I am with Lonesome on this. Tort reform HAS to be addressed.

Forget the AR15. Even if you outlawed it the day before, he had enough hand guns on him to do as much damage. Address the fact that he was mentally ill and there has been a SIGNIFICANT drop off of mental health facilities all over the US. Locally we lost ALL of them for a 100 mile radius. Mentally ill people are now going to ERs for any help and then let back onto the streets. Deal with the person, not the tool.

But more importantly...100 Million? REALLY? Will it bring their daughter peace of mind? No but the lawyer sure will benefit handsomely.

About lawsuits and lawyers. The Supreme court says "We are a nation of laws, not men" But when you become a nation of laws, you become a nation of lawyers who are men and women.

The only justice in this country is for the lawyers. If you get pulled into a legal issue, there will never be justice for you, the process itself will punish you, so even if you win, you've lost.

Publicity seeking lawyer; who is he going to sue, for what wrong, for not protecting everyone from everything, this is a non-suit, the court will throw his suit out and proably sanction him for bringing a totally frivolous action.

Pinsky's claim said that the state Board of Education, Department of Education and Education Commissioner had failed to take appropriate steps to protect children from "foreseeable harm."

It said they had failed to provide a "safe school setting" or design "an effective student safety emergency response plan and protocol."

He stole guns and BROKE INTO a school....can you say frivolous lawsuit?

How about blood sucking ambulance chasing leach?

Still wonder why insurance rates and medical costs are so high people? here's your answer.

Publicity seeking lawyer; who is he going to sue, for what wrong, for not protecting everyone from everything, this is a non-suit, the court will throw his suit out and probably sanction him for bringing a totally frivolous action.

saxon...I hope you are right but it will go to court and waste milllions more in time and publicity. The difference between a lawyer and a carp? One is a scum sucking bottom feeder and the other is a fish.

Just when you think lawyers couldn't sink into the sleaze any further, here comes another one. Considering there's little to be gained from suing the deceased shooter or his equally deceased mother, he reasoned the deepest pockets remaining was the school itself.

The security at this school mirrors the security at thousands of schools across the country, but this isn't really about any of that, it's about a big payday.

Regarding previous posts discussing tort reform. All that needs to be done is to adopt the British model of loser pays and frivolous law suits will cease overnight. However, considering most members of congress are lawyers, it will never happen.

This was a story from The Onion, right?

Let's see: the doors were locked, the principal and teachers literally put their lives on the line to stop the gunman, and everyone did as much as they could in the very short amount of time available to them. So what's to sue about? Admittedly this attack was so horrendous that it defies description, but why sue the school? I think the "Good Samaritan" law might be applicable here. (Not sure if CT has it, but probably.) Everyone who could do anything to help, did. Tragedy still ensued, but not due to the help provided by the bystanders. It's lawsuits like this that give lawyers a bad name. The other lawyers in this twerp's community should sanction his behavior and actions. This is uncalled for and ambulance chasing, at best.

Surprise! If guns are not available, mental misfits will find other ways to kill groups of people. There are other easy ways to do this. They will find them.

$100m for hearing things on an intercom?

He just wants a huge payday and the public spotlight. If I were a judge, I'd throw him and his case out so hard he'd be permanently embedded in the sidewalk.

So what's to sue about?

Easiest way to get money in America outside of inheriting it.

No different from 9/11, after the tragedy, survivors and lawyers became filthy rich. Sue the NRA

Apparently this attorney has suffered $40 million worth of "emotional and psychological trauma and injury"? The legal industry; making fortunes off other people's misfortunes. Park that fee offshore and pay no taxes in the bargain. Shakespeare was right.

I'm sure it wasn't the fact that a couple dozen people were killed all around. No, it was the voice on the intercom that will give her PTSD.

outside of inheriting it.

and some lawyer gets a cut out of that as well.

mac: Tort reform? Might be useful in those cases where you suffer $8 million worth of damage from a cup of coffee you spill on yourself. What are these juries thinking? (Rhetorical question)

It's too bad the schools don't have the same legal protections that the big pharma and big oil have.

I hope these people don't get a dime in a settlement.

The department of education had every 'reasonable' security measure present. Sometimes bad thing happen beyond the scope of human control. I realize how settlements work and that the suitor will never get $100 million but even if he gets a tenth of that, he is only hurting the impoverished education system. I agree with most of the posters here, parasitic slime. Deepest sympathies for your loss, but this is the WRONG way to cope

People are unisured because they have no jobs. Stop sending all of our money to third world garbage dumps and take care of our own. Just the money paid to Iraq and Afghanistan would have sustained healthcare and social security systems for decades alone. Take care of the people. As far as the school, it was as secure as i have heard of any, but glass breaks and with no other security present, that is all it took. The lawsuit is garbage, just another sign of the deplorable state our country is in. If I don't want to work, all I have to do is find a lawyer for a lawsuit. It is a sad but unfortunate truth in our country that we need security in our schools, but it is not due to the guns, it is due to the travesty in parenting over the past 20 years. Spare the rod, spoil the child.

Shakespeare was correct!

To sue the school system that did all that it could for something they had no control in preparing for or dealing with and did all they could to protect those in harms way is shameful. This small town has never seen anything like this type of violence. I feel for those who survived and had to suffer thru such a horrific event, but i feel more for those who have lost their lives, child and adult alike and all of the families that have suffered at the hands of a mentally ill madman with a gun. This lawsuit isn't about justice, but greed that if won will be paid by taxpayers and will solve nothing. the only person(s) who will benefit from this are the lawyers. This will not solve the pain nor honor the memory of those fallen.

The unidentified client, referred to as Jill Doe, heard "cursing, screaming, and shooting" over the school intercom when the gunman, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, opened fire, according to the claim filed by New Haven-based attorney Irv Pinsky.

"As a consequence, the ... child has sustained emotional and psychological trauma and injury, the nature and extent of which are yet to be determined," the claim said.

Good grief. The only people who have cause to seek redress of their injuries are the surviving wounded victims, and the direct relatives of the slain.

In direct response to the quite apropos question by Lonesome Rhoades, I would say that the courts will probably deal with this case in accordance with its true merits, meaning it will be dismissed. I know exactly how much compensation I would accord if I were on the jury in such a case, a bus ticket home, a note saying "Too bad! So Sad!".

No tragedy so terrible that somebody will not attempt to profit from it.

Can't see how the board of ed. was negligent or this was foreseeable at all.A money grab does not bring back those lost. Nothing but greed.

You know what, We all know the NRA has bought and paid for the Elected Officials, so they will not do anything but protect the Gun makers profits. So if anything is going to get done, it will get done in the Courts. He will file suite against this kids mom's Estate and Her home owner Insurance. This Kids Dad isn't out of the woods here either. I say let the lawyers have at it and see what gets done. We only have to look at DC and we all know nothing can get done there. No matter how bad it gets, as longs as there is one Rep/teabag in Congress, Nothing will ever get done. We well fix that in 14 and maybe Brake the Koch Brothers at the same time. Newtown has given me nightmares and I live in Mich. I still have a 15 year old in school. I have 6 Grand kids school age.

Big Trouble

Sorry, IA.ScooterTramp, but rates are high because of the uninsured showing up at the emergency room with a life-threatening condition. If cons like you would read the law, you would realize that they can't be turned away. Guess who pays?

In accordance with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, emergency room treatment is an unfunded mandate. That is, there are no reimbursement provisions. Therefore, the emergency treatment afforded to indigent patients is funded by overcharging the paying customers.

Guess Obamacare is the lesser evil. so sorry to burst your little Con bubble.

Guess again. At least EMTALA kept the redistribution of health care costs within state borders. Obamacare insures that I will end up paying for some illegals' health care in California.

