The attorney is seeking permission for a $100 million lawsuit on behalf of a student who survived the Newtown, Conn., school shooting.

No one ever gets killed in prison. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You're kidding, right?

Skylar is correct. The only way to have high security against ALL possibilities would be so restrictive no one would tolerate them and the cost would be unsustainable. Originally Posted by Laz

So don't do anything?

And the only way for me to avoid an automobile collision in ALL possibilities is for me to stay home.

Skylar is NOT correct, because we need to have academically strong educational institutions to adequately and properly educate our children so that don't grow up and suggest ridiculous and unworkable solutions for the problems our society faces in the future, and we need to have those facilities as safe as is reasonably possible within the mission of the schools, the technology and resources avaliable, and the economic ability of the school systems.

...without providing any supporting material for your platform of thought. Originally Posted by SkylarCruzWantsYou

And I didn't see yours!

Almost immediately when the issue of "security" arose and the idea of arming teachers as the front line of defense was proposed, with reams of anecdotes about how good a line of defense CHL carriers are, I suggested police officers trained for school environment responses to such attacks, with video/audio monitoring systems, and perimeters established around the campus to restrict access .. I even mentioned getting the parking lots AWAY from the faciliities ... I addd to that the presence of police on campuses in Texas for those who whine about the cost being prohibitive ..

.... do I have to post numerous articles from the media for YOU AGAIN ... or are you going to whine to your favorite Mod, again, because I am not providing adequate backup for my suggestions?

It is the freedom vs security issue. How safe do we want our kids and what are we willing to pay? Originally Posted by WTF

Exactly.

Have you?

And even if you have does that make you an expert on Public School Safety protocols?
Originally Posted by SkylarCruzWantsYou

Yes, I have been a public school teacher during parts of my life (no doubt before you were born) and I am familiar with issues concerning school violence and safety not only as a fomer teacher, but also in my professional life.... I am also familiar with the initiatives of Senator John Cornyn when he was the Texas Attorney General shortly after Columbine .. now almost 14 years ago ... to increase public school security around the State of Texas ... some of those efforts and some of those results may be found ...

Texas School Safety Center

The Texas School Safety Center (TxSSC) serves as a central location for school safety information. It provides schools with research, training, and technical support to help reduce youth violence and promote school saftey.



The center also helps schools create and improve emergency operation plans. It was formed in 1999 and was authorized by the 77th Texas Legislature in 2001. It is located in the Texas Education Code - Chapter §37.201.

• Texas School Safety Center

Please note the year it was formed: 1999.

There are incidents of school violence in Texas, and have been since Columbine. Implementing political policies through regulating the school districts is a challenging task in a diverse and widespread public school systems as in Texas while at the same time recognizing and respecting a culture of firearm ownership that is deeply imbedded in the traditions and history of Texas, and it is a slow process.

I would think the task in Texas would be far more challenging than in Connecticut.

Now, Skylar, your "credentials" to criticize ....

.... another's suggestions on school safety?

And if you didn't see my ideas in my previous posts, maybe you are too busy skimming over everything because you are to anxious to try and prove someone wrong if they have a differing opinion then yourself.

Yes I am younger than you, big shocker, does that make my opinions illegitimate?

And my suggestions aren't unworkable they might be extreme but if we have to use extreme measures to protect children- then so be it. No one needs credentials to be concerned about our future. And when you find the post where I criticize someones suggestion on this thread please quote because so far I haven't said anything negative to anyone all I am doing is defending my opinions.

And I have no favorite mods, they treat no better or worse than anyone in the Sandbox, so that comment is out the window.

This lawyer's actions are simply absurd. What should the State of Connecticut (or any other relevant governmental body) have reasonably been expected to do that other states have not done? According to many recent reports, Connecticut already has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. And it's not the sort of state where a majority of its citizens are likely to think that arming a large number of teachers and principals is a good idea.

No institution or organization should reasonably be expected to address every conceivable risk, no matter how slight -- especially if preventive measures designed to mitigate them would be expensive or controversial. The probability that a child will be killed at school by a lunatic mass murderer in any given year is a fraction of one in a million. Other risks are orders of magnitude greater.

