Petition for retrial submitted to Supreme Court in Virginia Tech shootings
Reston attorney calls university explanation ‘smoke and mirrors’
http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/article/20131202/NEWS/131209983/1117/petition-for-retrial-submitted-to-supreme-court-in-virginia-tech&template=fairfaxTimes

A petition for rehearing has been filed with the Virginia Supreme Court on behalf of a Centreville family whose daughter was killed during the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre.

On Nov. 26, Reston attorney Robert T. Hall filed the petition on behalf of Grafton Peterson, father of Erin Peterson, a 2006 graduate of Westfield High School who was one of the 32 people killed by fellow Westfield graduate Seung-Hui Cho in the rampage. Peterson filed the original lawsuit in 2009.

The suit, co-filed alongside a similar suit by the parents of another Virginia Tech student, was originally heard in March 2011 in Christiansburg, where a jury sided with the plaintiffs and found the school negligent. The jury awarded $4 million each to both families, but the Commonwealth immediately filed a motion to have the award reduced.

As a wrongful death claim, the original lawsuits initially were eligible to be heard by a jury which could recommend damages. But under Virginia law, when the Commonwealth became the only defendant left in the case, the suit became subject to tort law restrictions. Tort law deals with situations where a person’s behavior allegedly has caused someone else to suffer loss or harm. Under Virginia law, tort law claims are individually capped at $100,000.

After four years of going through the lower courts, both sides filed formal notices of appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court. On Oct. 31, the Commonwealth’s highest court ruled that Virginia Tech had not been negligent and overturned the lower court’s ruling that it had been.

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled unanimously that “as a matter of law, the Commonwealth did not have a duty to protect students against third party criminal acts” and “there was no duty for the Commonwealth to warn students about the potential for criminal acts by third parties.” It then reversed the judgment of the lower court.

The Nov. 26 petition for rehearing now argues that “the university had a statutorily mandated duty to ensure the protection and safety of students” and takes the Supreme Court to task for its decision, stating that “the court’s blind-eye approach to these mandated and assumed duties is the equivalent of observing that there is no common-law duty for a motorist to obey the speed limit.”

The petition further states that “After the shootings at Norris Hall, the administration issued false or misleading public statements attempting to explain, justify or excuse its failure to warn the campus of the first two shootings. All such statements were entered into evidence as guilty knowledge that it should have warned.”

Hall says his client has a constitutional right to a jury trial, and that the Supreme Court denied his client that right.

“The university’s efforts to justify or excuse why they didn’t warn was made up of smoke and mirrors, and the jury saw through them,” he said. “Sadly, the [Supreme] Court relied on facts the jury found false, and deprived the two families of their constitutional right to have the matter decided by a jury.”

According to Supreme Court Deputy Clerk Lesley Smith, the seven justices who heard the original case will now review the petition and decide if the court will agree to a rehearing. According to Smith, there is no specific time limit for the court to make that decision.

For the last four years, both Virginia Tech and the Commonwealth maintained that the university was not negligent, and that Cho’s actions were solely to blame. “The Virginia Supreme Court has found what we have said all along to be true,” said Brian Gottstein, a spokesman for Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, after the Supreme Court’s Oct. 31 ruling. “The Commonwealth and its officials at Virginia Tech were not negligent on April 16, 2007. Cho was the lone person responsible for this tragedy.”

When asked about the Nov. 26 petition for a rehearing, Gottstein maintained the correctness of the Oct. 31 Supreme Court ruling. “We think the court already correctly decided the issue, and nothing in the latest filings changes that,” he said.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker declined to comment.

The disgustingly greedy family just can't let it go until they squeeze every last penny out of their daughter's tragic death. Face it - the lunatic shooter was responsible. Ah, but they can't get enough money from his family to pay for their new swimming pool and fleet of Mercedes!

Money Always Helps With Grieving Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The disgustingly greedy family just can't let it
> go until they squeeze every last penny out of
> their daughter's tragic death. Face it - the
> lunatic shooter was responsible. Ah, but they
> can't get enough money from his family to pay for
> their new swimming pool and fleet of Mercedes!


+1

Money Always Helps With Grieving Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The disgustingly greedy family just can't let it
> go until they squeeze every last penny out of
> their daughter's tragic death. Face it - the
> lunatic shooter was responsible. Ah, but they
> can't get enough money from his family to pay for
> their new swimming pool and fleet of Mercedes!

^ Anonymous Cuccinelli post.

And the vultures come out to play on the grave of the innocent.

How is the school not negligent? They failed to notify students in a timely manner, their security is below standard, and there is nothing to prevent someone from coming on-campus. I'm not saying let's hand out millions of dollars, but c'mon here. Any student that goes there, their parents or someone is paying out the ear to go there. Shouldn't our kids be safe?

Robert T. Hall is a notorius "ambulance chaser"

Smoke and Mirrors Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Nov. 26 petition for rehearing now argues that
> “the university had a statutorily mandated duty
> to ensure the protection and safety of students”
> and takes the Supreme Court to task for its
> decision, stating that “the court’s blind-eye
> approach to these mandated and assumed duties is
> the equivalent of observing that there is no
> common-law duty for a motorist to obey the speed
> limit.”
>
> The petition further states that “After the
> shootings at Norris Hall, the administration
> issued false or misleading public statements
> attempting to explain, justify or excuse its
> failure to warn the campus of the first two
> shootings. All such statements were entered into
> evidence as guilty knowledge that it should have
> warned.”
>
> Hall says his client has a constitutional right to
> a jury trial, and that the Supreme Court denied
> his client that right.

He might be an ambulance chaser, but its hard to argue against his petition. I completely agree with the reasons for the petition. VA Tech still hasn't learned it's lesson. They had this shooting, a beheading, and some other crap over the past year or two. They really need to get their act together.

Legal Beagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He might be an ambulance chaser, but its hard to
> argue against his petition. I completely agree
> with the reasons for the petition. VA Tech still
> hasn't learned it's lesson. They had this
> shooting, a beheading, and some other crap over
> the past year or two. They really need to get
> their act together.

While I do agree they need to pull themselves together, under your logic the City of Boston should be held financially responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings. Or the WTO for 9/11.

Legal Beagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> He might be an ambulance chaser, but its hard to
> argue against his petition. I completely agree
> with the reasons for the petition. VA Tech still
> hasn't learned it's lesson. They had this
> shooting, a beheading, and some other crap over
> the past year or two. They really need to get
> their act together.

So by using your logic, a city should be held responsible every time someone gets shot on the street? I dont think so.

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Legal Beagle Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > He might be an ambulance chaser, but its hard
> to
> > argue against his petition. I completely agree
> > with the reasons for the petition. VA Tech
> still
> > hasn't learned it's lesson. They had this
> > shooting, a beheading, and some other crap over
> > the past year or two. They really need to get
> > their act together.
>
> So by using your logic, a city should be held
> responsible every time someone gets shot on the
> street? I dont think so.

