WaGuns.org

hkcavalier wrote:

kf7mjf wrote:Except their hot coffee was dangerously hot. That woman had 2nd and 3rd degree burns on her labia that fused skin together. One can reasonably expect hot coffee, perhaps even somewhat overly hot coffee. Not vagina fusing hot coffee though.

So - you are saying McDonalds gave her a free vagina tightening procedure, and she sued them for it ?

What a topsy turvey world we live in.

kf7mjf wrote:Except their hot coffee was dangerously hot. That woman had 2nd and 3rd degree burns on her labia that fused skin together. One can reasonably expect hot coffee, perhaps even somewhat overly hot coffee. Not vagina fusing hot coffee though.

It has always bothered me that this case is the go to lawsuit joke. That woman was handed 180 degree coffee in a styrofoam cup. When she placed it between her legs so she could pay, the cup collapsed. Turns out styrofoam is no stable at 180 degrees. Hopefully folks will learn the truth and find a better scapegoat.

ANZAC wrote:

beckdw wrote:I read that he purchased the weapon at Cabelas, which means 594 has no bearing on this. 594 would not have stopped this because it was purchased from a dealer not an individual.

Careful, facts are ruining the peanut gallery's entertainment.

594 was a useless piece of feel good do nothing legislation with absolutely no bearing on the subject it supposedly addressed.

It resulted in nothing but another layer of regulatory bullshit that impacts law abiding gun owners only.

Federal and state law had everything else covered prior to 594. except for the lack of policing existing law, and prosecution of individuals who broke same laws.

Peanut gallery that, kangaroo boy.

Civil suit filed:
http://komonews.com/news/local/families ... le-lawsuit

I wonder why they didn't sue the tribal police for failing to let the county/state know about the restraining order which would have prevented the father passing a background check...?

ANZAC wrote:Civil suit filed:
http://komonews.com/news/local/families ... le-lawsuit

I wonder why they didn't sue the tribal police for failing to let the county/state know about the restraining order which would have prevented the father passing a background check...?

Political.

ANZAC wrote:Civil suit filed:
http://komonews.com/news/local/families ... le-lawsuit

I wonder why they didn't sue the tribal police for failing to let the county/state know about the restraining order which would have prevented the father passing a background check...?

The reason that they didn't sue the tribal police is simple to understand. The plaintiff's are all tribal members and to win that would mean their 'brothers' would get less money in their per-capita distribution every year.

Better to sue the "White Man's School, etc". What ever happened to the concept that the Native American Tribes would all be free to live in this country as equal citizens after they got their asses kicked in a series of wars? That seems to be a part of all the treaties the "tribes" don't want anyone to read.

the lawsuit . . . claims that school officials could have prevented the shooting.

And . . . how, exactly? Strip searches at the door? Metal detectors? Snipers in the cafeteria?

MadPick wrote:

the lawsuit . . . claims that school officials could have prevented the shooting.

And . . . how, exactly? Strip searches at the door? Metal detectors? Snipers in the cafeteria?

I read that a sub-teacher had been told about it, and did nothing about it.

golddigger14s wrote:I read that a sub-teacher had been told about it, and did nothing about it.

Yeah that did come out in the investigation I believe.

Also possible that LE has some kind of immunity in the RCW too.

MadPick wrote:

the lawsuit . . . claims that school officials could have prevented the shooting.

And . . . how, exactly? Strip searches at the door? Metal detectors? Snipers in the cafeteria?

No need to go that far. School District's just need to get their collective heads out of their asses.

Marysville school district, and others I assume, have a real neat policy. If a student is a problem student in one school and transfers to another school, the teachers and principals are FORBIDDEN to pass on any disciplinary records or have any conversation regarding the student's behavior with the "new school's" teachers and staff.

Reason? "We don't want to stigmatize these students in any way".

Forbidden even if a student makes threats before transferring. Great, now the "new school" in the same district doesn't even know that they have a potential problem arriving at their school.

Have a daughter that works in the district and she's shared this policy several times. In her school they get to find out all on their own. FWIW, there were a lot more signs of trouble with the MPHS shooter that were known far before the actual shooting. The "we don't want to brand these kids" mentality ruled over common sense. Anyone that DIDN'T see this coming truly had their head up their ass. The only one who spoke up, the substitute teacher, was dismissed by everyone as a whack-job but was he?

Not sure what district your daughter works in, but in BSD #405, if a student is transferred in-district solely for disciplinary reasons, those disciplinary reasons are shared with the school. "Stigmatizing" the student is not something that comes into play. Bellevue does not, to my knowledge, do out-of-district transfers for disciplinary reasons alone.

Bellevue works very hard to keep students, students that other districts might lack the resources to handle, in their home school and engaged in the educational process, even if that means assigning a school resource officer (commissioned, armed BPD officer) to monitor the student on a daily basis. The BSD had fully armed SRO's and a district-wide "run, hide, fight" active shooter policy in place well in advance of Sandy Hook and Mt. Pilchuck.

The reasoning behind keeping a troubled or otherwise difficult student in school is fairly simple: Expel a student and you lose control and lose track of that student. Keep them in school and you keep at least some measure of control over that student and are able to keep track of that student and his or her issues.

As to Mt. Pilchuck and the civil lawsuit, yes, if a district employee was even tangentially aware of the plans of the shooter prior to the incident occurring, then yes, the district is liable for failing to take measures to prevent that student from fulfilling his plans. It doesn't matter if it was a janitor or a staff teacher or a substitute--that individual had a state-mandated duty to report to the school principal and the school SRO any information regarding any potential threat of harm to any student(s) or staff member(s). It is not left to the individual employee to decide whether or not information is reportable; they are required by state law to give the information to the highest-level administrator in the building, who then reviews the information with the school SRO and with outside sources, if necessary.

