• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Virginia Tech Held Liable for Delayed Alert During 2007 Massacre

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Those that speak in favor of VT disarmament

By his own choosing, Colin Goddard is the central character in this staged version of Through the Looking Glass - He is Allan in Wonderland that purports to tell us that VT policy on guns is good and right.

He is living a fairy tale and wants everyone to come join him there. He is the leading man and casting director, looking to audition those that will make themselves available as victims in his theatrical production.

Problem is that life is no dream state illusion; it is no card game nor grotesque, living chess board battle where it simply ends in the morning when we rise from our dream world slumber. Colin Allownodefense Goddard has not learned to use his positive attributes in a way that adds to the quality of life, rather than diminishes it.

He is charming, he is articulate - he speaks with a silver tongue, he is a snake oil salesman. His professional credentials are that he very painfully stopped four lead projectiles. That does not make him a hero - he is a victim. It does not qualify him as an expert to instruct others on how they may avert a similar fate.

Colin Goddard personifies victimization. Worse he wears the Tech tragedy like a merit badge on his sash and elevates himself by standing on the tombstones of his classmates.

Colin, if you don't want to carry an effective self-defense tool, that's your choice, but do NOT demand that others give up that ability so that they fit into your narrow view of the world. It is sad what Cho took away from you - your intellectual honesty. You have become a Judas sheep - you lead the lambs through that narrow gate.

The people have spoken through this jury decision - they have delivered a message loudly and clearly. Va Tech and its GFZ backers were negligent - they were wrong.
 

ChinChin

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
By his own choosing, Colin Goddard is the central character in this staged version of Through the Looking Glass - He is Allan in Wonderland that purports to tell us that VT policy on guns is good and right.

He is living a fairy tale and wants everyone to come join him there. He is the leading man and casting director, looking to audition those that will make themselves available as victims in his theatrical production.

Problem is that life is no dream state illusion; it is no card game nor grotesque, living chess board battle where it simply ends in the morning when we rise from our dream world slumber. Colin Allownodefense Goddard has not learned to use his positive attributes in a way that adds to the quality of life, rather than diminishes it.

He is charming, he is articulate - he speaks with a silver tongue, he is a snake oil salesman. His professional credentials are that he very painfully stopped four lead projectiles. That does not make him a hero - he is a victim. It does not qualify him as an expert to instruct others on how they may avert a similar fate.

Colin Goddard personifies victimization. Worse he wears the Tech tragedy like a merit badge on his sash and elevates himself by standing on the tombstones of his classmates.

Colin, if you don't want to carry an effective self-defense tool, that's your choice, but do NOT demand that others give up that ability so that they fit into your narrow view of the world. It is sad what Cho took away from you - your intellectual honesty. You have become a Judas sheep - you lead the lambs through that narrow gate.

The people have spoken through this jury decision - they have delivered a message loudly and clearly. Va Tech and its GFZ backers were negligent - they were wrong.

I prefer a more simplistic analysis: His pulpit is built on the graves of the dead, his fuel is their spilled blood and his only qualification to speak upon authority is that he cared so little for his own life and those of his classmates to accept personal responsibility for his own safety, and continues to praise those who through their own inaction are now found guilty of not doing enough. Grape is so correct, he should not be made a Hero, but the example to point towards and caution others against.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
How does this coincide with the other ruling stating that UMW in Fredericksburg VA is not responsible for the disarmed female student who was victimized?

IIRC the UMW ruling came from the Court of Appeals, while this is "merely" a circuit court jury decision. At best the Montgomery County Circuit Court decision is precedential in that County, but I'm gussing that (as I seem to recall it) it is subject to being overturned if appealed.

The thing is, I really do not see Tech or the Commonwealth appealing the verdicts, if only to avoid the social outcry that would follow. Take a small (in the grand scheme of budgets) hit and let it drop, while praying that there will be no "next time" when this is dragged up and thrown in their face.

It's too bad there is nothing like a court ruling to go along with the jury's decision on the award of damages, that lays out all the fine points of law behind the decision. It might be somewhere in the transcript, but the $ cost of obtaining a copy and then the time wading through it to ferret out the legal points and arguments still will not give the reasons the jury used to come to their decision.

The big question in my mind is this - Now that there is a damage award based on a finding of responsibility, can (and if so, will) a claim of violation of civil rights be initiated? There's not only big money but criminal penalties available should Tech and/or the Commonwealth lose that one. And it would be precedential at a level above the UMW case.

stay safe.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
--snip--
The big question in my mind is this - Now that there is a damage award based on a finding of responsibility, can (and if so, will) a claim of violation of civil rights be initiated? There's not only big money but criminal penalties available should Tech and/or the Commonwealth lose that one. And it would be precedential at a level above the UMW case.

stay safe.

That is a beautiful song your playing - love the melody.
 

riverrat10k

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
1,472
Location
on a rock in the james river
If I read it correctly, Tech was found guilty mostly for a delay in notification after the first shots were fired.

Nothing about disarming the students and faculty to begin with.
 

ChinChin

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
The big question in my mind is this - Now that there is a damage award based on a finding of responsibility, can (and if so, will) a claim of violation of civil rights be initiated? There's not only big money but criminal penalties available should Tech and/or the Commonwealth lose that one. And it would be precedential at a level above the UMW case.

Dan would have to confirm, but I think one would have to show proof that one of the fallen kids and requested the right to carry a firearm and was denied, was subsequently killed, thus showing that their denied request resulted in loss of life.

Again, I don't provide that as fact, just what 5 seasons of LA Law taught me.

ETA: And also I think would only pertain to the two of the thirty killed/wounded who took an out of court settlement from UVA, absolving them from / admitting any wrongdoing in the murders. The other 28 individuals and/or their families took an easy payday vs. having the courts decide.
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Dan would have to confirm, but I think one would have to show proof that one of the fallen kids and requested the right to carry a firearm and was denied, was subsequently killed, thus showing that their denied request resulted in loss of life.

Again, I don't provide that as fact, just what 5 seasons of LA Law taught me.

ETA: And also I think would only pertain to the two of the thirty killed/wounded who took an out of court settlement from UVA, absolving them from / admitting any wrongdoing in the murders. The other 28 individuals and/or their families took an easy payday vs. having the courts decide.

I'm going to disagree - and like you I'm basing my conclusion on many years of watching TV, plus reading decisions from before your time (1960's era civil rights cases).

Tech and the Commonwealth had a duty to protect those two, and by failing to do that they are held responsible for their deaths. Those deaths violated the students' civil rights as they were entitled to due process before effectively having a death sentence carried out against them. Several night riders went to federal prison as well as had monetary judgements against them for violating the civil rights of freedom riders and other in the civil rights movement.

Tech and the Commonwealth are "the government" which makes the violation of those civil rights even more egregious.

Tech and the Commonwealth acted as at least accessories after the fact in depriving those students of their civil rights.

And to stress the point - this is not about being "responsible" or "liable" for their deaths, it is about violating their civil right to due process before deprived of their right to life (and all the other stuff that comes after that like liberty and the perfute [sic] of happiness).

Now awaiting User's take on both of our positions.

stay safe.
 
Last edited:
Top