No, but in this case, it's a school campus on private property. While on that property (living, going to school, etc.) the school confirms in their own handbook that they provide security. Therefore under law they are responsible for your safety while on their grounds. You have to remember, the school here is responsible for security, and in this case (and others) their security was woefully inadequate, resulting in multiple deaths.

Here's another example, you live on a street where a sidewalk is on your property. Under law you are responsible for keeping it clear of ice, snow, wet leaves, etc. If someone walks along and slips and falls, guess what? They can sue you.

Isn't a city police dept responsible for providing security within the city limits?

I dont follow how you think there is a difference other than the private property aspect but im not sure a college campus is private property. I can drive onto the VA Tech campus anytime I want.

Legal Beagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Here's another example, you live on a street where
> a sidewalk is on your property. Under law you are
> responsible for keeping it clear of ice, snow, wet
> leaves, etc. If someone walks along and slips and
> falls, guess what? They can sue you.


Guess what, you can sue a ham sandwich. Doesnt mean you will recover damages. Sidewalk liability laws are convoluted and wishy washy at best.

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isn't a city police dept responsible for providing
> security within the city limits?
>
> I dont follow how you think there is a difference
> other than the private property aspect but im not
> sure a college campus is private property. I can
> drive onto the VA Tech campus anytime I want.

The differences are apples and oranges. The police are paid by the tax payers. They are not providing security, but law enforcement to the city. Inside the city, individual businesses can hire private security to protect their private property. Police are a public service (for everyone).

Security provides protection of life and property, and are hired to provide security to (in this case) a privately owned school. In the end security guards (in VA anyway) are just private citizens with very limited abilities. In addition, the VA Tech student's handbook, the school admits to being responsible for security while students are on school grounds. I would argue that VA Tech is grossly neglient because of the fatal incidents that have happened on school grounds in the past 10 years.

Legal Beagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Smoke and Mirrors Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Nov. 26 petition for rehearing now argues
> that
> > “the university had a statutorily mandated
> duty
> > to ensure the protection and safety of
> students”
> > and takes the Supreme Court to task for its
> > decision, stating that “the court’s
> blind-eye
> > approach to these mandated and assumed duties
> is
> > the equivalent of observing that there is no
> > common-law duty for a motorist to obey the
> speed
> > limit.”
> >
> > The petition further states that “After the
> > shootings at Norris Hall, the administration
> > issued false or misleading public statements
> > attempting to explain, justify or excuse its
> > failure to warn the campus of the first two
> > shootings. All such statements were entered
> into
> > evidence as guilty knowledge that it should
> have
> > warned.”
> >
> > Hall says his client has a constitutional right
> to
> > a jury trial, and that the Supreme Court denied
> > his client that right.
>
> He might be an ambulance chaser, but its hard to
> argue against his petition. I completely agree
> with the reasons for the petition. VA Tech still
> hasn't learned it's lesson. They had this
> shooting, a beheading, and some other crap over
> the past year or two. They really need to get
> their act together.

In no way is Virginia Tech negligent. They had a double homicide on campus that morning in which they thought it was an upset boyfriend situation. They didn't think there was an ongoing threat against anyone on campus. The only person responsible is the shooter. Unfortunately, we live in a society where if someone is hell bent on mass carnage it's quite easy. And, of course, we need to find others to blame as some sort of coping mechanism.

Do college campuses need an armed guard in every building now?

A separate murder on

Legal Beagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Smoke and Mirrors Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Nov. 26 petition for rehearing now argues
> that
> > “the university had a statutorily mandated
> duty
> > to ensure the protection and safety of
> students”
> > and takes the Supreme Court to task for its
> > decision, stating that “the court’s
> blind-eye
> > approach to these mandated and assumed duties
> is
> > the equivalent of observing that there is no
> > common-law duty for a motorist to obey the
> speed
> > limit.”
> >
> > The petition further states that “After the
> > shootings at Norris Hall, the administration
> > issued false or misleading public statements
> > attempting to explain, justify or excuse its
> > failure to warn the campus of the first two
> > shootings. All such statements were entered
> into
> > evidence as guilty knowledge that it should
> have
> > warned.”
> >
> > Hall says his client has a constitutional right
> to
> > a jury trial, and that the Supreme Court denied
> > his client that right.
>
> He might be an ambulance chaser, but its hard to
> argue against his petition. I completely agree
> with the reasons for the petition. VA Tech still
> hasn't learned it's lesson. They had this
> shooting, a beheading, and some other crap over
> the past year or two. They really need to get
> their act together.

In no way is Virginia Tech negligent. They had a double homicide on campus that morning in which they thought it was an upset boyfriend situation. They didn't think there was an ongoing threat against anyone on campus. The only person responsible is the shooter. Unfortunately, we live in a society where if someone is hell bent on mass carnage it's quite easy. And, of course, we need to find others to blame as some sort of coping mechanism.

Do college campuses need an armed guard in every building now?

A separate murder on

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Legal Beagle Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > Here's another example, you live on a street
> where
> > a sidewalk is on your property. Under law you
> are
> > responsible for keeping it clear of ice, snow,
> wet
> > leaves, etc. If someone walks along and slips
> and
> > falls, guess what? They can sue you.
>
>
> Guess what, you can sue a ham sandwich. Doesnt
> mean you will recover damages. Sidewalk liability
> laws are convoluted and wishy washy at best.

I completely agree, but most are settled out of court for some sizeable amounts of money.

For example, we had an older lady who deliberately walked into a construction area onsite, where the property management was doing work to replace some steps and rails. This area was heavily roped off and had signs, as well as barricades and caution/warning tape. We saw her deliberately push her way through the caution/warning tape and then fake falling down. She was escorted off the site and lost her job their at the law firm. She sued the firm, the property management and security. She didn't win, but ultimately they settled out of court for a ridiculous sum of 500k. Even though they have video tape evidence showing that they were not at fault, she was. This was all done to "shut her up" to prevent negative publicity.

Legal Beagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stabitha Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Isn't a city police dept responsible for
> providing
> > security within the city limits?
> >
> > I dont follow how you think there is a
> difference
> > other than the private property aspect but im
> not
> > sure a college campus is private property. I
> can
> > drive onto the VA Tech campus anytime I want.
>
> The differences are apples and oranges. The police
> are paid by the tax payers. They are not providing
> security, but law enforcement to the city. Inside
> the city, individual businesses can hire private
> security to protect their private property. Police
> are a public service (for everyone).
>
> Security provides protection of life and property,
> and are hired to provide security to (in this
> case) a privately owned school. In the end
> security guards (in VA anyway) are just private
> citizens with very limited abilities. In addition,
> the VA Tech student's handbook, the school admits
> to being responsible for security while students
> are on school grounds. I would argue that VA Tech
> is grossly neglient because of the fatal incidents
> that have happened on school grounds in the past
> 10 years.

