Virgina Tech Negligent in 2007 Campus Shooting Spree

[boochi]

http://news.yahoo.com/day-7-va-tech-negligence-trial-concludes-220209945.html

$4,000,000 awarded to two families involved in the suit.

 

[airdata]

Holding people accountable for the actions of other people... The american way.

 

[xBiffx]

Holding people accountable for the actions of other people... The american way.

False. They weren't being help accountable for what the shooter did. They were being held accountable for what they failed to do, actually.

A state panel that investigated the shootings concluded that officials erred in not sending an alert earlier. The lag in issuing a campus warning also brought Virginia Tech a $55,000 fine from the U.S. Education Department. The school is appealing.

 

[airdata]

Oh I'm sorry.

They are being held responsible for not predicting the future... bravo.

 

[xBiffx]

Oh I'm sorry.

They are being held responsible for not predicting the future... bravo.

Shooting had already happened. They failed to sound an alert, and the right kind/level, in a timely manner. Prediction not required. It was an imminent threat as soon as the shooting started but they failed to acknowledge that in time.

Try again.

 

[Lemon law]

No, the myth here is saying if only all the students at Virgina tech were all packing guns, the Virgina tech shooter would have been shot down by fellow students and the death toll would have been lower?

When we had a system that failed, the Virgina tech shooter with his history of mental illness should have never been allowed to buy firearms in the first place. But no no no, the NRA stands foursquare for everyone's second amendment right to own firearms without a background check.

And the other myth is that only criminals use cheap firearms, when they can steal an ample supply from law abiding citizens who have high quality firearms. And then sell on the street for pure profit to anyone with a few bucks. Its just the American free enterprise system in action.

After all think of the shame of it, to be robbed and shot by a petty criminal with a junk firearm, is a badge of shame. I would much rather be robbed and killed with Glock or maybe a golden eagle. Its so much a higher class status distinction.

Be its resolved, we need more guns and every conflict should be resolved by guns, Think of all the money wasted on courts.

 

[Texashiker]

Oh I'm sorry.

They are being held responsible for not predicting the future... bravo.

They are being held accountable for not taking action when they suspected there was a shooter on campus.

When we had a system that failed, the Virgina tech shooter with his history of mental illness should have never been allowed to buy firearms in the first place. But no no no, the NRA stands foursquare for everyone's second amendment right to own firearms without a background check.

People do not have to present ID to vote, why do a background check to buy a gun?

 

[Sunburn74]

Well honestly I think its questionable. There can be as much danger in crying wolf as there could be in keeping silent. I think it all depends on what they knew and how they knew it. What if VT had indeed issued a reasonable warning and there was a terrorized stampede out of classes all across campus with 10 people getting trampled, but the shooting was indeed isolated with the shooter being dead in the dorms? They'd be sued for negligence in the same way, that they didn't have to issue a warning and my daughter would still be alive and blah blah blah.

Look here are the facts. When people die, relatives get want someone to take responsibility when sometimes there is no one to blame. Life is not fair, it is not kind, and it has no real justice. In addition, juries often are not filled with rational high functioning people like you and me with 60 hours a week jobs that require us to think critically for 10 hours a day non stop. Instead they are filled with old ladies with no jobs and talk to just 1 or 2 other old ladies a week who get a single idea in their head during the trial, remember a crying witness, a gruesome picture and think someone has to pay through the nose.

 

[woolfe9999]

http://news.yahoo.com/day-7-va-tech-negligence-trial-concludes-220209945.html

$4,000,000 awarded to two families involved in the suit.

A little correction here. The two families will only get $100,000 each (likely meaning nothing after frees and costs). There was a legal cap on damages that the jury was purposefully not told of, so the verdict will be reduced post-trial to $100,000 per plaintiff. Another interesting point is that these 2 plaintiffs passed on what would have been their share of an $11,000,000 settlement with the other families that happened before trial.

 

[Texashiker]

A little correction here. The two families will only get $100,000 each (likely meaning nothing after frees and costs). There was a legal cap on damages that the jury was purposefully not told of, so the verdict will be reduced post-trial to $100,000 per plaintiff.