Best guess is the NRA is behind the lawsuit as part of their plan to ensure there are guns in every school. Just like they were behind the lawsuit a parent filed in attempt to stop pediatricians from asking parents of patients if there were guns in the house after the CDC put out a report on the number of accidental children's deaths in homes with guns.

Gunner,

It amazes me people like you claim to be the compassionate ones.

Who say the trillions upon trillions we have spent on the War on Poverty and other social programs in the US need to be expanded, but then blame the few billions we spend in foreign aid to help the over a billion people in the world who live on around $1 a day or much less and are in a constant state of hunger, malnourishment, vastly higher mortality rate, hugely lower life expectancy, no access to even clean water, or even basic first aid for our problems. You called them "third world garbage dumps." You are talking about a population of people three times the size of the entire population of the US who who risk life and limb to become even the poorest person in America both because their quality of life as even the poorest American would instantly become exponentially better, and because they would have limitless opportunities to better themselves that they simply do not have where they live.

But no, go ahead and take away the money that can help them, and spend it so some more lifelong food stamp recepient in the US can go buy a lobster dinner and some alcohol and complain how life has done them so wrong. All paid for by your (I hope) and my paychecks, ohh and the massive debt that will take generations to repay if they ever even stop adding to it.

As a nation we should be ashamed to allow scum bag lawyers to introduce lawsuits that burden the courts and are actually an insult.

It appears that the US has to learn and come up with regulations to protect the system from these bottom feeders. No wonder the world is laughing about us with our willingness to sue for any garbage. What a sick society to even allow this to be filed after all those people have done to protect the children. For the little girl, and all the others, they will get over it. Human nature is luckily more resilient than expected.

As for those clowns that are calling for suing the NRA - get a life or crawl back into your hole.

Randoo, I almost agree with you. We do need to address the person, and especially address the issue of untreated mental illness.

But we also need to address the tool. If Adam Lanza hadn't had access to semi-automatic weapons, this wouldn't have happened, at least not to the degree of destruction of loss of life that it did.

Weapons made this tragedy far, far more preventably devastating that it might otherwise have been. Only a few days before the shooting in Newtown, a man went on a rampage in China. His toolwas a knife. And though a similar number of children were attacked in both rampages, the Chinese victims lived.

The difference was the weapon. And so, yes, the tool must be addressed as well.

shipwrecked; those states that have imposed penalty's for not offering a reasonable settlement, have seen tort suits fillings go down as much as 50%; the Association of trial lawyers and the ABA, have pushed for it fir years; the insurance industry has stopped the implementation of the loser pays for not offering a fair settlement.

Some corporate lackeys actually believe "tort reform" is the answer to murders by gunman, NOT THE ARMS INDUSTRY FOR SUPPLYING THE WEAPONS FOR CRAZY PEOPLE TO USE ON OUR CHILDREN AND THEIR PROTECTORS. When will sanity be the normal attribute of humans? Fools that actually believe you have to stop people from suing criminals instead of STOPPING CRIMINALS FROM OBTAINING WEAPONS. It is one thing to stop a mentally disturbed person from killing others , but it is something entirely different when some people (republicraps) constantly defund mental health centers (along with womans health centers). These degenerate people have no desire to help people they just want whatever you have. Can you imagine what corporate elitist would do if they were not held responsible for defective products, they laugh at us now just knowing we do not have lawyers on retainers like they do. If a company sells a defective product that causes harm then they should be held responsible, civilly and criminally. Lawsuits are the only reason we have that makes corporate greed think twice before they continue to make unsafe products. Yes I believe guns are unsafe, just like automobiles, they both require human actions to make them work.

Two thoughts, you can file any suit you want. It doesn't mean that it's going to have any legs. In fact, I would like to see this go to a jury, because I would love to know who is paying the lawyers. No lawyer that I know would take this on contingency, based upon the likelihood that it would fail. The school had a state-of-the-art secuirty system, based upon the news and on the fact, that Lanza had to shoot out the doors to get in to the building. I have a good idea that this suit is backed by the NRA. They want to blame the school so that they can tie up any possible legislation for decades.

If any suit might be a better suit it would be against the mother's estate, since she may or may not have secured the weapons correctly. Ridiculous suit, probably backed by gun advocats.

I was wondering how long it would take sleaze-bag lawyers and money-hungry people to start milking this tragedy Where does the moron who wants to sue think Newtown is going to get $100 million??? I think lawyers AND their clients that try to capitalize on tragedy should get a one-way ticket to China. Pathetic peices of crap. They all have brains like haggisbingo who wants to blame the NRA and it's 4+ million members for the actions of a lunatic. I really wish he would take his sorry ass to the next NRA meeting in San Antonio and run off that hole in his face, but first he would have to put down the funny-weed that has apparently impaired him to the point that he's firing on 1 spark plug.

@dirp.

time and again, you and fellow gun-a-phobes claim a guns only purpose is to kill

sorry to burst your bubble, but that isn't the case. i am not arguing some models primary design purpose isnt to kill, rather i am stating, based on real world personal experience, a large percentage of guns in use have a primary purpose of target shooting. yes. target shooting.

eg. i would say of all the rounds i have spent for the purpose of hunting in my life time, could very well be held in boxes held by both hands. conversely, of all the rounds i have spent target shooting would require the bed of a long bed ranger to hold, at the very least.

what did this target practicing teach me ? you think how to murderously kill innocent people ??? that's the way you talk/type. if so, guess again. what i learned taught me about ballistics, ballistic coefficients, atmosphere and gravity, etc and so on.

what did that get me ?

i was chosen as one of a handful of students assigned to a special project in 1st year physics to design a rocket to fly to the moon. all because i was i able to convert components of ballistics into answers to very specific questions on an qualifying exam for the project.

keeping this all in perspective, i am in my mid+ 50s at this point. that was cutting edge back then. also, i would not have qualified for that project had i not been involved with long range target shooting for many years prior.

i still enjoy long range target shooting and havent killed anything in a hunt for decades.

so in reaility, claiming the only purpose of a gun is for killing is wrong, self serving of an anti gun agenda and outright ignorant.

Regards.

Attorney Irving Pinsky
114 Sherman Ave, New Haven, CT 06511 (203) 624-7162

Lonesome, tort reform is not going to happen..... The Scum Bag Lawyers have way to much money to pass in bribes for it to come about.....

I'm not sure there is a shower long enough to wash off the Pinsky slime I'm feeling right now. Ambulance chasing dirt bag.

When are they going to have a serious discussion about MENTAL HEALTH??????????? They didnt want them locked up so they let them out on the streets????? At least medicate, counsel and supervise!!

Pinsky's claim said that the state Board of Education, Department of Education and Education Commissioner had failed to take appropriate steps to protect children from "foreseeable harm."

The gunman broke a window to get into the LOCKED school.....how does that make the state responsible for "foreseeable harm."

Tort reform is needed, however, since most of congress are lawyers, NEVER gonna happen!!

Lets just let all the attorneys and unions bankrupt the states and see how happy everyone is then!

Chase ambulences much Irv?

Maybe someone ought to tell the 6 y.o. girl how lucky she was not to get a ^%$* bullet up her *%#_)$*&. Meanwhile her family is suing their own community. Pure scum.

This family should be very ashamed of themselves, they actually have the nerves to sue this community when their daughter survived. There was over 600 children in the school at the time of the shooting, what's makes this family special?? The families if anybody that should be awarded any money should be the ones who lost their children!! 100 million dollars they have lost their minds for real.

Everyone seems to want to blame the Lawyer. Granted , I have no love of Lawyers but they do serve a purpose. Try going into court without one.....you will lose.....the system gaurentees it.

THE PARENTS of the child who was allegedly traumatized set this in motion. Pathetic. Others are grieving for the loss of their children and these POS AND their lawyer are sueing for emotional distress? PUH - LESE.

How they can live with themselves is beyond me.