Virginia Tech is a public institution. It's not privately owned. Not that it is very relevant to your incorrect opinion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2013 02:49PM by Mayor of Greenbriar.

Mayor of Greenbriar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Legal Beagle Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Smoke and Mirrors Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The Nov. 26 petition for rehearing now argues
> > that
> > > “the university had a statutorily mandated
> > duty
> > > to ensure the protection and safety of
> > students”
> > > and takes the Supreme Court to task for its
> > > decision, stating that “the court’s
> > blind-eye
> > > approach to these mandated and assumed duties
> > is
> > > the equivalent of observing that there is no
> > > common-law duty for a motorist to obey the
> > speed
> > > limit.”
> > >
> > > The petition further states that “After the
> > > shootings at Norris Hall, the administration
> > > issued false or misleading public statements
> > > attempting to explain, justify or excuse its
> > > failure to warn the campus of the first two
> > > shootings. All such statements were entered
> > into
> > > evidence as guilty knowledge that it should
> > have
> > > warned.”
> > >
> > > Hall says his client has a constitutional
> right
> > to
> > > a jury trial, and that the Supreme Court
> denied
> > > his client that right.
> >
> > He might be an ambulance chaser, but its hard
> to
> > argue against his petition. I completely agree
> > with the reasons for the petition. VA Tech
> still
> > hasn't learned it's lesson. They had this
> > shooting, a beheading, and some other crap over
> > the past year or two. They really need to get
> > their act together.
>
> In no way is Virginia Tech negligent. They had a
> double homicide on campus that morning in which
> they thought it was an upset boyfriend situation.
> They didn't think there was an ongoing threat
> against anyone on campus. The only person
> responsible is the shooter. Unfortunately, we
> live in a society where if someone is hell bent on
> mass carnage it's quite easy. And, of course, we
> need to find others to blame as some sort of
> coping mechanism.
>
> Do college campuses need an armed guard in every
> building now?
>

For VA Tech, I think the answer is yes and I offer these incidents up as proof. I'd say the shool has a serious security problem...

Virginia Tech massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

On April 16, 2007, the Virginia Tech massacre occurred on campus. 32 people were shot dead before the gunman Seung-Hui Cho killed himself, making it the deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in U.S. history.

Shots Fired At VATech
http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/759313.html

2 Va Tech Students Found Dead In Woods
http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/2/232943.html

VA Tech -Alert Man with Gun
http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/2/641524.html

Former Virginia Tech Grad Student Who Decapitated Classmate Gets Life In Prison
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/19/former-virginia-tech-grad_n_543350.html

I'm not letting either of my two kids go to Tech. It's just too dangerous and the state doesn't seem to care. In the end, significant changes will start to happen when attendance starts to decline.

Legal Beagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
. She sued
> the firm, the property management and security.
> She didn't win, but ultimately they settled out of
> court for a ridiculous sum of 500k. Even though
> they have video tape evidence showing that they
> were not at fault, she was. This was all done to
> "shut her up" to prevent negative publicity.

Thye had horrible legal advice then. You settle with a "nuisance" payment when you dont think you can win. And a nuisance payment is never $500K. More like $10K.

Legal Beagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > For VA Tech, I think the answer is yes and I offer
> these incidents up as proof. I'd say the shool has
> a serious security problem...
> >
> 2 Va Tech Students Found Dead In Woods
> http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/2/232
> 943.html
>
You sure you want to include this one in your illogical accusation?

"The campground is about 15 miles from Virginia Tech's campus in Blacksburg".

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Legal Beagle Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > For VA Tech, I think the answer is yes and I
> offer
> > these incidents up as proof. I'd say the shool
> has
> > a serious security problem...
> > >
> > 2 Va Tech Students Found Dead In Woods
> >
> http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/2/232
>
> > 943.html
> >
> You sure you want to include this one in your
> illogical accusation?
>
> "The campground is about 15 miles from Virginia
> Tech's campus in Blacksburg".

Eh, scratch that one then.

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Legal Beagle Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> . She sued
> > the firm, the property management and security.
> > She didn't win, but ultimately they settled out
> of
> > court for a ridiculous sum of 500k. Even though
> > they have video tape evidence showing that they
> > were not at fault, she was. This was all done
> to
> > "shut her up" to prevent negative publicity.
>
> Thye had horrible legal advice then. You settle
> with a "nuisance" payment when you dont think you
> can win. And a nuisance payment is never $500K.
> More like $10K.

She claimed to have aggravated an existing injury with pins in her knees from the 50's or some shit like that. Yes, I agree, they had very bad legal advice, and the property management had no backbone. BTW, some months after the settlement, some girl came to the property management and threatened to sue them for damages. You'll love this, she blamed the property management's security guards for getting her pregnant. She claimed that her boyfriend ejaculated into her, causing her to become pregnant, because the security guard "scared" them, when he came up to their car door and asked them to leave.

Legal Beagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mayor of Greenbriar Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Legal Beagle Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Smoke and Mirrors Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > The Nov. 26 petition for rehearing now
> argues
> > > that
> > > > “the university had a statutorily
> mandated
> > > duty
> > > > to ensure the protection and safety of
> > > students”
> > > > and takes the Supreme Court to task for its
> > > > decision, stating that “the court’s
> > > blind-eye
> > > > approach to these mandated and assumed
> duties
> > > is
> > > > the equivalent of observing that there is
> no
> > > > common-law duty for a motorist to obey the
> > > speed
> > > > limit.”
> > > >
> > > > The petition further states that “After
> the
> > > > shootings at Norris Hall, the
> administration
> > > > issued false or misleading public
> statements
> > > > attempting to explain, justify or excuse
> its
> > > > failure to warn the campus of the first two
> > > > shootings. All such statements were entered
> > > into
> > > > evidence as guilty knowledge that it should
> > > have
> > > > warned.”
> > > >
> > > > Hall says his client has a constitutional
> > right
> > > to
> > > > a jury trial, and that the Supreme Court
> > denied
> > > > his client that right.
> > >
> > > He might be an ambulance chaser, but its hard
> > to
> > > argue against his petition. I completely
> agree
> > > with the reasons for the petition. VA Tech
> > still
> > > hasn't learned it's lesson. They had this
> > > shooting, a beheading, and some other crap
> over
> > > the past year or two. They really need to get
> > > their act together.
> >
> > In no way is Virginia Tech negligent. They had
> a
> > double homicide on campus that morning in which
> > they thought it was an upset boyfriend
> situation.
> > They didn't think there was an ongoing threat
> > against anyone on campus. The only person
> > responsible is the shooter. Unfortunately, we
> > live in a society where if someone is hell bent
> on
> > mass carnage it's quite easy. And, of course,
> we
> > need to find others to blame as some sort of
> > coping mechanism.
> >
> > Do college campuses need an armed guard in
> every
> > building now?
> >
>
> For VA Tech, I think the answer is yes and I offer
> these incidents up as proof. I'd say the shool has
> a serious security problem...
>
> Virginia Tech massacre
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacr
> e
>
> On April 16, 2007, the Virginia Tech massacre
> occurred on campus. 32 people were shot dead
> before the gunman Seung-Hui Cho killed himself,
> making it the deadliest shooting incident by a
> single gunman in U.S. history.
>
> Shots Fired At VATech
> http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/75
> 9313.html
>
> 2 Va Tech Students Found Dead In Woods
> http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/2/232
> 943.html
>
> VA Tech -Alert Man with Gun
> http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/2/641
> 524.html
>
> Former Virginia Tech Grad Student Who Decapitated
> Classmate Gets Life In Prison
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/19/former-vi
> rginia-tech-grad_n_543350.html


