In another incident, he went back to the school after he was no longer a student to attack a kid that he had been harassing with racial slurs and death threats on social media for dating his ex. The video is online. I'm sure they had an excuse for his every **** up leading up to the shooting. Not saying that the parents could have prevented the shooting, but it reeks of typical coddling behavior from parents who think their kid can do no wrong even when all the signs indicate otherwise. If you own a pitbull and it attacks someone, the owner is then responsible for the damages in a civil suit. The same rules should apply. I'm sure that his $800k inheritance will get divided up among the victims and their families.

The poll tax based on the content of a vote is obviously unconstitutional. I’m not going to address this post as a political matter, but rather make that simple legal observation.

As great legal minds from Toronto's own Howard Lee McBain to Thurgood Marshall have noted, The Constitution is a living document.

foatie, Assuming this is accurate what should the guardian have done in order to avoid civil liability?

HE went thru hell, im not saying he didnt. What im mad about it WHO he is suing. Nikolas Cruz should be the ONLY one being sued. For you to think its ok for him to attempt to get money from the parents is outrageous.

He should be happy to be alive

The sheriff's office will be getting sued, unfortunately it will be the taxpayers that pick up the tab for that. They ought to sue the sheriff himself, and the sheriff ought to go to prison.

Voted "no" above because I don't think the guardians should be getting sued.

You may want to think through the consequences of legalizing special "taxes" for voting a certain way.

Should def sue the 'security officer' blowhard tough guy that bragged about what a good shot he was and then pussied out when ish went down.

Wasn't he 19? Maybe putting him out at the first signs of him being a danger to her home.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

That's quite the hot take. Would have solved everything.

You said it, not me.

Like what?

She acted properly, which is why she is not being sued. The people being sued are the ones that took him in after she kicked him out (and then had no problem with him owning guns/failed to make sure they were actually secured).

It gives enormous power to whatever political party is in control. Instead of just the normal corruption of buying elections by spending more money on advertising etc, they could extort elections by punishing people for voting a certain way.

Imagine Phillip-Morris lobbying congress to tax people that vote for cigarette taxes. Or states that are on the southern border taxing anyone that is against Trump's border wall. Or California taxing people that vote against public sector unions. Or a state issuing a bond for some pork-project, taxing anyone that votes against it.

Oh, you're right. I hadn't thought of that

The only person that should be sued is the person that actually pulled the trigger.

No one else is responsible for that person's actions.

Doesn't this crap belong in Politics?

Yes

the mental hoops you have to jump through to think that giving a mentally unstable 19 year old a roof over his head makes you liable for whatever they do are incredible.

not quite as incredible as the mental hoops you have to jump through to victim blame here.

probably why not a single person has done that then

LOL how was that not immediately apparent to you??? Lmfao yeah let's just tax people who disagree with us - because that wouldn't be awfully shortsighted and easily abused. Not to mention the gross and obvious violation of the 1st amendment that couldn't even be argued reasonable but even the most revisionist lawyers or judges.


(And yeah probably primarily a political thread. Good idea to move it there.)

Also l, I don't really think this is scummy at all if they have control of his estate (think someone said he had a large inheritance or something given to them.) I'm not sure they are to blame but it's really reasonable to seek damages after being freaking shot.

Yeah, I don't know how I could have missed that. At least the surcharge on NRA political donations is a good idea.

No, no.... no it's not and I'll never understand how some people seem not to understand these basic concepts about the 1st amendment and speech. It's like you're so one sided in your thinking you can't the literal dozens of ways it is unconstitutional, morally wrong and could easily be turned against you. Even if I did believe in tight gun regulations, everything you said would sound like a terrible idea to me. But I will avoid going on a longer rant about that here because as you've pointed out it's really not the right place for a political discussion.

Reminds me of George Orwell after getting shot in the neck in the Spanish Civil War.

"The doctor said I had been lucky. I couldn't help but think how much luckier it would have been to not have been shot in the first place."