I liked the post above that said that maybe it should be more like England regarding lawsuits where Loser Pays.

what kind of greedy bastards has the nerve to sue because the victim lived. another gloria allred lawyer looking for a payday !

To Everyone: See Jeff's post with the attorney's contact info; I encourage you all to make a phone call to this parasitic child-massacre profiteer to let him know that he and his clients - who should simply be grateful their child was spared that day rather than seeking to enrich themselves off their child's slain schoolmates - are disgusting.

Wren-3837954

"But we also need to address the tool. If Adam Lanza hadn't had access to semi-automatic weapons, this wouldn't have happened, at least not to the degree of destruction of loss of life that it did."

Okay let's say he had a shotgun instead of a Bushmaster, do you really think this would have gone any better? One buckshot shell could kill multiple people and with a shotgun you don't even have to aim, just point it at a crowd and spray.

Let's say you managed to get rid of all of those as well. How many handguns can one person carry? Quite a few and a standard Glock 17 can hold 18 rounds. You don't think they could do as much damage?

And if he couldn't get a gun what would stop him from making explosives? There are plenty that could be made with standard household chemicals.

There will always be the tools and even if there were not someone would just improvise them. We need better mental health care and better security. Nothing else is going to fix this.

I don't blame the parents for the lawsuit, however... Suing the school board and district only punishes their neighbors, it is their taxes that make the school function. Their children just as traumatized. It will only forces changes that the insulated NRA espouses. On top of that very few if any people have sued the NRA or the gun industry for their lobbied policies. That is who should be sued but the School Department is an easier target.

If this suit doesn't get thrown out immediately, then the school has one course of action: Take a room in the basement of the school with a locked steel door and take the kid down there with a tutor and keep the kid there with the tutor all day. At least the parents can't complain that they aren't doing everything they can to keep their kid safe. Oh, and then I'd charge the parents for special services provided.

The only people to sue in this is the Lanza family - the mother's estate.

The school is not to blame.

The school district is not to blame.

The board of education is not to blame.

The taxpayers should not have to pay for this.

If you're going to go for a crazy lawsuit, then sue the gun manufacturer. No, I don't think the gun manufacturer is responsible, but they had more to do with it than the school.

Sue anyone in congress who let the assault weapons ban expire. Sue the NRA.

The school and community should not even be considered in a lawsuit.

And the truth is, the community would be better off just pulling together and helping everyone who suffered from this tragedy. Aren't people from all over the world donating money to help? Get rid of the lawyers and lawsuits and let the good people take care of each other.

Scumbag parents, scumbag lawyer; but don't school districts make you pay their legal fees if you lose? risky.

I personally not only think the lawyer is scum but so are the parents of this child who are suing. What a slap in the face to those parents who actually lost their children. The parents suing are looking to profit off the deaths of 20 angels who are not getting to wake up to their mom and dad's good morning hugs & kisses. Shame on those parents and the lawyer representing them!!!! I am a mother who lost a child, I can tell you the last thing on my mind was how I could profit off my son's death or any of the other parents children who lost their child that I met over the years. This really turns my stomach and I hope the lawsuit backfires on them all and anyone else who tries this stunt. Just pure evil all the way around, right on the level of that tragic day.

We've already had a serious conversation on tort reform, because 38 states now have tort reform laws on the books. What many people want is not tort reform but rather laws prohibiting any injured person from seeking legal redress at all. If a wealthy drunk driver kills or paralyzes a family member, tough. If a doctor amputates the wrong leg, just live with it. If your elderly relative is abused in a nursing home, just laugh it off. That's what most people mean by "tort reform."

The lawyer that filed this suit should be disbarred. It is completely absurd to file this suit and I hope that the judge assigned to the case dismisses it at summary judgement so that the school district is not forced to waste millions of dollars in legal fees defending against this absurd suit. That money would be better used to pay for counselors to help the students get through this tragedy rather than wasted paying lawyers to defend against this ridiculous suit. The schools should turn around and file a counter-suit for abuse of process against the parents and the lawyer who brought this case so that they are left penniless, since this is what they deserve for bringing this idiotic suit. This is nothing more than a some ambulance chasing lawyer and some lazy and greedy @!$%# parents looking for some "free money" at the expense of the school district and the taxpayers. They need to make filing idiotic, unfounded suits like this a criminal offense.

1. Sue the NRA INSTEAD
2. Just like Cigarette Manufacturers and lobbyists are sued!!

eric: Nice thought, but not very realistic. You do realize that we have laws on the books banning illegal drugs, don't you? And how efficient has our government been in preventing them? I realize you want to take my guns away from me, but why do you want to? They haven't hurt anyone! Of course, by your logic, if everyone had guns then someone could have intervened to prevent as many kids getting killed as did.

The facts that I've read is that by all accounts the kid was certifiable. Yet, nothing was done to take him off the streets. There was a time when loonies were locked up so that they couldn't harm anyone. Then, in the 1970s, the left decided that this wasn't right, you don't lock someone up when they haven't done anyone any harm. Their arguments eventually convinced the courts to order a lot of people released. So, you now have a lot of people on the streets that really shouldn't be there. Don't get me wrong, I have a hard time locking someone up who hasn't actually done any harm to anyone. If you start locking people up because they "may" do harm, then you might as well lock everyone up.

The problem we have now is that a theory of civil law is that "for every wrong there is a remedy." Sounds good, but from where does that remedy come? Clearly, the kid (parents) can sue the estate of the loony who decided to shoot. But, the idea that you just dig into the deep pockets because that is where the money is, is destroying society. The idea of this lawsuit is that the school should have foreseen the possibility of someone entering the building and shooting and didn't do enough to prevent it. Since the lawsuit is technically by the kid, then the school district should cross-claim against the parent and counter-claim against the kid. Why, well, if it was so obvious that the school wasn't doing enough to protect the kid then the parents were clearly negligent in their duties to send their kid to a school that allowed such a thing. Plus, I'd want to see what kind of protection the parents have provided for the kid at home. If the protection doesn't meet the standard that the kid is claiming that the school should have had, then the parents are clearly neglecting their child and their parental rights should be terminated.

When are we going to have a serious discussion on tort reform!!!

You can sue the school for not having bullet proof doors and windows. (the shooter shot his way in) But you cannot sue the gun manufacturer.

haggisbingo-2225582

Sue the NRA INSTEAD

Just like Cigarette Manufacturers and lobbyists are sued!!

The key word in your rant is "manufacturers." The NRA doesn't manufacture firearms. And shouting doesn't make your remarks less ignorant.

"The fundamental cause of trouble in the world is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." ---Bertrand Russell

TORT reform required. A lawyers way of selling his snake oil to the parents of this girl. I've been in two wars, shot in one and leg blown off in another. Do I have emotional and psych problems for the rest of my life, sure I do but I am not filing suite against the government for it. These parents should be thankful they still have their daughter. I believe they should have the right to some monetary support for the girl but $100,000,000? This is pure greed on the part of the lawyer and the parents.

Sue the NRA. Ah, it's an association for gun rights. Just as you have associations for saving the whales, the elephants, the children, the environment. How about we start filing law suites against these others for each whale killed illegally, each elephant, each child who dies and each time they don't save the environment. You gotta remember, they all have lobbyists in Washington too!

"Wow! We are so lucky our child wasn't one of the children who died at the shooting, so let's sue for $100 million dollars!"

A sick and out of control society that is represented by a government that is worse. May God have mercy on this Nation.

apparently what these scum sucking parents and lawyer missed was the intercom being on helped many of the teachers know what was going on and to hide their students thus SAVING said butt of this 6 yr old... way to thank the heros who risked their life to warn the others and save as many as they could. the Neighbors of these scumbags should run them out of town ...

time to bring back the New England custom of "warning out" .. Jill Doe's family needs to settle elsewhere.