Legal Beagle, your anything but....

Two students getting killed in a National Park is "proof" that Virginia Tech is negligent for the mass murder in 2007? Pretty good logic.

Do you hold Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora Colorado movie theaters, etc. negligent for their mass shootings? Where was the security?

I'm afraid you need to accept that evil people can do evil things and that other parties aren't necessarily negligent as a result.

Concerned Parents Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not letting either of my two kids go to Tech.
> It's just too dangerous and the state doesn't seem
> to care. In the end, significant changes will
> start to happen when attendance starts to decline.

Do you let them drive on the interstate? Perhaps you should wrap your kids in a bubble?

Universities and schools have changed security in the aftermath of mass shootings (Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, et al). Hopefully, these additional measures will help to save lives. Unfortunately, these types of events still can and likely will continue to happen, ANYWHERE.

Mayor of Greenbriar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Legal Beagle Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mayor of Greenbriar Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Legal Beagle Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Smoke and Mirrors Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > The Nov. 26 petition for rehearing now
> > argues
> > > > that
> > > > > “the university had a statutorily
> > mandated
> > > > duty
> > > > > to ensure the protection and safety of
> > > > students”
> > > > > and takes the Supreme Court to task for
> its
> > > > > decision, stating that “the court’s
> > > > blind-eye
> > > > > approach to these mandated and assumed
> > duties
> > > > is
> > > > > the equivalent of observing that there is
> > no
> > > > > common-law duty for a motorist to obey
> the
> > > > speed
> > > > > limit.”
> > > > >
> > > > > The petition further states that “After
> > the
> > > > > shootings at Norris Hall, the
> > administration
> > > > > issued false or misleading public
> > statements
> > > > > attempting to explain, justify or excuse
> > its
> > > > > failure to warn the campus of the first
> two
> > > > > shootings. All such statements were
> entered
> > > > into
> > > > > evidence as guilty knowledge that it
> should
> > > > have
> > > > > warned.”
> > > > >
> > > > > Hall says his client has a constitutional
> > > right
> > > > to
> > > > > a jury trial, and that the Supreme Court
> > > denied
> > > > > his client that right.
> > > >
> > > > He might be an ambulance chaser, but its
> hard
> > > to
> > > > argue against his petition. I completely
> > agree
> > > > with the reasons for the petition. VA Tech
> > > still
> > > > hasn't learned it's lesson. They had this
> > > > shooting, a beheading, and some other crap
> > over
> > > > the past year or two. They really need to
> get
> > > > their act together.
> > >
> > > In no way is Virginia Tech negligent. They
> had
> > a
> > > double homicide on campus that morning in
> which
> > > they thought it was an upset boyfriend
> > situation.
> > > They didn't think there was an ongoing threat
> > > against anyone on campus. The only person
> > > responsible is the shooter. Unfortunately,
> we
> > > live in a society where if someone is hell
> bent
> > on
> > > mass carnage it's quite easy. And, of
> course,
> > we
> > > need to find others to blame as some sort of
> > > coping mechanism.
> > >
> > > Do college campuses need an armed guard in
> > every
> > > building now?
> > >
> >
> > For VA Tech, I think the answer is yes and I
> offer
> > these incidents up as proof. I'd say the shool
> has
> > a serious security problem...
> >
> > Virginia Tech massacre
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacr
>
> > e
> >
> > On April 16, 2007, the Virginia Tech massacre
> > occurred on campus. 32 people were shot dead
> > before the gunman Seung-Hui Cho killed himself,
> > making it the deadliest shooting incident by a
> > single gunman in U.S. history.
> >
> > Shots Fired At VATech
> >
> http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/75
>
> > 9313.html
> >
> > 2 Va Tech Students Found Dead In Woods
> >
> http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/2/232
>
> > 943.html
> >
> > VA Tech -Alert Man with Gun
> >
> http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/2/641
>
> > 524.html
> >
> > Former Virginia Tech Grad Student Who
> Decapitated
> > Classmate Gets Life In Prison
> >
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/19/former-vi
>
> > rginia-tech-grad_n_543350.html
>
>
> Legal Beagle, your anything but....
>
> Two students getting killed in a National Park is
> "proof" that Virginia Tech is negligent for the
> mass murder in 2007? Pretty good logic.
>
> Do you hold Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora Colorado
> movie theaters, etc. negligent for their mass
> shootings? Where was the security?
>
> I'm afraid you need to accept that evil people can
> do evil things and that other parties aren't
> necessarily negligent as a result.

Sure, I accept that there are evil people that do evil things. The difference here is I essentially have a contract with VA Tech. I have a handbook from them that tells me that they provide security, that I am paying for as part of my kid's tuition

A movie theatre isn't required to provide those things. Sandy Hook was a private school, and is a different case as they didn't really have security in place. VA Tech is an institution, where you are paying for services. And your right, it's a publicly funded school at that.

Mayor of Greenbriar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Concerned Parents Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm not letting either of my two kids go to
> Tech.
> > It's just too dangerous and the state doesn't
> seem
> > to care. In the end, significant changes will
> > start to happen when attendance starts to
> decline.
>
> Do you let them drive on the interstate? Perhaps
> you should wrap your kids in a bubble?
>
> Universities and schools have changed security in
> the aftermath of mass shootings (Columbine,
> Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, et al). Hopefully,
> these additional measures will help to save lives.
> Unfortunately, these types of events still can
> and likely will continue to happen, ANYWHERE.

Really? I don't recall hearing any more shootings at Columbine? Do you know why? Because they did something about the security there. (I believe one or more students had been caught by security since the shooting with weapons). But guess what? There have been several more incidents at VA Tech? Why? Obviously their security changes weren't enough. As a taxpayer I am outraged that the school has done little after these tragedies.