Some states have a gross-negligence loop hole in the cap laws, at least Texas does.

Its the difference in negligence and gross-negligence, and whichever one the jury finds the defendant guilty of.

 

[shortylickens]

You guys need to stay on topic.


as for the issue at hand: I guess its fine to hold the security and police accountable for protecting the safety of students on campus. But of course all thats gonna happen now is they'll turn the whole damn place into a micro police state. Will probably happen with NOVA as well. They had a shooting not long ago on the Woodbridge campus.

And the taxpayers will foot the bill. I'm not saying its good or bad, just saying the way it is.

 

[xBiffx]

You guys need to stay on topic.


as for the issue at hand: I guess its fine to hold the security and police accountable for protecting the safety of students on campus. But of course all thats gonna happen now is they'll turn the whole damn place into a micro police state. Will probably happen with NOVA as well. They had a shooting not long ago on the Woodbridge campus.

And the taxpayers will foot the bill. I'm not saying its good or bad, just saying the way it is.

There is a cheaper solution. Eliminate gun free zones and then security doesn't have to worry about being a first responder/not responding in time when it's already too late. I know, its ludicrous. Also I know its not a guarantee but then when is security/police?

 

[Howard]

No, the myth here is saying if only all the students at Virgina tech were all packing guns, the Virgina tech shooter would have been shot down by fellow students and the death toll would have been lower?

And this is related how...?

 

[shortylickens]

And this is related how...?

Its isnt. He's turning this into a gun issue when it really isnt, not to mention we've already gone over it a hundred times on this forum since 2007.
The issue right here, right now, is should security and police be financially accountable for their actions. Were they deliberately responding in a poor manner? Were they just plain incompetent? And why should the state have to fork over vast sums of cash even if they were?

For some reason that discussion seems too deep and complex for this crowd, so we just rehash the gun arguments over again.

Oh, and OP is required to state his opinion when posting news.

 

[Linflas]

Its isnt. He's turning this into a gun issue when it really isnt, not to mention we've already gone over it a hundred times on this forum since 2007.
The issue right here, right now, is should security and police be financially accountable for their actions. Were they deliberately responding in a poor manner? Were they just plain incompetent? And why should the state have to fork over vast sums of cash even if they were?

For some reason that discussion seems too deep and complex for this crowd, so we just rehash the gun arguments over again.

Oh, and OP is required to state his opinion when posting news.

So lets say that VT sent out this warning despite not having any reason to believe that they were dealing with anything other than a jealous boyfriend crime of passion type crime what magic does the jury think would have taken place? The shooter was a student, no different visually from any other student on campus so exactly what would the warning have changed? Shorty you are right, all this is is a way to reach into the pockets of the taxpayers of Virginia and make the jury fell like they have done something for 4 people struck by a tragedy.

 

[unokitty]

Jury Holds Virginia Tech Accountable

Virginia Tech screwed up. And they should be ashamed.

They have treated these murders as a publicity problem. And have arrogantly refused to apologise to the parents of the students that were killed through their lack of action.

If you read the above article, you can see that they received a 911 call at 7:15 and within 15 minutes knew that they had one KIA and another student shot.

Instead of warning the student body, they decided to hold meetings. And while I wasn't there, I would be confident that the purpose of the meeting was to protect Virginia Tech rather than the students...

It took two hours before they (Be sure that the decision process included the University Press Office...) issued a warning to the students.

By that time, the killer had chained the doors shut to a classroom building and proceeded to kill the daughters of the two plaintiffs.

Whether or not the warning would have changed the behavior of these two, now dead, students is not the issue.

The issue is that the University knew that someone was on campus and was shooting, and killing, students. They knew that and refused to communicate that to the student body for two hours.

That is what the jury ruled as negligence.

That is also why, in 2010, the US Department of Education fined Virginia Tech for violating a campus crime reporting law by issuing a warning that was "...too vague, and too late."