I regret that I don't have $1 million for I would gladly exchange it for Mr. Pinksy's driver license and head.

A big time lawyer AND client attempting to take advantage of a good situation that for some reason or another, we purposely object to any laws limiting any and all compensation resulting from such lawsuits.

It's time for lawmakers to stop these out of control law suits that only benefit the lawyers involved.

So the cockroaches are leaving the nest to scavenge a tragedy

witchrunner

"eric: Nice thought, but not very realistic. You do realize that we have laws on the books banning illegal drugs, don't you? And how efficient has our government been in preventing them? I realize you want to take my guns away from me, but why do you want to?"

Who is this directed at?

I'd love to understand why Connecticut doesn't have tort liability limits in place for all organizations funded by taxpayer dollars. Minnesota does. You can't sue a public facility for more than $300k unless gross negligence can be proven. It's virtually impossible to prove gross negligence, and in the Newtown situation, I guess the only wrong I see is not building the school with bullet-proof glass. /s

WoodieRae-3499404

"I'd love to understand why Connecticut doesn't have tort liability limits in place for all organizations funded by taxpayer dollars. Minnesota does. You can't sue a public facility for more than $300k unless gross negligence can be proven. It's virtually impossible to prove gross negligence, and in the Newtown situation, I guess the only wrong I see is not building the school with bullet-proof glass. /s"

They have a similar system where all suits against government entities are first reviewed by either the Governor/Mayor, this lawsuit probably won't go very far. There really is no such thing as "bullet proof glass" only different levels of bullet resistance.

I couldn't agree more with Independent and Proud of It....Newtown sustained a horrific tragedy. For anyone to start pointing fingers at what the school did/didn't do to protect the children (and everyone else inside it) is ludicrous! Stop wasting money on lawyers and invest that money into counseling, which is what every person involved in the tragedy could benefit most from!!!! My heart goes out to that town. <3

The school had the doors locked against entry by anyone other than authorized visitors. No one could have imagined a forced entry in the way it happened. This lawsuit is out of line.

Now that this tragedy has happened, however, to sit and wait for it to happen again without proactive solutions being considered would be grounds for action.

GM Scremin.

You got it.

Its the standard lib "Blame Game" without it we wouldn't be graduating Lawyers at a percentage to Doctors at a rate of roughly 8-1..... Which one do you believe we need more of people?

If this is the child that was in one of the classrooms, and who witnessed the killings, and who then emerged as the only survivor and covered in her friend's blood, saying "I'm okay, Mommy, but all my friends are dead"... then I could see her parents pushing for some sort of retribution (though the amount in this article is outrageous). That little girl, who had to play dead and lay with the dead bodies of her classmates, was part of a horrific bloodbath and her parents are probably STILL out of their minds with grief over what their child went through.

But if it's one of the others who only heard this over the intercom? Then my sympathies taper off--not for the child for having been a part of this tragic circumstance, but for the lawyer and parents asking $100 million dollars.

If the parents were suing for the school district to cover psychiatric treatment for their child, that I could understand... so long as it was a reasonable amount of money for decent treatment and care. But after everything that the parents of those twenty children lost, it is outrageous for a second-hand survivor's family to be asking that much as compensation.

Scooter, I recommend making all future law students & law firms subsidize the cost of tuition for all future medical & engineering students. Huge incentive to produce a new generation of builders that drive technological progress, and discourage more social parasites like lawyers & politicians. Sound like a worthwhile plan?

GM Scooter...

This topic seems safer for you than the debate on the other thread of which is more painful... childbearing or a kick in the groin...

Ambulance chasing lawyers are a blight on society. I'm more disappointed in the family. They didn't lose their child but are still willing to use this tragedy to make lots of money. What is it with America? Greed, guns and god is the American motto and in that exact order. This is very sad.

indie/suzie: I agree with your comments. Several people gave their lives attempting to protect those children. Something more they could have done in those circumstances? Consulted their crystal balls like so many of us seem to do interminably?

macdaeezy

damn good idea

Screamin,

i will pop back over there...but i dont expect much it is a weekend after all. so i have to get go soon. lots to be done.

Not only was the school locked forcing the gunman to break in, but many of the employees of the school went to extraordinary lengths to protect their students, often at the cost of their own lives. I hope this Pinsky creep has his license revoked.

The taxpayers in Newton get to pay this bill unless it gets thrown out for the sham it is. An addition to the tragedy.

How about the parents bringing the lawsuit? Sounds like they're looking for a big payout as well. Shame on them!!

Independent. That is factual not true. You can take on a Lawyer and a Judge too. You just have to have the means to do it and the Guts. The Truth is that most Lawyers couldn't get a job in a self serve gas station if they lost there license to practice law. That is a fact. I have went into court many times with out an Attorney and have won. I have gotten a Judge removed from the bench. It was not easy, But if you keep fighting and don't let up, some one up the line will look at the facts. In my case it was the State Supreme Court administration. They stepped in on my behalf and righted many wrongs. And a Crocked Judge lost his seat on the bench.

Except if the NRA were actually behind the lawsuit as part of their plan to get more guns into schools. A very likely scenario.....

This is a lawsuit against the state of Connecticut, not the local school district.

The state requires students go to school, yet fails to provide a safe place for the students.

If we, as a society, have decided that we want everyone to have guns, then we must also protect people from those guns.

The cost of that must be born by the gun owners, through the gun/bullet manufacturers and through an annual tax on the weapons themselves, paid by the gun owners and bullet buyers.

Hey, it's not about the lawyer: the parents hired him to do this. The lawyer wouldn't be suing anybody on his own. It's not lawyers that are scum--it's the people who hire them to do the dirty work.

The thing I find most objectionable about this is that Americans have donated literally MILLIONS of dollars to Newtown to help with people's counseling needs (last I heard, United Way had collected more than 2.5 million), so this poor child should be able to get therapy & help if his or her parents can't afford it.

What could the school have done? It was already locked. The guy shot his way in. What was the state supposed to do? Read crystal balls and see the crime before it was committed? CT already has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country (assault weapons are already illegal here; the weapon used is not legally defined as an assault weapon, so that didn't help).

Suing the state punishes all the folks who have been out supporting the survivors. These parents are taking out their frustration on the taxpayers of CT, who are already strapped. What point could this lawsuit possibly be making? It's all about mixing anger with greed.

@ Lee; I agree with almost everything you said except the part about this not being about the lawyer.

Of course it is! Yes, it may well be that the parents wanted to sue WITHOUT the 'encouragement' of the lawyer, but I'm sure they were 'encouraged', at least about the $100 million amount. (Witness the BP Gulf Spill, when lawyers descended on the Gulf States like locusts, going door to door handing out their cards to people and businesses and encouraging them to sue BP. I'm not saying in that case that the people shouldn't have sued, just that the lawyers descended like locusts even from faraway states and actually set up temporary offices to entice people to just walk in and sue.) When parents like this, not even of a student that was hurt or witnessed anything, but simply heard it over the intercom (wonder if the sound quality was a good as a Playstation shoot 'em game?), consult with a lawyer to bring an outrageous lawsuit like this, the lawyer has a right to refuse to take the case. I imagine this may not have been the first lawyer they approached, but he was obviously the one who said yes. I think both are to blame here, but I'm sure the lawyer had a large part in talking them into suing for $100,000,000 and dazzled them with dollar signs in their eyes.

@ dirp; We, as a society, want knives to cut our steak with, but I don't know how to protect people from sharp objects.

We, as a society, want automobiles and motorcycles to commute with, but I don't know how to protect people from killing themselves or others in accidents.

We, as a society, want to be able to fly to destinations in airplanes, but I don't know how to stop a deranged person from commandeering one and flying into a building.

We, as a society, want electricity to power out homes, but I don't know how to stop electrical fires and electrocutions.