Mayor of Greenbriar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Concerned Parents Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm not letting either of my two kids go to
> Tech.
> > It's just too dangerous and the state doesn't
> seem
> > to care. In the end, significant changes will
> > start to happen when attendance starts to
> decline.
>
> Do you let them drive on the interstate? Perhaps
> you should wrap your kids in a bubble?
>
> Universities and schools have changed security in
> the aftermath of mass shootings (Columbine,
> Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, et al). Hopefully,
> these additional measures will help to save lives.
> Unfortunately, these types of events still can
> and likely will continue to happen, ANYWHERE.

You're an idiot. You're advocating that we just lay down and take it? Are you a fucking moron?

Legal Beagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For VA Tech, I think the answer is yes and I offer
> these incidents up as proof. I'd say the shool has
> a serious security problem...
>
> Virginia Tech massacre
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacr
> e
>
> On April 16, 2007, the Virginia Tech massacre
> occurred on campus. 32 people were shot dead
> before the gunman Seung-Hui Cho killed himself,
> making it the deadliest shooting incident by a
> single gunman in U.S. history.
>
> Shots Fired At VATech
> http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/75
> 9313.html
>
> VA Tech -Alert Man with Gun
> http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/2/641
> 524.html
>
> Former Virginia Tech Grad Student Who Decapitated
> Classmate Gets Life In Prison
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/19/former-vi
> rginia-tech-grad_n_543350.html

Retards always jump to the defense of the school. Oh its not their fault that a madman shot up the campus or beheaded someone in the cafeteria. That's funny, I don't recall ever hearing other schools having these kinds of problems. Do you know why? They take security alot more responsibly.

asdfafafasdfasdf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mayor of Greenbriar Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Concerned Parents Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I'm not letting either of my two kids go to
> > Tech.
> > > It's just too dangerous and the state doesn't
> > seem
> > > to care. In the end, significant changes will
> > > start to happen when attendance starts to
> > decline.
> >
> > Do you let them drive on the interstate?
> Perhaps
> > you should wrap your kids in a bubble?
> >
> > Universities and schools have changed security
> in
> > the aftermath of mass shootings (Columbine,
> > Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, et al). Hopefully,
> > these additional measures will help to save
> lives.
> > Unfortunately, these types of events still can
> > and likely will continue to happen, ANYWHERE.
>
> You're an idiot. You're advocating that we just
> lay down and take it? Are you a fucking moron?

Hello Strawman, how are you? You're arguing that every public building in America be armed with police and/or security with machine guns?

Any Strawman that you build, I can build better.

Legal Beagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . Sandy Hook was a private school, and is a
> different case as they didn't really have security
> in place.

Ooops, wrong again. Public school. You really need to do some research before you go off half cocked

Mayor of Greenbriar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello Strawman, how are you? You're arguing that
> every public building in America be armed with
> police and/or security with machine guns?
>
> Any Strawman that you build, I can build better.

You seem pretty shallow minded. How about security guards? Think about it...

1). Less (Civilian) casualties
2). More jobs for the young and old (as well as in-between)
3). Less people on government assisted services (Welfare/Food Stamps)
4). Better training (most security companies have extensive training programs these days post-911).

I see nothing but a "Win-win" here and you said it yourself these incidents are going to happen anywhere right?

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Legal Beagle Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > . Sandy Hook was a private school, and is a
> > different case as they didn't really have
> security
> > in place.
>
> Ooops, wrong again. Public school. You really need
> to do some research before you go off half cocked

I just checked and you are right. I stand corrected. Good, then sue them too. Where was security when this guy was breaking in? The answer is they really didn't have any and relied on electronic locks and such. Most schools around here have some form of security, of course we have a higher crime rate then that town.

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Legal Beagle Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > . Sandy Hook was a private school, and is a
> > different case as they didn't really have
> security
> > in place.
>
> Ooops, wrong again. Public school. You really need
> to do some research before you go off half cocked

Half cocked? Seriously? Is this the explanation for your sexual perversion?

I think the point he was trying to make is, you're responsible for people when they are on your property so...Why then isn't the county/state/school responsible for safety when you're on their property?

I could understand a public park or something where there would not be security, but a college campus that is publicly owned/maintained. No, if I'm paying thousands of dollars for tuition, why wouldn't I sue if they failed and were liable for letting someone get on campus or a student bring a handgun on campus. The school is responsible for security of the campus right? Firearms, trespassers, etc. are all security issues.

I think it's time you just accept the fact that the people responsible for these tragedies are the nut jobs holding the gun.

With your logic, we should hold every person who had any interaction with this nutcases, years before they flipped out, as also responsible for not doing anything to prevent something from happening 5-10 years in the future.

Youre as crazy as the perps!

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it's time you just accept the fact that
> the people responsible for these tragedies are the
> nut jobs holding the gun.
>
> With your logic, we should hold every person who
> had any interaction with this nutcases, years
> before they flipped out, as also responsible for
> not doing anything to prevent something from
> happening 5-10 years in the future.
>
> Youre as crazy as the perps!

Sure I hold them responsible, if they survived they would be the first person I would sue. As for others and their responsibilities, that would depend on the circumstances.

I remember hearing an argument about suing the police or the county in a situation if they released a convicted killer and that person killed again. Seems like to me the county would be liable for releasing a known killer, right?

A convicted killer would not be an "alleged" killer, because they would have been found guilty in the court of law previously.

Economist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mayor of Greenbriar Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hello Strawman, how are you? You're arguing
> that
> > every public building in America be armed with
> > police and/or security with machine guns?
> >
> > Any Strawman that you build, I can build
> better.
>
> You seem pretty shallow minded. How about security
> guards? Think about it...
>
> 1). Less (Civilian) casualties
> 2). More jobs for the young and old (as well as
> in-between)
> 3). Less people on government assisted services
> (Welfare/Food Stamps)
> 4). Better training (most security companies have
> extensive training programs these days post-911).
>
>
> I see nothing but a "Win-win" here and you said it
> yourself these incidents are going to happen
> anywhere right?

Being so shallow minded, I'm going to need you to explain more precisely how it is that I'm shallow minded? Did you really understand what I meant by my post? Do you know what a strawman is?

But to take you seriously, I'm not sure that it would be feasible to put an armed security guard in every building of every public institution in America. Virginia Tech has roughly 100 buildings with probably 500 plus entrances. Do you put an armed guard at each entrance? Medal detector? Is the public simply willing to absorb the extra costs (taxes) that would be required to pay these armed security guards watching over them? People love TSA, perhaps that should be the government agency utilized to oversee our security in each building. You must be an economist, you're really on to something. Kudos.

Well, we all know the purpsoe of suing somone is to get money. It's got nothing to do with punishment. Seriously doubt any mass murderer would have any assets to take in a judgement. People like that are "judgement proof".