The two dead girls had a right to know that there was a murder loose on campus. The Tech Administration deprived them of that right.

Tech may have alot to be proud of in their past.

But I don't have any respect for a school administration that values their reputation higher the the lives of their students.

Since Virginia Tech's legal liability is limited to $100,000, this isn't about money. This is about an arrogant University administration that thinks its okay to hold meetings while a murderer is loose on campus. An administration that is willing to spend any amount of public money to defend their arrogance.

They should be ashamed.

Uno

 

[NetGuySC]

People do not have to present ID to vote, why do a background check to buy a gun?[/QUOTE]



This

 

[Hugo Drax]

More college students die from binge drinking than from school shootings over the last 10 years.

http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/StatsSummaries/snapshot.aspx

You don't hear anyone speaking much about banning Alcohol.

 

[Texashiker]

You don't hear anyone speaking much about banning Alcohol.

We already tried that, it did not work

 

[shortylickens]

More college students die from binge drinking than from school shootings over the last 10 years.

http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/StatsSummaries/snapshot.aspx

You don't hear anyone speaking much about banning Alcohol.

Actually, some campuses have tried to.
It didnt work.

 

[Sunburn74]

Jury Holds Virginia Tech Accountable

Virginia Tech screwed up. And they should be ashamed.

They have treated these murders as a publicity problem. And have arrogantly refused to apologise to the parents of the students that were killed through their lack of action.

If you read the above article, you can see that they received a 911 call at 7:15 and within 15 minutes knew that they had one KIA and another student shot.

Instead of warning the student body, they decided to hold meetings. And while I wasn't there, I would be confident that the purpose of the meeting was to protect Virginia Tech rather than the students...

It took two hours before they (Be sure that the decision process included the University Press Office...) issued a warning to the students.

By that time, the killer had chained the doors shut to a classroom building and proceeded to kill the daughters of the two plaintiffs.

Whether or not the warning would have changed the behavior of these two, now dead, students is not the issue.

The issue is that the University knew that someone was on campus and was shooting, and killing, students. They knew that and refused to communicate that to the student body for two hours.

That is what the jury ruled as negligence.

That is also why, in 2010, the US Department of Education fined Virginia Tech for violating a campus crime reporting law by issuing a warning that was "...too vague, and too late."

The two dead girls had a right to know that there was a murder loose on campus. The Tech Administration deprived them of that right.

Tech may have alot to be proud of in their past.

But I don't have any respect for a school administration that values their reputation higher the the lives of their students.

Since Virginia Tech's legal liability is limited to $100,000, this isn't about money. This is about an arrogant University administration that thinks its okay to hold meetings while a murderer is loose on campus. An administration that is willing to spend any amount of public money to defend their arrogance.

They should be ashamed.

Uno

The question to ask yourself is, if 2 students are shot on campus and the details are murky concerning who and where the shooter is, do you send everyone home immediately? That is the question. To do less would be interpreted as an overly mild message. You can argue yes send them home because the shooter can potentially invade a class room and shoot 30 people and then himself. But you can also argue not to because those people can hurt themselves on the way out as they are in a fearful state or even more go to where the shooter may be lying in wait for even more atrocity.

Again, to me it comes down to what they knew and when they knew it. As soon as they knew where the shooter was and who he was, they should have taken action with the clearest statement release they could. If you don't know have that information, I would say its negligent to alarm the public (just like its negligent to call fire in a crowded theater with little cause). Sure call the police, increase security, search for the guy, etc but don't necessarily start having the entire student body move in ways you cannot control with a shooter on the loose.

 

[xBiffx]

The question to ask yourself is, if 2 students are shot on campus and the details are murky concerning who and where the shooter is, do you send everyone home immediately? That is the question. To do less would be interpreted as an overly mild message. You can argue yes send them home because the shooter can potentially invade a class room and shoot 30 people and then himself. But you can also argue not to because those people can hurt themselves on the way out as they are in a fearful state or even more go to where the shooter may be lying in wait for even more atrocity.