We, as a society, want guns to target shoot and hunt food with, but I don't know how to keep a deranged person from getting hold of/stealing one and....

Oh well, I could go on and on, the list is endless, but you get the picture I hope.

1. Everyone claims to hate lawyers...right up to the moment that the lawyers put that big check they recovered into their clients hands.

2. 99.9% of the people here in this forum who are claiming how this sickens them to read about this would be in the parents shoes in a HEARTBEAT if they could. I know it makes people feel better to post in a forum how money could never affect them that way.

3. I see people day in a day out turn into drooling, back-stabbing, lying, scum of the earth, over the chance to get rich in a court. And it will NEVER change.

Why are there so many bottom feeding, ambulance chasing lawyers in the world? Because they will NEVER run out of clients who will sell their souls for the mighty dollar. FACT!

It will always be easier to blame others than look into a mirror.

1. Everyone claims to hate lawyers...right up to the moment that the lawyers put that big check they recovered into their clients hands.

Wrong....they don't put that big check into their clients' hands. Did you really believe that? I'm sorry.

I've been included in two class action suits (the first I wan't aware of until I received the check in the mail).

That first one (I looked up the case after getting the check) I can't recall who it was against, but I remember that it was a telephone service I once had (land line). The lawyers percentage was in the millions, my equal share as a class member...either $.97 or $1.97. It almost cost more to process and mail the check then it was worth.

I'm now in the class action settlement against Citizens Bank for their practice of rearranging the overdraft charges from high to low instead of chronologically, so they could hit you for three or four fees instead of just the one you overdrafted on. The bank settled (without admitting wrongdoing, of course) for $126 million. I went to the actual judgment website that the letter gave me. There were five lawyers, each getting ten million apiece, PLUS all expenses paid for the time they put in researching the case. Think about this now, they're getting paid for all the work they did, so the ten million apiece is pure profit. That's like my company paying me not just for the eight hours I worked, but also the time I spent in the morning shaving, showering, cleaning my clothes, dressing, and driving to and from work over and above my actual wages. What a sweet deal! Anyway, considering the amount of people who were screwed over by the bank, I'll be fortunate to even see the actual dollar amount I was robbed of twice. And the lawyers took fifty million PLUS expenses. You don't see anything wrong with that? The lawyers taking millions and the people who were actually hurt not even recovering what they lost? (same here, you don't think these parents would see half of that $100 million if they won, do you?)

2. 99.9% of the people here in this forum who are claiming how this sickens them to read about this would be in the parents shoes in a HEARTBEAT if they could. I know it makes people feel better to post in a forum how money could never affect them that way.

Also wrong, at least in my case. In 1996, I suffered 7 medicine induced strokes when my doctor's nurse recommended Sudafed for my congestion (I'm on high blood pressure meds). I was out sick from work, and my doctor happened to be out sick from the office. Afterwards, I learned that everybody (except me and the nurse) knew that Sudafed is extremely dangerous to people with high blood pressure. My doctor knew as soon as I told him what the nurse told my wife when she'd called. He left the examining room and obviously confirmed the call with the nurse. He spent the next two weeks having me tested to try to find anything else but the Sudafed to blame. One of the specialists he sent me to quietly took me aside and said it was obviously the Sudafed, and if I wanted to sue, he would testify on my behalf. I totally recovered from all 7 strokes, and was back to work in three weeks. I looked at this rationally....it was the nurse's fault, the doctor wasn't even there. Yes, the law would say that the doctor's malpractice insurance would cover his staff, and I would have gotten big bucks for this. But I would be hurting the person who wasn't even there and didn't make the mistake. Although I was peeved by his obvious actions of trying to find another cause to get out of it, finally after two weeks of fruitless tests, I said to him privately, "I'm getting better, no permanent damage done, I'm not going to sue, I just want to know that it WAS the Sudafed so that I have nothing else to worry about." He admitted then that that's what it was, and I kept my word. Even though I could have retired on what I would have made off of him. Even though you don't think so, there are more people with ethics than you give us credit for. I'm sorry for the kind of people in your life that has caused your terribly jaundiced view on the world.

steel toed boot IMHO anyone that would be a party to a class action filing is a fool. Why class action suits are mainly done here in the US. Everyone thinks that by sharing an award, something is better than nothing. When in fact out of court settlements are NORMALLY larger ( not always..but normally ) for a single plaintiff than what their "cut" is in a class action.

I do this for a living. I see people every day of my life that are the first to stand on the highest hilltop and claim to all the earth of their overabundance of goodness and forgiveness. And then be in court in 2 months trying to get the big bucks.

@ Jeff; What exactly do you do for a living? If you are, or work, for a class action lawyer, then it would seem to me that you would know that only one or a few people actually START the suit. Everybody else is BROUGHT into it after the lawyers examine records and find you. Like I said, I didn't even know about the telephone company suit until the check arrived in the mail and I said "what the hell is this?" I didn't know about the Citizens Bank suit until I got the letter. No check yet, the court is going to rule in March if the settlement amount is high enough. However, since you apparently don't really know, you CAN opt out of receiving anything from the class action, which you would only do if you plan to bring your own individual suit. If you accept the class action money, then you're prohibited by law from doing that. But who the hell, even if you could afford it, would spend millions of dollars fighting the deep pockets of an international bank because they cheated you out of $140.00? I'll simply take what I get. My main reward is happiness that the bank got sued and had to pay $126 million for what they did, I could care less if I see any of it. Kind of a further rebuttal to your "99.9 % of drooling, back-stabbing, lying, scum of the earth, over the chance to get rich in a court." people.

Pinsky is the lowest form of a lawyer.If he succeeds, the money will come from the Connecticut tax payers pockets and will change nothing.His time would be better spent starting up a not for profit mental healthcare facility.

And the parents of the 6 year old don't share in the blame?

To a point Mike. But when some shyster dangles those kind of figures in YOUR face what would YOU do? We all like to beleive we would take the high road. but would we?

You people all bitching about Lawyers. I bet if you had an accident, or got a DuI, first thing you would do is call a Lawyer. Or if someone Hit you and messed you up and you couldn't work, Ya get me a Lawyer. Your all two faced as hell. Its all different when its you that needs one of these guys.

Sorry, Scooter, but lawyers aren't to blame, just like guns aren't to blame. It's the people who hire the lawyers. The parents are trying to find somebody to pay the price. The people to blame are dead, and taking it out on the taxpayers and the very same people who have been donating so generously to get survivors the post-care they need is just crap. This insults everybody who responded to the crime and tried so hard to help.

That would be difficult, Mike. The shooter had already killed his SINGLE-PARENT mother before he shot up the school. And I would think it would be damned hard to blame the father who hadn't lived there for years and only paid incredibly high support for the family (like conscientious, 'good' divorced dads are supposed to do). And besides, parents can't be blamed because they had a child who was mentally unbalanced. That's a roll of the genetic dice for ANY family.

Chuck, nobody's talking about lawyers who defend people who were actually wronged or in an accident. In case you didn't read the story, the lawyers we're talking about here, and condemning, are ones who file $100 million dollar lawsuits on behalf of someone who wasn't hurt, and didn't even witness people being hurt, and against someone (or institution) that can't be blamed by any stretch of the imagination. The so called 'ambulance chasers' who seek out people and ENCOURAGE them to sue for ridiculous amounts for ridiculous reasons (the most famous being the woman who sued McDonalds because she....SHE....spilled her coffee on herself as she was driving away from the window). THESE lawyers are the ones making asses out of themselves and making the good ones that you mention look bad as a group. I would expect reasonable people to be able to make that distinction.

Steel toes boot You need to stop and now. You are just talking out of your rear end now. I SERIOUSLY wish you were a council that I got to argue against.

1. It is for the court to decide if that child "was hurt". Last time I checked, mental anguish paid out better than 3 cherries in Vegas.

