posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 08:59 AM
Having now read the article, and having heard about it, the following can be stated:
My general feelings on such an action is: This is a lawyer who is trying to make a name for himself and ultimately it should not go forward as a
lawsuit, here is the reason why:
Schoolzones, we see them, some have been to them, take a good look. They are suppose to be the free zones, more specifically: Drug, tobacco, cell
phone and gun free zones. Now as that has been posted, what more can be done to protect the children? In some cases metal detectors are put in,
schools resemble prisons and yet incidents happen.
Yet one would ask, does this child not watch TV or the movies? After all I was watching TV, and it had gun shots on it, people got killed, people
were screaming, and dieing, and in some movies there is cursing. It is in all of the popular media. So what is the difference between hearing it and
say watching it on the screen? Can you not go onto the internet or even watch, say some of the movies such as Saving Private Ryan, or even watch some
of the military programs or even history programs that show such?
While I do believe that the children of this school are affected in a very bad way and I do believe that the state has a responsibility to give them
help, such as giving them help that they will need to get past this, it should not be held fully liable for the actions of one nutcase.
Personally I think that the suvivors of this, should sue, but not the state, not the school, but the lawyers who decide to take this as an opportunity
to make a name for themselves.