I don't know if this was/is true at Marysville-Mt. Pilchuck, but for at least the last five years, maybe more, the BSD has had right on the home page a "Report" button--anyone, from anywhere, can anonymously report a threat to any given individual student, group of students, teacher, group of teachers, or school. The BSD also has a Facebook page with the same feature.

Obviously, this has resulted in some false allegations, but it is my understanding--I've never used the feature and hope that I never have to use it--that making a false allegation of a threat is a criminal offence.

glockgirl wrote:Not sure what district your daughter works in,

She works in the Marysville School District and from what I've learned it's a district with some serious management problems.

There were more people than just the substitute teacher that were aware of the shooter's problems and they knew long before the incident.

The district is loaded with "we don't want to do anything that might get us sued" decision makers. Look how that worked out in this case. Couple that with a "we have to kiss the Tulalip Tribe's ass" mentality and it's a disaster that just doesn't make the news until someone gets killed.

Gun free zones like schools that force all the good adults at the school to be publicly defenseless, which means our kids are defenseless, should be held financially and even criminally liable when something like this happens. Schools that arm their staff en masse don't have mass shootings, the stats prove that.

Logistically, lots of armed teachers and admins might or might not have been able to stop this shooting, however, we know from experience that the mentality of people who plan to commit these crimes the way this kid did are generally cowardly and look for places to accomplish the crime with the least resistance possible. Arming the staff at this school and letting Jaylen and every other student know they were armed could have been a deterrent to Jaylen so he would either not have done this out of fear he might not accomplish it, or at least deterred him enough to do this elsewhere where there would have been less damage.

Alpine wrote:Gun free zones like schools that force all the good adults at the school to be publicly defenseless, which means our kids are defenseless, should be held financially and even criminally liable when something like this happens. Schools that arm their staff en masse don't have mass shootings, the stats prove that.

Logistically, lots of armed teachers and admins might or might not have been able to stop this shooting, however, we know from experience that the mentality of people who plan to commit these crimes the way this kid did are generally cowardly and look for places to accomplish the crime with the least resistance possible. Arming the staff at this school and letting Jaylen and every other student know they were armed could have been a deterrent to Jaylen so he would either not have done this out of fear he might not accomplish it, or at least deterred him enough to do this elsewhere where there would have been less damage.

Not so sure there are schools out there that arm their staff "en masse". I agree that the presence of armed adults might well at least limit school shootings and the body count. Letting the public know that Schools are no longer gun free zones, aka victim zones, would also go a long way to making nut cases choose other venues to carry out their sprees.

A word of caution though, do you really advocate arming ALL school staff? Allowing ALL parents to carry firearms on school grounds? Allowing ALL adult students in Colleges and Universities to carry firearms? Can you imagine the amount of lead that might end up flying when these untrained, and unqualified individuals open fire because they "thought" someone was a threat?

Wouldn't happen you say? Apparently you haven't read the news stories about Police Officers in New York and elsewhere that have shot up the scene, sometimes killing one of their own.

Universal armament is an idea, just not a good one. To properly do so would require hours and hours of training and proficiency testing. Can you imagine the cost?

Come up with a viable alternative and it MIGHT happen but I doubt it will anytime soon.

deadshot2 wrote:

Alpine wrote:Gun free zones like schools that force all the good adults at the school to be publicly defenseless, which means our kids are defenseless, should be held financially and even criminally liable when something like this happens. Schools that arm their staff en masse don't have mass shootings, the stats prove that.

Logistically, lots of armed teachers and admins might or might not have been able to stop this shooting, however, we know from experience that the mentality of people who plan to commit these crimes the way this kid did are generally cowardly and look for places to accomplish the crime with the least resistance possible. Arming the staff at this school and letting Jaylen and every other student know they were armed could have been a deterrent to Jaylen so he would either not have done this out of fear he might not accomplish it, or at least deterred him enough to do this elsewhere where there would have been less damage.

Not so sure there are schools out there that arm their staff "en masse". I agree that the presence of armed adults might well at least limit school shootings and the body count. Letting the public know that Schools are no longer gun free zones, aka victim zones, would also go a long way to making nut cases choose other venues to carry out their sprees.

A word of caution though, do you really advocate arming ALL school staff? Allowing ALL parents to carry firearms on school grounds? Allowing ALL adult students in Colleges and Universities to carry firearms? Can you imagine the amount of lead that might end up flying when these untrained, and unqualified individuals open fire because they "thought" someone was a threat?

Wouldn't happen you say? Apparently you haven't read the news stories about Police Officers in New York and elsewhere that have shot up the scene, sometimes killing one of their own.

Universal armament is an idea, just not a good one. To properly do so would require hours and hours of training and proficiency testing. Can you imagine the cost?

Come up with a viable alternative and it MIGHT happen but I doubt it will anytime soon.

Don't necessarily force all teachers and staff to be armed, just allow any that are eligible to do so with training, and let it be known that any and/or all staff at the school MIGHT be armed, the way the Toppenish school district in WA and thousands of other school districts (especially in the midwest) are doing it now.

As to the supposed risks, we have thousands of school districts that are allowing staff to be armed now, please, show me ONE incident of this dreaded confused crossfire actually occurring. One. At a school.