2. The coffee spill incident. You are just ignorant now.

Read this. More is available on the net including pictures of the lady's 3RD DEGREE BURNS!

http://www.slip-and-sue.com/the-famous-infamous-mcdonalds-coffee-spill-lawsuit-revisited/

@ Jeff; This is the second time you don't appear to have gotten the WHOLE story. The coffee incident...it wasn't even about if or how badly the woman was hurt! It was about WHO WAS AT FAULT. She was! McDonalds appealed, the judgment was thrown out, she ended up getting nothing!

I know from your previous posts that you're not a lawyer, or if you are, maybe in the bottom 25% of a class, the ones who end up becoming bill collectors. This lawsuit is NOT about whether, or how much, the child was traumatized. It is about whether or not the school system IS RESPONSIBLE for what happened in the school. You need to stop pretending Jeff.

Stoney, I have to ask; Since Lanza STOLE the firearms he used from someone else that he MURDERED, how would registration, and background checks have prevented this tragedy ? Just kinda curious.

If he were unable to obtain firearms, perhaps he would have succeeded where thColumbine nutso's failed: They placed BOMBS in the school with the intent of shooting fleeing survivors as they exited the building.

You see, where there is a nut-job, there is a way for that nut-job to accomplish his / her goals. Firearms MAY make it a tad bit easier, but it WILL NOT STOP THEM. That's the part so many fail to grasp.

Maybe the answer is to make anyone that buys a Ar-15 or anything like them, take out a liability policy for like a million dollars each for a case like this. You have to have that for a car. But The Insurance company's would find a way not to have to pay on that policy somehow. I find it wrong as hell that Insurance Company's can take your money for a policy, then when you need it, they say we sorry but we just aren't going to pay. And somehow that is legal. Only rich people can steel in this country. The Law don't seem to apply to them. That's why we need Lawyers.

Woodworker. We do not know if he stole that AR-15 from his mother. That gun was very likely his. What kind of a mother would teach her mentally Ill son how to shoot a gun like that. When I see Pic of her, she has a crazy look about her as well. Teaching that kid how to shoot that weapon shows she is crazy as a loon. And it bet her in the ass didn't it. I think and I know someone will sue he Estate, and his Dad. And Yes these Guns were legal, and they were used in a mass murder. That is why they need to be Banned. Because People that own them, more times then not, can not keep them from falling into the wrong hands. That seems to be the problem now doesn't it???

so folks, what exactly is an "assault weapon" ? are the uneducated anti "assault weapon" individuals going to collectively also ban my 1891 mauser 7.65 bolt action rifle, with a 5 shot magazine fed by a 5 shot clip (now all you non-experts who know how to throw phrases around, try to figure that out) ?

it can mount a bayonet, is engineered and manufactured well enough, a target the size of a helmet will get a hole punched in it at 500yds, at the very least. then just imagine if it was an M98 action. omg. i would easily come up with a 1000yd combination. oh the humanity !

the only solution must be to ban all well engineered and produced bolt actions rifles of good engineering and production, and ability to shoot long distances.

...i wonder when we will ban compound bows and the of course, we'll have to ban all atlatls, and oh, what am i thinking, 125lb pull and greater laminated recurce bows, not to mention slings.

"Ban all guns because they can fall into the wrong hands." I love the hell out of this 'logic'.

When I last looked (right now), drugs are illegal. Do you know how easy it is to get any drug you want? I have never done drugs and don't currently know any drug dealers (also currently illegal), but I know I could have gotten illegal drugs from people I work with, for crissakes, or if they wouldn't sell me some, hook me up with someone who will.

Are you too simple-minded to see that the same is true with guns? Guns are not illegal, but if they were, do you think it would be difficult to find an illegal gun dealer (if guns were illegal, all current gun dealers would be too, right?) who would hook me up with one? Do you seriously think that the Mafia buy their guns legally? Hell, I don't think they even 'buy' them.

The only thing you dreamers would accomplish is to make a gun that I want more expensive to buy. Stilletos are illegal, but I was able to buy one years ago. I just had to pay more than it was worth.

Steel Toed boot you don't get that these guys no everything and desire to impose their enlightenment on the rest of us. After the well regulated guns we will make car manufacturers liable for car accidents (after all, it's their fault that we don't walk everywhere and we know what that does to the world), except that lawsuits against liquour companies will override lawsuits against car makers if the driver had something to drink (except in New Jersey, where the accident will be the fault of whichever homeowner or bar served the drink without knowing the blood alcohol level of the driver). We will also make drug companies liable for all over-doses and fast food companies responsible for all obesity. Then we just need one more law that will make it illegal to do anything bad or evil and we can sue government for not protecting us from anyone who does. In our new society we will all do what's best for the collective and can take action to enforce what's best for all. For example, I will be able to report my neighbor for having conservative values and being church goers because they will be right winged conservatives. But that won't mean you can't report me for never going to church at all. We can both report the muslims and people who eat meat, use oil, etc. If you live in NYC don't let me catch you selling a large soda. Through the federal gov't and the courts we can also make all rich people liable for other people being poor, all educated people liable for other people being uneducated and all people living in more than 1500 square feet liable for homelessness. Everything else can be solved with the money we take from people making over $100,000 since they are millionaires and billionaires and clearly evil and not paying their fair share.

How much lower can people sink.

Most people? not far....Lawyers however will get out a shovel.....

We're in the process of finding out.

It seems that trailer trash don't have to live in a trailer anymore!!

Scotter. No one has sunk any lower then the NRA, I don't hear you calling them out. There only job is to protect the Profits of the Gun makers. They started this little Club of followers and keep telling them that the government is going to take there guns. Everyone needs an AR-15 to protect yourself. From what? In most cases a 12G shot gun, or a 357M, or a 30-30, or a 30-06, 308. Hell these things will kill anything you can hit with them. They only carry 6 shoots. The NRA has been scaring people into doing stupid things for years and they have made Millions and Billions doing it. Of course its always the Uneducated people from the South that do there dirty work for them. Hell you might as well join a Union, or the KKK as to join the NRA. They are all the same.

@ Chuck

You do realize that you can buy a magazine fed semi-auto hunting rifle in just about any caliber you want don't you? Hell, I can go right now & buy one chambered in .223 caliber (same as an AR-15).

The only difference between the magazine fed, semi-auto AR-15 & the magazine fed semi-auto hunting rifle would be that one is black (metal/plastic) & the other has wood stocks. That's it. But they both function the same way. Both of them only fire 1 bullet each time the trigger is squeezed. No more, no less. You can get a high capacity magazine for a magazine fed hunting rifle also.

Not to mention that a .30-06 & other larger caliber hunting rifles are far more powerful & deadly at greater distances than an AR-15 is. Remember the AR-15 only fires a .223 caliber bullet (very small but fast).

Banning AR-15s won't change anything or prevent other rampage shootings from happening.

The outcome at Sandy Hook would have been the same even if the shooter had only used the 2 handguns he had with him. There wasn't anyone in that school to oppose him.

Last but not least your odds of getting killed by a firearm (all types combined) in the U.S. is only a small fraction of 1%. You have a greater chance of getting struck by lightening (yes, I realize this fact isn't any comfort to the friends/family of people who have been murdered by guns).

Jeesh, she knows what she's talking about. anyway, I just wanted to share this little one with ya chuck. By the way, I am a proud member of the NRA and I don't live in the south, I live in minnesota, pretty far north there buddy.

On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!

Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.

Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week.

Soggy, there are reasons it didnt get the national media coverage that Newtown did. Primary is since the only one killed was the shooter.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/sanantonio.asp

Some of the "facts" in your posting are not accurate.

But gee if he didnt have the gun then NO ONE would be dead right now..