That's why you hire an ambulance chaser sleaze ball lawyer like Robert Hall to sue anyone/everyone remotely connected to the incident. And ALWAYS potential defendants with assets. Never mind if they have no legal liability....sue um all and let the Judge sort it out!

Mayor of Greenbriar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> In no way is Virginia Tech negligent. They had a
> double homicide on campus that morning in which
> they thought it was an upset boyfriend situation.
> They didn't think there was an ongoing threat
> against anyone on campus.

This is the case in a nutshell. Despite this argument by VT admin, they actually sent *private* emails warning of the situation and to lock doors; but chose not to send a public warning because of the potential bad PR.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/14/jury-finds-virginia-tech-negligent-for-delaying-warnings-in-2007-shooting/

RydellRoad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mayor of Greenbriar Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > In no way is Virginia Tech negligent. They had
> a
> > double homicide on campus that morning in which
> > they thought it was an upset boyfriend
> situation.
> > They didn't think there was an ongoing threat
> > against anyone on campus.
>
> This is the case in a nutshell. Despite this
> argument by VT admin, they actually sent *private*
> emails warning of the situation and to lock doors;
> but chose not to send a public warning because of
> the potential bad PR.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/14/jury-finds-vi
> rginia-tech-negligent-for-delaying-warnings-in-200
> 7-shooting/

The link you provided mentions absolutely nothing about "private e-mails" to lock doors, etc. It mentions what I did, an initial conclusion that the murders a couple hours earlier were domestic in nature. Police following an incorrect lead does not equal negligence.

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, we all know the purpsoe of suing somone is
> to get money. It's got nothing to do with
> punishment. Seriously doubt any mass murderer
> would have any assets to take in a judgement.
> People like that are "judgement proof".
>
> That's why you hire an ambulance chaser sleaze
> ball lawyer like Robert Hall to sue
> anyone/everyone remotely connected to the
> incident. And ALWAYS potential defendants with
> assets. Never mind if they have no legal
> liability....sue um all and let the Judge sort it
> out!

Ask your neigbors daughters.

Black Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stabitha Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well, we all know the purpsoe of suing somone
> is
> > to get money. It's got nothing to do with
> > punishment. Seriously doubt any mass murderer
> > would have any assets to take in a judgement.
> > People like that are "judgement proof".
> >
> > That's why you hire an ambulance chaser sleaze
> > ball lawyer like Robert Hall to sue
> > anyone/everyone remotely connected to the
> > incident. And ALWAYS potential defendants with
> > assets. Never mind if they have no legal
> > liability....sue um all and let the Judge sort
> it
> > out!
>
> Ask your neigbors daughters.

Ask them what? There is no question in your post?

Is this Brain Damaged Tuesday on FXU? I have never seen so many inane and absurd posts in a single day.

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Black Stabitha Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Stabitha Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Well, we all know the purpsoe of suing somone
> > is
> > > to get money. It's got nothing to do with
> > > punishment. Seriously doubt any mass murderer
> > > would have any assets to take in a judgement.
> > > People like that are "judgement proof".
> > >
> > > That's why you hire an ambulance chaser
> sleaze
> > > ball lawyer like Robert Hall to sue
> > > anyone/everyone remotely connected to the
> > > incident. And ALWAYS potential defendants
> with
> > > assets. Never mind if they have no legal
> > > liability....sue um all and let the Judge
> sort
> > it
> > > out!
> >
> > Ask your neigbors daughters.
>
> Ask them what? There is no question in your post?
>
>
> Is this Brain Damaged Tuesday on FXU? I have never
> seen so many inane and absurd posts in a single
> day.

Feeling guilty? Don't go off half-cocked.
Sorry,forgot that's a preexisting condition with you.
Explains a lot.

Black Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> Feeling guilty? Don't go off half-cocked.
> Sorry,forgot that's a preexisting condition with
> you.
> Explains a lot.

You know, if you want to mix it up with me, why dont you just start your own thread instead of fucking up everyone else's legit posts with your obsessed stalker troll posts?

Tech has been a gun-free campus for decades. Therefore, they are not liable for anything, per lib logic, and no way could there ever be a shooting, much less a massacre. Just ban guns, and you'll be safe! Chicago banned guns and hasn't had any crime since. Haha - moronic lib thinking!

DC- handguns illegal

Tell that to the negro pointing one in your face asking for your ATM card and cash.

Mayor of Greenbriar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Economist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mayor of Greenbriar Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Hello Strawman, how are you? You're arguing
> > that
> > > every public building in America be armed
> with
> > > police and/or security with machine guns?
> > >
> > > Any Strawman that you build, I can build
> > better.
> >
> > You seem pretty shallow minded. How about
> security
> > guards? Think about it...
> >
> > 1). Less (Civilian) casualties
> > 2). More jobs for the young and old (as well as
> > in-between)
> > 3). Less people on government assisted services
> > (Welfare/Food Stamps)
> > 4). Better training (most security companies
> have
> > extensive training programs these days
> post-911).
> >
> >
> > I see nothing but a "Win-win" here and you said
> it
> > yourself these incidents are going to happen
> > anywhere right?
>
> Being so shallow minded, I'm going to need you to
> explain more precisely how it is that I'm shallow
> minded? Did you really understand what I meant by
> my post? Do you know what a strawman is?
>
> But to take you seriously, I'm not sure that it
> would be feasible to put an armed security guard
> in every building of every public institution in
> America. Virginia Tech has roughly 100 buildings
> with probably 500 plus entrances. Do you put an
> armed guard at each entrance? Medal detector? Is
> the public simply willing to absorb the extra
> costs (taxes) that would be required to pay these
> armed security guards watching over them? People
> love TSA, perhaps that should be the government
> agency utilized to oversee our security in each
> building. You must be an economist, you're really
> on to something. Kudos.

It's Metal Detector, not "medal" and yes, the reality of our country today is that violence can and will strike anywhere. Now you can be a pussy and say, "Oh well, there's nothing we can do about it" or be a man and install REAL security. That means jobs, doens't have to be government security. Some government installations hire private security firms too. For VA Tech, the campus is too vast to build a perimeter fence, so your best bet is guards at each building and yes metal detectors. Not 100% effective, but a good deterrent. More security = more jobs to, so yes it would be good for the economy.

Va Tech does not need security guards. They have a policy of No Guns on Campus. What about this do you fucking Libs not understand? No guns means perfect safety - you've told everyone this a million times!

No Security Guards Needed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Va Tech does not need security guards. They have a
> policy of No Guns on Campus. What about this do
> you fucking Libs not understand? No guns means
> perfect safety - you've told everyone this a
> million times!

LOL!