If we were to make every school in America virtually an armed camp or a highly secure facility, the next lunatic would just go to a playground, a kids' football game, an ice cream shop, a family restaurant, or some other soft-target venue.

I have no idea what this guy is doing. Sounds like an awfully tough case. But if it lacks merit, and it may well do so, the school cam get it dismissed. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

If it lacks merit? Surely you're kidding!

Even if the suit is dismissed fairly quickly, the defendant will incur some legal expenses. Non-meritorious lawsuits, and the costs associated with reducing the risks of being targeting by them, already burden companies and organizations with onerous and unjustified expenses. But plaintiffs' attorneys of this type often view their own costs involving cases that are likely to be well-publicized simply as advertising costs associated with publicity likely to garner new clients for an expanding range of ambulance-chasing adventures. It's no wonder that ethical lawyers (no, that's not an oxymoron!) hold such scam artists in low esteem and consider them an embarrassment to the profession.

This case certainly serves one purpose, though. It makes the one involving a woman who carelessly spilled hot coffee from McDonald's all over herself seem downright reasonable by comparison!

And if you didn't see my ideas in my previous posts, ... . Originally Posted by SkylarCruzWantsYou

Do you mean turning our schools into prisons?

"No one needs credentials to be concerned about our future."

Of course not, but one needs them, plus practical experience, in doing something about it and/or suggesting a "workable" solution to a problem in the future.

As for criticizing your prison idea ... it is hardly worth skimming .. is the anti-thesis to arming all of the school teachers, or even a select few, to protect the school. Extremes.

I have good reason to believe that neither one of those extremes will be implemented as a national or state response to the prospects of another Connecticut type incident.

And if it makes you FEEL BETTER passing more laws in a lame-ass, failing attempt to limit access to firearms in this country and rounding up all the crazies and treating them, will not solve the reality or the problem.

Why? Look at who got arrested in the firemen killings.

No institution or organization should reasonably be expected to address every conceivable risk, no matter how slight -- especially if preventive measures designed to mitigate them would be expensive or controversial. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I don't believe anyone said that an "institution or organization should reasonably be expected to address every conceivable risk, no matter how slight," ... but when "institutions or organizations" (which includes the government) REQUIRES one's presence in a particular location controlled and monitored by those "institutions or organizations (which includes the government)" and make it a criminal offense not to remain or appear there ....

..then the "institutions or organizations" (which includes the government)" are responsible for the safety and wellbeing of those MANDATORILY REQUIRED to be present in the facility and are consequently liable if those persons become injured or killed while under the care ... and the risk is clearly an anticipated risk, regardless of how slight ... or costly a solution may be.

In comparison one may have to put a futurre value on the head of each person killed in the Connecticut incident and ask each parent how much their child was worth and ask each relative how much their family member who was a teacher or principal was worth. If the lawsuit becomes viable and is allowed, there may be some guidance on just how much the living child's life is worth in the future having to bear the nightmare images and the anxiety of the parents in wondering if their child was among the slaughtered.

Texas School Safety Center

The Texas School Safety Center (TxSSC) serves as a central location for school safety information. It provides schools with research, training, and technical support to help reduce youth violence and promote school saftey.



The center also helps schools create and improve emergency operation plans. It was formed in 1999 and was authorized by the 77th Texas Legislature in 2001. It is located in the Texas Education Code - Chapter §37.201.

• Texas School Safety Center

Please note the year it was formed: 1999.

I'm waiting for Skylar to jump all over you for dismissing the value of human life!

Yes I am younger than you, big shocker, does that make my opinions illegitimate? Originally Posted by SkylarCruzWantsYou

Age is not usually a factor, except in the extremes, but experiences and background are. I wouldn't even begin to advise you on how to give a BBBJ, unless, of course, you were performing one on me, and then I might only provide some suggestive hints if you were performing outside of the expected range of techniques for a pleasurable experience.

Do you mean turning our schools into prisons?

Not turning schools into prison but accommodating them with the security resources on par with a prison yes. Any less than that- and there will always be a threat to the security of the school but then even that wouldn't be fool proof since then there might be a chance of the staff may go apeshit.

