- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: First lawsuit in regards to Parkland school shooting announced
Posted on 3/6/18 at 10:27 am to LNCHBOX
Posted on 3/6/18 at 10:27 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
LNCHBOX
quote:
Again, why? How are they responsible for a nutjob deciding to shoot up the school?
You're too stupid to insult.
The school resource officer, who was a Broward County deputy, who's only job was to protect students failed to do so. Three more deputies who were immediately on scene failed to enter and secure the school, the patrol captain who was on scene went against established SOP's and ordered deputies not to enter the school.
Let's not mention the countless warnings and tips given to the FBI, the school district, and the Sheriff's office. What was done because of those tips? Nothing, and now we have a bunch of dead kids as a result.
2
Posted on 3/6/18 at 10:27 am to LNCHBOX
quote:Do you think they handled it correctly?
Again, why? How are they responsible for a nutjob deciding to shoot up the school?
Have you been keeping up with the reports on how they handled it?
Posted on 3/6/18 at 10:29 am to shel311
quote:
Do you think they handled it correctly?
Tell me where the gross negligence from the school board is.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 10:29 am to Devil_doge
quote:
You're too stupid to insult.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 10:30 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Again, why? How are they responsible for a nutjob deciding to shoot up the school
The sheriff's department had a duty to act, they never did. There are a plethora of specifics they could use to argue negligence on their part. If they would have acted, a reasonable person could assume this shooting wouldn't have occurred.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 10:31 am to AUsteriskPride
I see a case against the sheriff. I was more asking about the school. Should have clarified that.
ETA: Although I'm really not sure how you prove it, and what kind of precedent it would set. Naming the school is just looking for money.
ETA: Although I'm really not sure how you prove it, and what kind of precedent it would set. Naming the school is just looking for money.
This post was edited on 3/6/18 at 10:34 am
Posted on 3/6/18 at 10:32 am to BigDawg0420
quote:
Somebody deserves to pay
If the government is forced to pay, it is really the taxpayers paying. Frick that. Learn from it, fire the truly incompetent ones, and move on.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 10:32 am to AUsteriskPride
quote:
The sheriff's department had a duty to act, they never did. There are a plethora of specifics they could use to argue negligence on their part. If they would have acted, a reasonable person could assume this shooting wouldn't have occurred.
So, why is the school named? Principal?
Posted on 3/6/18 at 10:33 am to Adam Banks
quote:
I am typically against suit but I support it in this case if directed to the right people: the FBI and sheriffs department. They had a multitude of tips and acted negligently without follow up. The sheriffs department either failed to train or failed to act appropriately on the day of as well.
The US Supreme Court has previously ruled that law enforcement agencies don't have a duty to protect individual citizens. Otherwise, the family of every murder-robbery-rape victim would sue and win. Their gross negligence has no bearing on their liability based on current law.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 10:35 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Again, why? How are they responsible for a nutjob deciding to shoot up the school?
The sheriff's department visited his house 39 times. They received numerous calls and tips about Cruz's violent behavior. He wasn't allowed to bring a backpack to school because of threats made. The little shite even posted on social media that he was going to be a school shooter multiple times. How much more do you need from a law enforcement perspective to take action?
Posted on 3/6/18 at 10:35 am to jbgleason
quote:
The US Supreme Court has previously ruled that law enforcement agencies don't have a duty to protect individual citizens.
Then what's the point of an armed school resource officer? Couldn't it be argued that its their duty to protect individual citizens?
Posted on 3/6/18 at 10:35 am to LNCHBOX
quote:You replied to a post stating the insurance company would go after the county/sheriff department asking "why?"
Tell me where the gross negligence from the school board is.
That specific post you replied to did not mention the school board.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 10:35 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
I see a case against the sheriff. I was more asking about the school. Should have clarified that.
I agree, the school had armed security. The case should be directed at the sheriff's department, so the County by default.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 10:36 am to shel311
quote:
You replied to a post stating the insurance company would go after the county/sheriff department asking "why?"
That specific post you replied to did not mention the school board.
Read the whole thread. Or just cherry pick to make arguments. We know which one you'll always choose.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 10:38 am to NIH
quote:
Get Gordon. Get it done.
John 3:16.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 10:42 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Read the whole thread. Or just cherry pick to make arguments. We know which one you'll always choose.
You already admitted you didn't do a good job clarifying but since I said the same exact thing, you take exception to me repeating what you said?
This post was edited on 3/6/18 at 10:43 am
Posted on 3/6/18 at 10:44 am to shel311
quote:
You already admitted you didn't do a good job but since I said the same exact thing, you take exception to me repeating what you said?
If you want to get specific, the post you're talking about said county/sheriff. With the context of the rest of the tread, it is easy to see that county refers to school. But of course, you're just going to continue to be a nitpicking twat.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 10:45 am to jbgleason
quote:
The US Supreme Court has previously ruled that law enforcement agencies don't have a duty to protect individual citizens. Otherwise, the family of every murder-robbery-rape victim would sue and win. Their gross negligence has no bearing on their liability based on current law.
But there is this:
quote:
However, the Sheriff's Office and Deputy Sheriff Scot Peterson could fall under a "special relationship" exception because Peterson was specifically assigned to protect Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, said Timothy Lytton, a law professor at Georgia State University who has written a book on gun litigation.
"The children and teachers justifiably relied on him and his unique level of knowledge to protect them," Lytton said
Then there is this:
quote:
Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel has said that Peterson should have entered the school and killed the shooter.
So it will be fairly easy to construct a case against the sheriff's department. There was a failure of duty, admission from the sheriff that the officer did not do his duty, and it could even be taken a step further to argue the inaction leading up to the shooting represented a pattern of incompetence by the department.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 10:46 am to LNCHBOX
quote:Again, I literally repeated what YOU said, that you should have clarified.
If you want to get specific, the post you're talking about said county/sheriff. With the context of the rest of the tread, it is easy to see that county refers to school. But of course, you're just going to continue to be a nitpicking twat.
So I'm a twat for saying the same thing as you?
Funny stuff, the lengths you'll go to because it's ME who said something to you, it's not a good look since, ya know, I repeated what you had already said.
A simple reply of, "Yea I mentioned in another post that I should have clarified better" would suffice here, and then you move on.
This post was edited on 3/6/18 at 10:47 am
Posted on 3/6/18 at 10:46 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Tell me where the gross negligence from the school board is.
I haven’t kept up with everything, but the school obviously knew this kid was a problem and they had kicked him out of the school. Several students said that they had saw the kid on campus throughout the day. If the school did nothing to keep the kid off campus or remove him from campus after knowing that he was a threat then they should shoulder some of the blame.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News