Genenut, it didn't make it into the big boy news because things went the way that anti-gunners don't like. The good person with a gun stopped the bad person with a gun... end of story. what are my incorrect facts of the posting? you didn't point them out... you just said they are not accurate. Also, just because there wasn't many people killed doesn't mean that it can't get news. What.... example: a dog sky diving or a grandma turning 100 is more important? don't think so. Lastly, gee if he didn't have that gun im sure he would have found any other way to hurt people. lastly lastly (sorry) - tell me how exactly you would stop this man from having a gun

Kyivguy,

Let me get this right, the doors were locked, he used a high power assault rifle to shoot out the window

You DO understand that the AR-15 that Lanza had stolen from his mother was NOT used in the Newtown shootings, right ? (It was in his car - he took only handguns into the school)

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

You DO understand that the AR-15 is absolutely no different than the millions of other sporting arms lawfully used by millions of hunters and sportsman across this nation, and, by definition, is NOT an "assault rifle" EXCEPT in its fully-automatic, miltary version (i.e. ILLEGAL to own under the 1934 Weapons Control Act)?

I didn't think so.

wood: You do understand this article is not about your #1 squeeze? There must be another article more suitable for the Ramboette brigade and their unending repetition. You have, of course, heard of the other 26 Constitutional Amendments. Yes, there really are.

Woodworker: you DO know that what you are saying is irrelevant, that 26 humans died in this rampage, and that hundreds of others are permanently injured, either psychologically or physically, right? I know you know, I question what you think is more important.

So you people are going to use your blind hatred to spread false statements and to attack people who try to correct those statements with actual facts? If only you could put your energy to actual use instead of into ignorant things. And yes, there are other amendments, but does that mean to give up others? No, it does not. If it does, then you should be willing to start giving up some yourself. Why not start with you giving up your 1st Amendment. If actual facts instead of lies are not part of this article, what does that say about you? It tells me you are nothing more than losers like the lawyer trying to get his 15 minutes of fame. BTW, it was 27 who were murdered, but again, a fact you don't care about or are willing to even admit. Be broad minded enough to think about the whole picture, instead of just parts. I know it may be a strain on some of your brains, but if it is, then stay out of the way while adults talk.

woodworker. I thought that too. But later in the day it was said that he did have an Ar-15 in the school. The Corners reports said the kids where hit with the AR-15's rounds. I did see them taking an Ar-15 from his trunk. Maybe he had 2 of them???? There was way to much misinformation coming out early on in this mess.

google connecticut-lanza-guns and you'll come across the article. 26 people, mostly children dies, woodworker, does it really matter what gun was used? I thought all you folks say that it's the person, right?

hopefully he will lose his license for good this time...but lawyers must answer to fellow lawyers to be disbarred. would YOUR friends take away your livelihood?

So you disagree with law suits like this until it personaly effects you? Nice! Maybe you were'nt up on the news about this. This was one of the most secure schools I've ever seen. Keep in mind a lot of people gave thier lives trying to stop him as well!

Help me understand how this law suit is going to bring any greater awareness to the need for better school security? How is the state having to pay $100m going to mitigate the cost of providing increased security in schools?

I am not sure why my comment provoked attacks. I don't agree with the lawsuit I said that. What I said was I hope this kind of attention wakes up America to do something. That I am personally scared to drop off my child at SCHOOL! The one place I should not be scared to bring my 1st grader. I agree they did all they could short of having a resource officer there, I agree they were all heros and tried to save the kids, I agree that bad things happen even with planning. But we can stop some of it by putting armed resource officers in the schools. If these crazy people know someone is there to fire back maybe it will deter some of them.

During the Columbine shootings there were two armed officers in the school and they still managed to kill 12 (can't remember exact number). You can't ever protect everyone from everyone. A lawsuit like this does nothing to improve how we protect our kids while at school.

If my child (yes I have children) was the sole survivor of this horrible attack, I would be beyond grateful for their life and the fact that I still could spend more time with them. What are they thinking?????

tbo1960;

My understanding is tha there was ONE LEO at the school, that he was OUTSIDE the building patrolling in his squad when the little a-holes entered the building and started shooting the place up because the bombs they placed failed to detonate. The second LEO arrived on the scene AFTER the rampage had started.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

Cary. You said just what I was thinking. All these years after Columbine, and they still haven't fully done enough to stop this from happening. It always comes down to money. We don't have the money. I know this school had just installed there system. But it wasn't enough. Well there ever be enough. It might just be money better spent stopping the sales of these Weapons of mass destruction. Close the gun show loop whole. There are many things we can do. But will we. After these people get sick of getting there asses sued off, then and only then well we get something done. I hate to say it and I have no love for lawyers. But this is part of the system we have.

I just want to know how many kids have to die before we do something to protect them? How many before we can afford to put in security personnel? Everyone is worried about cost....I'm worried I will be the next parent going to a funeral.

I definitely agree, the school is not responsible. Sue the estate of the scumbag (which I assume has no real money).

If the school did have enough security so this could never have happened, the school would cost so much to go to, that this same person would have sued about that too!

If this girls wins, the case for the other 26 people is open and shut. $100,000,000 for everybody, it doesn't really matter because our govt has made our money worthless. We're just pretending it's still good.

Sorry, speed read the article. The child survived? This is very odd indeed. I would not be surprised if the NRA or gun manufacturers/avocates were not involved in promoting this lawsuit beyond the "crazy" solution of arming schools.

Beyond the Lanza's, those promoting gun ownership--gun manufacturers and the NRA bear guilt.

Really? You are accusing me of the murder of these children because I own a rifle? Because I feel that, living in the woods, being a woman alone, having already had to use that rifle twice this year to run off men who thought I'd be an easy target for robbery, it's my right to have that firearm for protection?

You have accused me of "bearing the guilt" of the deaths of these children. Perhaps I will track you down and sue you for stating such a thing... how does $100million sound to you?

sreminmimi,

Am I accusing you? Are you a gun manufacturer, NRA official or advocating for more guns as a solution to an individual's life problems in a society already awash with guns and drowning in them? If so, then yes I am accusing you.

xreminmimi,

You are lucky you didn't hit one of those men who were morel likely a game warden, hunters or the neighbors kids. It is a bitter pill to swallow, but time the "bite the bullet". You and many like you are part of the problem. Your fear is controlling your behavior. You are an easy"mark" for the gun industry.

Kamaaina

do you speak to yourself as well as reply to your own posts? But to answer your rant..

You and many like you are part of the problem. Your fear is controlling your behavior.

And as a gun owner no fear doesn't control the people who own them...yet YOU wish to control us and guns in general, what motivates that "need"...??....oh yes ....FEAR....

We should all be as lucky as Kamaaina to be blessed with being omniscient, and omnipotent to be able to tell exactly who is not only outside their door, but the door of someone they don't even know and make the bad guys go away if they're up to no good.

You specifically said "those promoting gun ownership" did you not?

I fired in the air. I always do as a first warning. They were speaking Spanish. It was dead dark, first time 1:30AM, second time 2:30AM apx.

I have a German Shepherd and a Rottweiler, and everyone around here knows it. There's not a kid nor a law enforcement officer nor a game warden who would come around here without calling me first. My dogs come inside at night. I don't let them go out when they alert me to something at night because I don't know if intruders have guns and don't want them shot.

I call the sheriff but it takes about 25 minutes for them to arrive. I fire in the air, they always run away. If they ever fire back, so will I. If they ever try to come inside my home, my dogs will take them. When they run away, I inform law enforcement they are gone, nothing taken don't bother to come.

That's my security plan. It involves a gun and without it I would be a sitting duck. They tried to steal my horse once. That was the nearest I ever came to shooting AT them. You don't touch my horse or my dogs.

So you take your sanctimonious lectures and peddle them to someone who buys that crap. Americans have had guns since before there WAS an America and until you can tell me how to defend myself and my property against illegal alien thieves, US citizen thieves, and rabid feral animals after my livestock and domestic animals, I WILL keep my gun and you can keep your ass on your shoulder.

