of the opinion that "Virginia institutes of higher learning" are major state agencies.

And if he doesn't know what he is talking about then why do they let him talk? Haha

AbNo · Dec 5, 2010

Sorry I've been away. School and other things have kept me busy.

PeteXD said:
...."Virginia institutions of higher education, which are major state agencies," university spokesman Larry Hincker said in a written statement."

Va institute of higher learning are state agencies?! Doesn't that mean they fall under preemption??? Or am I wrong? Did the university spokesman just say EXACTLY what we needed to hear???

I'll get the popcorn.

Grapeshot · Dec 5, 2010

AbNo said:
Sorry I've been away. School and other things have kept me busy.

I'll get the popcorn.

You're going to need to read the cliff notes first to get up to speed :lol:

Been a lot happening on the home forty.

KaosDad · Dec 5, 2010

The case at Va Tech is made even more tragic by the presence of the Corps of Cadets (in addition to several other Universities in the nation). Here you have a body of 800+ studentes, trained to arms and (mostly) in the ROTC of various branches of service. My son, for example, already has his Expert Medal in both Rifle & Pistol from the US Navy. Why is he not allowed to carry?

During the shootings the VTCC tried to act as UNARMED human distractions for Cho. Had they been allowed to carry, I would like to think that we would have a Matthew LaPorte HERO fund instead of a MEMORIAL fund.

TFred · Dec 5, 2010

KaosDad said:
During the shootings the VTCC tried to act as UNARMED human distractions for Cho. Had they been allowed to carry, I would like to think that we would have a Matthew LaPorte HERO fund instead of a MEMORIAL fund.

Not because I doubt you, but I do not remember reading anything about this. I would very much like to know more, is there anything published on these events?

Thanks,

TFred

ETFix grammar.

AbNo · Dec 6, 2010

Grapeshot said:
You're going to need to read the cliff notes first to get up to speed :lol:

Been a lot happening on the home forty.

Any specific suggestions?

nova · Dec 6, 2010

PeteXD said:
From the top link:

""Though we're disappointed with today's ruling ... we are pleased that the judge clearly indicated that the Virginia Supreme Court has not given adequate guidance on the issue of absolute sovereign immunity for leaders of Virginia institutions of higher education, which are major state agencies," university spokesman Larry Hincker said in a written statement."

Va institute of higher learning are state agencies?! Doesn't that mean they fall under preemption??? Or am I wrong? Did the university spokesman just say EXACTLY what we needed to hear???

State agencies are not bound by preemption, only localities and agencies thereof.

If the GMU lawsuit doesn't turn out the way I expect and want it to, VCDL should definitely push a bill that adds state agencies to preemption. Like I've said many times before, it would be several birds with one stone...public university carry, state forest carry, etc.

No IMMUNITY for Charles Steger - lawsuit will proceed

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Activist Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member