Naw 100m minus half for setlement and half for the barrister=25m she could buy a couple of complete ones and a little ammo....
That's how the community would've handled it in the past.
Great point here. Ive been hearing a lot lately about parents expecting the schools to keep their children "safe". I think its an unrealistic expectation. Would they think the same way if grandma and grandpa had the child for the day? What about when horrible things happen to children when they are in the care of their own parents?
The school is responsible for your childrens safety. Period! My daughter was having an issue with a boy that twice slammed a door into my daughter. First time the principle pushed it under the rug, kid has problems at home excuse. Second time, I called the police since the little turd did it good enough for her to have stitches. You should have seen how high that same principle jumped when the officer and I walked through his door. My wife wasn't very happy with me at the time, but you can damn well bet that they have addressed this and other issues that have occured since. And not any pertaining to my children. The little punk was suspended and his spawners were offered to pay the hospital bill or be sued in court after assault charges were pressed. We still followed through with the assault charges even though they did pay for the hospital expenses. That government tit sucker turns the other way and runs when he sees my daughter coming down the hall. Sometimes you have to kick the flame up a notch before they take you serious.
With that said, schools can be designed and retrofitted to be a safe environment. Glass doors can be replaced with steel doors that have skylights in the top of them. Exterior walls that have full glass fronts can have blocks or brick installed with sky lights. My issue is that people don't want the added expense to do this, but what they forget is that the federal government thinks they are special enough to have their facilites retrofitted with cement reinforced w/steel pillars and no glass entry doors or windows on the first floor. Whats the saying, if it's good enough for the gooberment it's good enough for me.
Times are changing people. The mindset has to change. Cheap will not work in the same sentence as being safe.
With that said, schools can be designed and retrofitted to be a safe environment. Glass doors can be replaced with steel doors that have skylights in the top of them. Exterior walls that have full glass fronts can have blocks or brick installed with sky lights. My issue is that people don't want the added expense to do this, but what they forget is that the federal government thinks they are special enough to have their facilites retrofitted with cement reinforced w/steel pillars and no glass entry doors or windows on the first floor. Whats the saying, if it's good enough for the gooberment it's good enough for me.
Times are changing people. The mindset has to change. Cheap will not work in the same sentence as being safe.
Darn you. I had thought never to laugh at anything relating to the recent tragedy. But you blindsided me. Thanks. I needed that.
I am sorry for any trauma the child may have suffered, and if help is needed with that I have no problem with the state paying for it. However, a hundred mil seems a tad excessive. These people are somewhere way beneath scum.
I do agree that the school has a responsibility to keep control of the children in their charge, but that is different than expecting them to be able to keep your child "safe" no matter what. Nobody can completely ensure that, not even the parents themselves.
Hadnt this newtown school just installed some new security stuff anyway? How far do they need to go before parents say, ok you did all you could?
Hadnt this newtown school just installed some new security stuff anyway? How far do they need to go before parents say, ok you did all you could?
I understand that normal folks don't want to come across as idiot-sue-happy scumbags, but I seriously wish more folks in situations like mass-shootings would sue the business/state/etc... for requiring that everyone be disarmed but not providing any armed protection - then someone might recognize that gun-free zones are the problem and subsequently, the real liability.
Similar threads