Economist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It's Metal Detector, not "medal" and yes, the
> reality of our country today is that violence can
> and will strike anywhere. Now you can be a pussy
> and say, "Oh well, there's nothing we can do about
> it" or be a man and install REAL security. That
> means jobs, doens't have to be government
> security. Some government installations hire
> private security firms too. For VA Tech, the
> campus is too vast to build a perimeter fence, so
> your best bet is guards at each building and yes
> metal detectors. Not 100% effective, but a good
> deterrent. More security = more jobs to, so yes it
> would be good for the economy.


No thats not the reality of our country at all. Its no different than in the past, the only difference is the news covers it 24/7 now so you get the impression its common. The real reality is the overwhelming majority of violence is confined to areas in inner cities.

Turning the country into a prison like atmosphere or a Nazi reconstruction of armed forces everywhere is not a solution. Why dont we really make people safe and go all out and have the military escort every one to their designated spots in hand cuffs to make sure no violence ever occurs?

Just for the fun of it where exactly do you think that magical money to pay for your armed security and metal detectors for every single building will come from?

Liberal Logic 23 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Economist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > It's Metal Detector, not "medal" and yes, the
> > reality of our country today is that violence
> can
> > and will strike anywhere. Now you can be a
> pussy
> > and say, "Oh well, there's nothing we can do
> about
> > it" or be a man and install REAL security. That
> > means jobs, doens't have to be government
> > security. Some government installations hire
> > private security firms too. For VA Tech, the
> > campus is too vast to build a perimeter fence,
> so
> > your best bet is guards at each building and
> yes
> > metal detectors. Not 100% effective, but a good
> > deterrent. More security = more jobs to, so yes
> it
> > would be good for the economy.
>
>
> No thats not the reality of our country at all.
> Its no different than in the past, the only
> difference is the news covers it 24/7 now so you
> get the impression its common. The real reality
> is the overwhelming majority of violence is
> confined to areas in inner cities.
>
> Turning the country into a prison like atmosphere
> or a Nazi reconstruction of armed forces
> everywhere is not a solution. Why dont we really
> make people safe and go all out and have the
> military escort every one to their designated
> spots in hand cuffs to make sure no violence ever
> occurs?
>
> Just for the fun of it where exactly do you think
> that magical money to pay for your armed security
> and metal detectors for every single building will
> come from?

You're notion is ridiculous about turning the country into a "prison". Violent crimes have spread everywhere now. You can have security, without having armed guards everywhere. You've been watching too many movies. Security guard, desk, electronic card locks, etc. all can serve as a deterrent and they are not very expensive.

Well VA had surplus this year, post security in publicly owned school campuses. Most public buildings such as the courthouse, etc. already have security in place. For privately owned campuses, take it out of tuition to cover it. Most campuses already have campus police, etc. that due foot and vehicle patrols which are not very effectivt on a "large" campus. Metal detectors aren't very expensive, and training on them is easy. Keep in mind, there are also the hand-held ones as well.

Economist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You're notion is ridiculous about turning the
> country into a "prison". Violent crimes have
> spread everywhere now. You can have security,
> without having armed guards everywhere. You've
> been watching too many movies. Security guard,
> desk, electronic card locks, etc. all can serve as
> a deterrent and they are not very expensive.

The only thing thats ridiculous is your notion of violent crime.

Its interesting you think that it happens everywhere yet study after study after study of crime and location shows its highly concentrated to hot spots. Something like 3-5 percent of addresses are responsible for 90+ percent of police responses. Might want to start with some studies before making those claims, Braga has done a number of them and would be a good place to start.

Its also interesting you think its out of control yet statistics show its on the decline and is a fraction of the size it was in the 1990s.

Unarmed guards to stop gunmen who want to kill people..........might want to rethink that one.

> Well VA had surplus this year, post security in
> publicly owned school campuses. Most public
> buildings such as the courthouse, etc. already
> have security in place. For privately owned
> campuses, take it out of tuition to cover it. Most
> campuses already have campus police, etc. that due
> foot and vehicle patrols which are not very
> effectivt on a "large" campus. Metal detectors
> aren't very expensive, and training on them is
> easy. Keep in mind, there are also the hand-held
> ones as well.


College is expensive enough without adding millions of worthless cost for every building to have unarmed guards that wont do a single thing.

None of your measures would have stopped the VT shooting. His student card would have still worked to unlock doors, unarmed guards dont stop gunmen, and metal detectors only work when theres guns near by to enforce them.

Not to mention you want to do all of this because of an epidemic that doesnt exist. Theres at least 20l+ (probably closer to 100k for all schools) schools/universities in the country that go every year without a single shooting. School shootings are nothing new, the only difference now is that the news covers them for a month or more 24/7 giving the appearance of them being common.

Supreme Court denies rehearing on Va. Tech lawsuits
Reston attorney to launch public website documenting the case
http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/article/20140123/NEWS/140129630/1064/supreme-court-denies-rehearing-on-va-tech-lawsuits&template=fairfaxTimes

On Tuesday, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that it will not rehear the case of a pair of wrongful death lawsuits originally filed in Fairfax County Circuit Court on behalf of a Centreville family whose daughter was killed during the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre.

The lawsuits alleged that the university — and by proxy the Commonwealth — mishandled the campus shooting massacre, which is considered the worst in American history.

Celeste and Grafton Peterson, along with Harry and Karen Pryde of New Jersey, filed the original lawsuits in 2009.

The Peterson’s daughter, Erin — a 2006 graduate of Westfield High School — was one of the 32 people killed by fellow Westfield graduate Seung-Hui Cho in the rampage.

After four years of going through the lower courts, both sides filed formal notices of appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court. In a joint statement that accompanied the initial suits, the families wrote: “It appears university officials delayed warning students and faculty that a gunman who had killed two students was at large and might still be on campus in order to manage ‘the message in the way least harmful to the university’s image.’”

Robert Hall, a Reston attorney who represented the Petersons, said university administrators knew at 7:15 a.m. on the day of the massacre that two students had been shot — one fatally — in West Ambler Johnston Hall, but a warning did not go out until more than two hours later, at 9:26 a.m.

The case was originally heard in March 2011 in Christiansburg, where a jury sided with the plaintiffs and found the school negligent. The jury awarded $4 million each to the Peterson and Pryde families, but the Commonwealth immediately filed a motion to have those awards reduced.

In October, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the school was not negligent and overturned the lower court’s earlier ruling that it had been. The families immediately petitioned the Supreme Court to consider rehearing the case, but on Tuesday, the court replied that it would not.

“Sadly, this is the end of the case within the state court system,” said Hall. “We gave the Court a chance to correct their earlier error and they failed to do so, so that’s it. There will not be an appeal to the U.S Supreme Court.”

But Hall said there is still one court to which he and the Petersons will appeal.

“There’s only one court left,” he said. “That is the court of public opinion.”

