It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


First legal action to come out of CT Tragedy

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 01:21 PM
It's absurd!...That being said, I do welcome even the most absurd lawsuits on this, because, well, 100 million dollars is a HUGE incentive to dig in and get some facts out about this that otherwise will be covered up. An attorney with that kind of incentive will get information subpenaed and hopefully expose the real culprits. It can be kind of an end run around the barricades, if you will.

Here is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
edit on 29-12-2012 by wirefly because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 01:40 PM
Really good point Fly.....

The lawyers look like some kind of ambulance chasers maybe ....but might make trial....
The 100 million is courtroom bluster and i think theyll prefer to settle out of court and even be happy to sign a gag order....wouldnt be suprised if they jump on 1% of the suit......
Whatever they get, there will be an army of parents from both camps following their footsteps...
Its the American way dont ya know?

posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:41 PM
reply to post by Jusvistn

The entire school has been traumatized. Lets get real here.

posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:48 PM
reply to post by dc4lifeskater

These are little kids. They can get traumatized watching the wrong types of tv shows or movies so this horror that they all had to live through will certainly traumatize them. Someone is not utilizing critical thinking here. These are babies for all intents and purposes. They take everything in. I dont know about sueing the school and they cant get anything out of the Lanza family so whats the point. Is this a weatlhy neighborhood that the school could afford this suit?

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 04:01 AM
And the vultures start... I view lawyers and bankers as equally loathsome in their disposition.

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 04:27 AM

Originally posted by dc4lifeskater
when do we ban lawyers? they are more dangerous then guns...

Let's start with the lawyer in the White House!

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 07:50 AM

Originally posted by karen61560
reply to post by Jusvistn

The entire school has been traumatized. Lets get real here.

Sure they have. Unless the kid was going on to be a global financial powerhouse like Warren Buffet et al, though, her psychological trauma is not worth 100 million dollars.

In any case, any kids in that school who were going on to be majorly successful, probably still will. Adversity doesn't tend to stop people who will achieve some kind of greatness. I would say the money given to the surviving parents should be enough to cost regular psych visits and that's it.

Despicable that parents ought to exploit the circumstances here.

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 08:32 AM
reply to post by The Old American

What's to say the parents don't believe the OS either and are suing to get the facts in the only way they can?
If I were a parent I would be very unhappy with the details as reported given all the contradictions and outright lies.

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 08:46 AM

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Maybe we'll all get to learn the facts about what really happened.
We learned a bit about OJ that way.

This was my thought also.

The parents that take legal action may in the end shine some truth on what really happened, and may expose what I have always seen as glaring hypocrisy in that gun free zones are invitations to those inclined to killing sprees, no matter their motive.

Why are the children in high priced private schools allowed armed guard protection and those in public schools not?

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 08:53 AM
I seem to be the only person here who is interested in the angle that J. Paul Vance, Jr. is the one determining whether or not this or any other suit can go forward.

You have his father being the one who is withholding and controlling the facts of the case, J.Paul Vance
of the Conn State Police.

We'll see how that works out. I still contend that the case is mere window dressing and will duly be dismissed in time before any facts come out.

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.

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 01:37 PM
reply to post by PaperbackWriter

you aren't the only one.
i starred the observation but i won't discuss the potential back-scratching as it should be obvious and without proof, it's just random accusation.
we do know how that's handled here, right ?

btw, i agree with your contention.
i doubt it will see the light of day.

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 01:49 PM
reply to post by Honor93

Well I am glad to hear this. It seems others would also, doesn't it?
It is basically the same as erecting of a strawman in any other context.
In this sense it is a strawcase.
It serves a purpose that in 90 days, given the average news cycle is only two,
will be forgotton in the upcoming events due to culminate evidently between now and March.
edit on 30-12-2012 by PaperbackWriter because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 02:23 PM
reply to post by PaperbackWriter

let's not forget, attempting to direct ppl to view the obvious while it's happening is frowned upon.

once the dismissal or refusal to proceed is issued, then, we can talk about the back-scratching ... why it works that way here i don't know but that's how it is.

not only that but if it is allowed to proceed (not likely), then there will be sooooo much hush, gag and settlement at the speed of light, that most will forget the suit was ever even filed.

and truthfully, i think that is the objective.
to make ppl think that something is being done without actually identifying what that something really is.

it is the core of the propaganda machine.

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 11:32 PM
Who are you gonna sue over this?

People are so sue crazy nowadays there is a competition to find the wackiest warning labels on products put there in response to an accident or to prevent lawsuits.

Among the funniest are:

A snowblower that has "Do not clean roof with snowblower." That one is there because someone tried it

Birthday cake candles warning "Do not use soft wax to plug ears or for insertation into any other bodily cavities." It is so specific, someone must have tried it.

My favorite was a DVD player with the label "Do not use DVD door to catapult a disc across the room."

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 11:16 AM
The attorney who filed the lawsuit is withdrawing it:

Attorney Withdrawing Request To Sue State In Sandy Hook Shootings

A New Haven attorney on Tuesday said that he is withdrawing his request for permission to sue the state for $100 million on behalf of a 6-year-old Sandy Hook Elementary School student who survived the mass shootings last month.

Irving Pinsky said that he withdrew the filing because he received new evidence, though he reserves the right to refile for permission to sue.

"I received the evidence, but I haven't verified it yet," he said, declining to elaborate on what type of evidence it was or when he would reconsider filing.

SOURCE: Courant article

Interesting reason given for withdrawing the lawsuit filing. I wonder what the new unverified evidence is?

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 11:12 AM
reply to post by ikonoklast

I wonder what the new unverified evidence is?
you, my friend, are not the only one

especially unverified, [color=amber]what new evidence could possibly encourage withdrawl of the suit ?
yes, it could potentially lead to modification in the suit filed, i understand that ... however, given this unverified addition is strong enough to prompt withdrawl is intriguing all by itself.

it's not like discovery has occurred and some previously unknown evidence is revealed.
does make one wonder just what is the real story here ??

ETA -- this particular flow of the story makes one wonder even more ...

"She was in her classroom, and over the loudspeaker came the horrific confrontation between the fellow who shot everybody and other people," Pinsky said. "Her friends were killed. That's pretty traumatic."

Reports that Pinsky moved to withdraw his request were well-received by state Attorney General George Jepsen. "I'd be very happy if he does withdraw the claim. ... It's not supported by the facts or the law."
hmmmmm, really ?

edit on 4-1-2013 by Honor93 because: ETA

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 09:51 PM
reply to post by ikonoklast

holy crap....

new evidence...

posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 06:57 AM
I've looked and looked and haven't found what this new evidence could be. Anyone else have any luck tracking this down?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in