And to the guy who said, No one dies in prison, I hope that was a joke- because of course when you put hundreds of murderers, rapists and thieves in prison there will be bloodshed. Let's hope the kids aren't as bloodthirsty as the prisoners.


And if it makes you FEEL BETTER passing more laws in a lame-ass, failing attempt to limit access to firearms in this country and rounding up all the crazies and treating them, will not solve the reality or the problem.

Why would that make me feel better? Do you hear any mention of me wanting more restrictive gun laws or corralling mentally unstable people unwillingly? I didn't think so.

Why? Look at who got arrested in the firemen killings. Originally Posted by LexusLover

And if being a teacher at a public school makes you an expert on how these schools should be secured, then I guess Sandy Hook was full of "experts" as well- if you want to put it that way.


The whole thing is you missed my point. Why sue the school district as if they have not done what the could with the resources they have to protect the schools. Suing them for millions of dollars will only hurt the district because they will have even less to work with on limited funds. I am sure that not only this district but school districts all over the country are already revising their emergency preparedness plans - they don't need a lawsuit to tell them that they need to make improvements on the areas they are vulnerable.

I'm waiting for Skylar to jump all over you for dismissing the value of human life! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Nothing I said should be construed as a dismissal of the value of human life.

My only point is that this isn't an issue that should be decided by plaintiffs' lawyers tugging at the heartstrings of jurors with all sorts of emotionally based arguments. In my view, school districts and local governments should make determinations of what constitutes reasonable and prudent security at the locations under their jurisdiction. This issue shouldn't provide another avenue whereby publicity-seeking lawyers have an opportunity to enrich themselves at consumers' or taxpayers' expense.

Perhaps a consensus will eventually begin to develop, nationally as well as in Connecticut, that a couple of armed officers should be present at all times in every school. Only then, in my opinion, would it be reasonable to hold the Connecticut authorities liable for murders that occurred at a school where there were no armed personnel.

And if being a teacher at a public school makes you an expert on how these schools should be secured, . Originally Posted by SkylarCruzWantsYou

I didn't say I was an "expert" ... and I clearly wouldn't say I were an expert, because I have been a public school teacher ... I am familiar with the "administration" issues, particularly as they relate to law enforcement matters.

The whole thing is you missed my point. Why sue the school district as if they have not done what the could with the resources they have to protect the schools. Suing them for millions of dollars will only hurt the district because they will have even less to work with on limited funds. I am sure that not only this district but school districts all over the country are already revising their emergency preparedness plans - they don't need a lawsuit to tell them that they need to make improvements on the areas they are vulnerable. Originally Posted by SkylarCruzWantsYou

There are times where suing an organization for millions is the only way to force them to change. This is not one of them. They had locked doors and controlled access. There is no way you would anticipate this kind of event. Even now the likelihood of it happening again is very small.

They had locked doors and controlled access. There is no way you would anticipate this kind of event. Originally Posted by Laz

Let's "assume" this a factually correct statement of the actual situation when the crazy drove into the parking lot of Sandy Elementary in Connecticutt ( and by that I am in no way suggesting you are lying or distorting what you have read and/or heard) ....

Some entrance was not "locked" and some access was not "controlled"!

And if there were "no way you would anticipate this kind of event" .. for what purpose did they have .... "locked doors and controlled access" ... in the first place.

Two potential theories of recovery are ... either there was no locking and/or controlling mechanisms to engage or utilize or there were locking and/or controlling mechanisms to engage or utilize, but they were not engaged or utilized, or properly engaged or utilized.

My recollection is that what whacked Ford with the Pinto was the failure to replace a little two-bit groumet when there was documentation that the little two-bit groumet would prevent a fire on impact and families wouldn't get burned up in the collision, as had been the case more than once. Was it some sorry-ass lawyer that "created" the "problem" ... no unless it was the "sorry-ass lawyer" that advised Ford that there was no risk in not replacing the two-bit groumet and the cost of doing so would exceed the damages from a lawsuit to recover for the family that was consumed in the Pinto fire.