According to Hall, a website detailing his team’s version of how the massacre was mishandled will go live next week. It will include links to thousands of documents and trial record transcripts that Hall said will paint quite a different picture than that of the official Supreme Court ruling, which he says in his opinion was based on “a fiction floated by the university to deflect attention away from its failure to warn the campus.”

Officials from both the Commonwealth and Virginia Tech said they were pleased with the court’s final decision.

“The Virginia Supreme Court has found what we have said all along to be true,” said Brian Gottstein, a spokesman for Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. “The Commonwealth and its officials at Virginia Tech were not negligent on April 16, 2007. Cho was the lone person responsible for this tragedy.” In a statement, Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker said that university officials were also pleased with the Court’s ruling.

“Our website, www.in-memoriam-erin-and-julie.com, will let the public decide for themselves,” Hall said.

Knower of Things Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^ Anonymous Cuccinelli post.

If someone broke into your house and started shooting people, should you as the homeowner be liable? A great many of us would say no. A similar principle applies in this case.

It is a tragedy and someone should be held responsible. However the person who is responsible is dead and has little in the way of financial assets to compensate the injured.

If security was heightened at Vtech everyone would be bitchin about the over zealous guards who patted down their friends.... Or the increase in drug arrests etc... Can't have it both ways. The cost of living in a free society is that in order to protect privacy and freedom you accept some degree of risk. We always look to blame somebody or something... That crazy fuck would have probably done that at whatever school he ended up at... It had nothing to do with Vtech... The alternative would be to set up tsa like check points all over campus. That family should have settled and should stop wasting the state's time and resources on something that no one could've reasonably been expected to prevent.

to sue en masse the gov or agents have to have taken illegal actions that they knew would likely cause a suicide and or shooting.

to sue a USA office, the papers of the office must be flawed: the policy, rather than the agent. ie, a bill hillary passed that is clearly illegal and incomprehensible as to law or spending.

to sue the agents en masse, they must (mostly) be following their own scripted policy by their own regime that would knowingly be cruel to such an effect

otherwise the suit MUST be against the agents.

-----------------------------
from what i hear he was troubled and did receive a little help.

however they didn't help him as far as funding or responsibilty of grades

i hear maybe some information that could have been passed up the chain wasn't.

however if they knew to pass the info up it could only have been for need of permission to act: otherwise they should have acted if not needing permission

i've spoken to a person who later committed suicide. does that make me partly at fault? i did what i could for misery and had no idea.

------------------------------------
the old law sayd $10000 limit for death if liable, for burial etc. otherwise people end up dead for the "reward" is the problem and reason and the dead do not benefit and the living were not harmed

now for those injured and living i really hope they are helped. not made rich. but helped.

----------------------------------
way too much big court spending on trials has gone on. total rip-off to taxpayer

and until the ?2000's they were doing million dollar suits over small things which would go to political families. that was made illegal yet is still likely done at places

-----------------------------------
their is a $1,000,000 suit i can think of and that's a guy who went to prison aged and injured 20 years for a crime he didn't commit because of an officer and prosecutor in bed who did convictions to get pay raises.

these kinds of people totoally terrorized by gov deserve en masse suits to punish gov officials and workers who are so cruel and uncareful.

======================
anyone left injured from a act another did, by law, needs to be taken care of by injurers and or town as can be. penalty, if any, depends upon act (ie, if it should have been known to be avoided or was done carelessly for profit, etc, are considerations of penalty. care of the injured by others they have no legal ties with: that should be assumed).

McCarthee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> to sue en masse the gov or agents have to have
> taken illegal actions that they knew would likely
> cause a suicide and or shooting.
>
> to sue a USA office, the papers of the office must
> be flawed: the policy, rather than the agent. ie,
> a bill hillary passed that is clearly illegal and
> incomprehensible as to law or spending.
>
> to sue the agents en masse, they must (mostly) be
> following their own scripted policy by their own
> regime that would knowingly be cruel to such an
> effect
>
> otherwise the suit MUST be against the agents.
>
> -----------------------------
> from what i hear he was troubled and did receive a
> little help.
>
> however they didn't help him as far as funding or
> responsibilty of grades
>
> i hear maybe some information that could have been
> passed up the chain wasn't.
>
> however if they knew to pass the info up it could
> only have been for need of permission to act:
> otherwise they should have acted if not needing
> permission
>
> i've spoken to a person who later committed
> suicide. does that make me partly at fault? i
> did what i could for misery and had no idea.
>
> ------------------------------------
> the old law sayd $10000 limit for death if liable,
> for burial etc. otherwise people end up dead for
> the "reward" is the problem and reason and the
> dead do not benefit and the living were not
> harmed
>
> now for those injured and living i really hope
> they are helped. not made rich. but helped.
>
> ----------------------------------
> way too much big court spending on trials has gone
> on. total rip-off to taxpayer
>
> and until the ?2000's they were doing million
> dollar suits over small things which would go to
> political families. that was made illegal yet is
> still likely done at places
>
> -----------------------------------
> their is a $1,000,000 suit i can think of and
> that's a guy who went to prison aged and injured
> 20 years for a crime he didn't commit because of
> an officer and prosecutor in bed who did
> convictions to get pay raises.
>
> these kinds of people totoally terrorized by gov
> deserve en masse suits to punish gov officials and
> workers who are so cruel and uncareful.
>
> ======================
> anyone left injured from a act another did, by
> law, needs to be taken care of by injurers and or
> town as can be. penalty, if any, depends upon act
> (ie, if it should have been known to be avoided or
> was done carelessly for profit, etc, are
> considerations of penalty. care of the injured by
> others they have no legal ties with: that should
> be assumed).

Uh, what?

In any tragedy, lawyers always go after whoever has the most money. No point in suing the perp's family, as they don't have enough to make it worth going after. No, these families want big $$$ from Va Tech to fund the new mansion and Porsche that will help them get over the grieving.

i accused democrats of ousting a governor illegally

i accused democrats of holding a false election, failing to inform republicans, thus it was a cou de ta not an election. throw them in jail.

===============================
so make something of it

tell me ONE THING bob did that was illegal

if being rich is illegal obama is in jail. if giving grants is illegal obama is double in jail

------------------------
start power did not get a grant. that's not even in the claim.

there's not a sing complaint in the claim except that bob lived well off of republican gifts

(i don't like that. but the law is that polititians do not have a standard of living cap of their own pay. simply is not the law.)

Sok Mai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In any tragedy, lawyers always go after whoever
> has the most money. No point in suing the perp's
> family, as they don't have enough to make it worth
> going after. No, these families want big $$$ from
> Va Tech to fund the new mansion and Porsche that
> will help them get over the grieving.

You're an idiot, if I had a kid going to a college where they had zero security measures and my kid died as a result, then yes I would sue them into the ground. WTF DO YOU THINK WE'RE PAYING FOR WITH THOSE HUGE COLLEGE TUITIONS FUCKTARD!?!