I'm 61 years old and been on my own for a long time. It's been a long, long time since I feared anyting other than people like you who claim to be "liberal" and don't know what the word means, who want to control everyone and everything around you.

Ed, it just takes a little thought. Gun proliferation is like smoking in the 50's to 80's. Remember the Marlboro Man--the manly face of tobacco advertising? That was when smoking was considered harmless since the tobacco industry suppressed and obfuscated research showing smoking caused cancer.

There are parallels between the tobacco and gun industries. The gun industry is in the 50's tobacco industry era. Much effort is expensed by gun manufacturers and their lobbyists/NRA to assert guns are not only not harmful but "good" for society. The American people are not buying the spin and the data points to much harm caused by guns and dependence by many on guns to deal with their fear, anger and isolation.

Remember "smoker rights" groups that sprung up as laws were passed to deal with tobacco's harm? Sounds much like "gun rights" groups.

Second hand smoke? The "right" to smoke harmed others, usually children and family members causing cancer and respiratory problems. Guns have their own "second hand smoke" but it is immediate and deadly to innocents.

Owning a gun affects those outside your door, especially when your gun is stolen or someone in your family, you, or someone you know has an especially bad life/day.

Smoking--smoking guns. Much to consider in the parallel. American society is evolving to deal with the current threat--our country drowning in guns.

mimi: Define "liberal".

SDN -

lib·er·al (l b r-l, l b r l) adj. 1. a. Not limited to or by established,
traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from
bigotry.

The views expressed by most liberals on the Vine are dogmatic and authoritarian to the extreme... a "my way or no way." Bigoted and biased. They believe in free speech only as long as the view being expressed by the free speech is one they agree with.

I have never read more hateful cutting remarks than those coming from people on this venue about Republicans, the South, specific states, God, Christians... you name it, they have something hateful to say about it.

Now it's the guns. There's no room for discussion about this issue... there is a line drawn in the sand, and instead of room for compromise we have people like Kamaaina saying that if someone promotes gun ownership they share guilt in the deaths of the children who died in Newtown.

That's such an outrageous remark to make it does nothing to promote sane discussion on how to make the schools safer, and it certainly does nothing to address the questions of people like me who use a gun for defense, and who clearly NEED one for defense.

Ultra conservatives are just as bad. They want to do away with all social programs and that just isn't feasible. They don't want to compromise on anything at all and it has more to do with power plays than logic.

I'm sick of all of it, but most of all I'm sick of somebody telling me I don't need a gun when they don't live my life in my neck of the woods. The damn guns are already out there. Deal with it from THAT angle and stop pretending that stupid stunts like listing everyone with a gun in the local paper will do anything but create an atmosphere of hostility and give criminals a hit list of where to find guns when the owners aren't home and live in an area that doesn't allow them to take the weapons with them when they leave.

I don't remember seeing the right to smoke in the constitution...... but that's another story.

Its time for all you bedwetters to really step up to the plate... Put signs in front of your homes that say "Gun Free Zone". If you aren't willing to do that, then shut up.

And Mimi, You go momma...

If it's all the same to you, mimi, I'll stick with Webster and Encarta. Being "free from bigotry" and "tolerant of progress" ("progressives" being a favorite derogatory) suits me just fine.

I'm not at all sure what the last 6 paragraphs have to do with a very, very simple question. Have nothing to do with anything you may have imagined that I neither implied nor expressed. Ref; Shakespeare - "methinks she doth protest too much".

Instead of counter suing the State will probably settle out of court to save money. Hope not and that they sue the lawyer and those bringing the case using the same reasons (emotional stress).

Your line of thinking for bullet proof clothing for children is years behind the reality of today.

Unfortunately the problem IS the mentally ill. Almost every mass murder has been done by someone mentally unstable. Violent video games and warzone arcades? Why are there not millions of these kinds of things everyday? This is because violent video games and other things don't bear any responsibility, and neither does the NRA or anybody promoting guns in general. It makes me sick that people can not lay blame where it needs to be laid. The perpetrator and accessories, thats it. They commited the crime. Blame the school district? absurd. You are right on teaching kids right from wrong, also teaching them the difference between real and make-believe might not be a bad idea either.

Nobody ever asks that question. It comes from taxpayers.

Can understand suing for the cost of long term treatment and counselling, but $100 million? Considering the school was actually in the process of implementing an improved security and emergency system, how can they sue the School board for negligence? Think is what it looks like, greedy ambulance chaser trying to take advantage of the taxpayers and retire. Not sure I can blame the parents of the child. After surviving a nightmare like that they are probably thinking "screw this crazy world, lets get ours".

Because they have probably realized for 10 years they needed more security, there was just no money to do it with.

...and if lawsuits like this prevail there won't be any money for more security now either.

Good point Steve. It's the taxpayers who will end up paying for this through all of the lawsuits. Then i guess we will ALL pay for armed guards in the schools because we cannot even have a civil discussion about Gun Reform in our society. All the special interest groups, the ABA, NRA, etc. they win their battles but they are working with our politicians to erode the fabric of our country.

ryan: Or, alternatively, you could have said 'such wear is actually available now'. Fail 'civility'? Your line of thinking is poorly conceived and delivered cheap shots - no more, no less.

randog: You've got this all wrong. More lethal weapons make for a safer environment. No, really.......

SDN, your comment is noted however despite your attempt at satire you are correct. Mutual Assured Destruction has been a corner stone of national defense strategy for decades and I see no reason it can't be applied to the local level..Historical note: no countries equipped with nuclear weapons have engaged in open conflict with each other.

Another shylock looking to make a quick buck. But I fear sir (and I use the term loosely) you will go down in flames of infamy. Hopefully in ine of Dantes circles.

Pinsky's claim said that the state Board of Education, Department of Education and Education Commissioner had failed to take appropriate steps to protect children from "foreseeable harm."

It said they had failed to provide a "safe school setting" or design "an effective student safety emergency response plan and protocol."

So putting a school on lock down (he shot out the windows to gain entrance) and requiring a person to be let in after showing ID are not appropriate steps to protecting students? Also how can an gun toting lunatic be considered "foreseeable harm".

Guess it is time to build all schools so they are 100% impenetrable as that would be the only way to protect children from things such as this. These parents are out to make a buck out of a horrible situation.

What about armed guards at the bus stops? Armed guards ON the buses? Is there anyone with a weapon standing by at after-school activities, or walking along during field trips, to protect our children? How many vulnerable areas, exactly, are we supposed to be stationing people with weapons?

Sadly, you need guns everywhere. You will never get all the guns away from the criminals or even law abiding civilians and a lot of lives will be lost trying. This lawsuit will certainly hurt gun control because the child will win the case and her lawyer will prove schools are unsafe and should be guarded. If you ask the parents whether they want 100 million dollars or no guns in school, what do you think they'll say. Utah was smart enough to have had guns in schools for the past 12 years so Connecticut was putting these children at risk for not protecting them.

Seabee. We could place a well known disclaimer(used by the financial industry) to refute your argument: "Past Performance is not an indicator of future results."

seebee: Might we cite the only nation in human history to use atomic weapons on a civilian population? Spin all you like, but that's what we did. Horrifying in even the most parallax of views. Attempts at rationalizing overt acts of insanity are falling on deaf ears in this quarter.

Have you ever seriously considered the terms you mentioned; "mutual(ly) assured destruction", and "national defense strategy"? Would these be concerns of rational cultures? Will we ever consider building with "big sticks" rather than bashing each others brains out with same?

Our technical "achievements", particularly with respect to weaponry, have left our social, spiritual and ethical evolution in the dust.

SDN

"Might we cite the only nation in human history to use atomic weapons on a civilian population?"

Which also brought a swift end to a war which otherwise could have dragged on years more.