Again, to me it comes down to what they knew and when they knew it. As soon as they knew where the shooter was and who he was, they should have taken action with the clearest statement release they could. If you don't know have that information, I would say its negligent to alarm the public (just like its negligent to call fire in a crowded theater with little cause). Sure call the police, increase security, search for the guy, etc but don't necessarily start having the entire student body move in ways you cannot control with a shooter on the loose.

Withholding vital information from people when you know there is an imminent danger should always be treated as negligence and punished to the fullest extent of the law. It is no one's place to decide for others when to it is time to escape danger. You give them the information and let them make that choice.

 

[Sunburn74]

Withholding vital information from people when you know there is an imminent danger should always be treated as negligence and punished to the fullest extent of the law. It is no one's place to decide for others when to it is time to escape danger. You give them the information and let them make that choice.

I disagree. If there was a possible dirty bomb someplace in america slated to go off sometime in the next week, should the US government report that on the 6 o clock news? They'd cause a panic, rioting, hate crimes, and who knows all other sorts of tragedies. I'm all for people being more informed but if every single possible murky threat to our lives was reported, we either

a) be paralyzed with fear and panic all the time
b) ignore all the warnings and carry on with our lives anyway

Release credible information that people can actually act on. Hold on to murky information that people cannot act on. A possible shooter in an unknown building at the edge of campus with possibly 2 people hurt or dead is information the general public cannot act on. For all you know, people could say "oh wow. Fine I'm going home to the dorms, open the door to the dorm, and the shooter is there lying in wait and gunning down people as they walk in". Then when its all said and done people would say, why did you release this dangerous negligent information? Didn't you know people would go home and be shot?

 

[xBiffx]

A possible shooter in an unknown building at the edge of campus with possibly 2 people hurt or dead is information the general public cannot act on.

Really, a possible shooter?!? People are dead, check. Shots fired, check. People are fleeing the immediate area, check. Possible shooter not found. Definite shooter, check. Imminent danger, check. Sorry you can't get such a simple concept as recognizing when there is danger and knowing what to do about it. I weep for you.

The school knew there were shoots fired, knew people were dead, and knew the location but decided not to release any information/warning. More people died because they didn't know about it. The school is responsible because they could have prevented more bloodshed but did nothing.

 

[Sunburn74]

The school knew there were shoots fired, knew people were dead, and knew the location but decided not to release any information/warning. More people died because they didn't know about it. The school is responsible because they could have prevented more bloodshed but did nothing.

I've never read a report that stated the above as true. The school has been extremely tight lipped about what they knew and when they knew it. That is exactly my point and much the point of the trial. If they had credible information and chose not to release it, they are negligent. If the information was murky, unclear, still coming in and could be dangerous in its incomplete form, then they did right not to release it. What they knew and didn't know was discussed in the trial, not in the public space. We can only speculate as to what they knew. Seeing as there was a 2 hour delay, my gut tells me they probably had less than credible information. After all VT had much more in favor and to their benefit by going after the threat. They really stood to gain very little by just hoping it'd go away. I really don't buy the argument that VT was trying to protect it's reputation. Violent crime occurs on college campuses' all the time and the schools for the most part lose very little in the public persona (i cite the duke lacross team case, the baylor basketball player killing, and the numerous assaults, shootings, and fights that have occurred at my alma mater during the time I was there). This sort of thing happens all the time, not just with colleges but also with the general police and their response to crime. Often they get less than credible information first (a distressed call by someone to 911 saying they are depressed), then a horrible crime occurs (a murder, a shooting, etc) and people look back and state that the initial information was credible and actionable when it really wasn't.

Certainly the results of the trial are what they are. This also is a civil case I believe which are much easier to win.

In addition, you said the school did not release a warning. To be honest, I get warning about suspicious individuals seen around my hospital building as well as recent violent crime all the time. I ignore them. The school could have sent everyone home from class, but that I see as a potentially dangerous act. The school could have told everyone to stay inside, but see what happened (the shooter barricaded a room). I just don't think its so easy to say the school could have acted in a way that would have been safe and effective.