Posted on 03/24/2008 7:35:36 PM PDT by BGHater
State reportedly offers $100,000 to forestall lawsuits over massacre
RICHMOND, Va. - Families of those killed in the Virginia Tech massacre would receive $100,000 each under a settlement the state is proposing to prevent lawsuits, according to a victim's relative who received a copy of the proposal.
Medical and counseling expenses would be provided to the families of the 32 killed and dozens of surviving victims, said the person, who asked Monday to remain anonymous because those involved were told not to discuss the settlement.
Families would also have the opportunity to question the governor and university officials about the shootings, according to the family member.
Families were asked to say by March 31 whether they were comfortable with the proposal. If they agree, they cannot sue the state government, including Virginia Tech.
Seung-Hui Cho, a mentally disturbed student, killed the 32 victims and wounded several others at Virginia Tech on April 16 before committing suicide.
The proposal would require all families to agree and says the state can withdraw the proposal if not enough parties do, the family member said. Other relatives of victims declined to talk to The Associated Press.
A parent whose daughter was killed in the shooting told WRC-TV in Washington that they had received word of the settlement offer, but gave no indication if they would accept the deal.
In addition to the $100,000 payments to each of the families of those killed, another $800,000 would be reserved for the injured, with a maximum of $100,000 to any person.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Why is the state paying? It was teh campuses “No weapons” policy that left the students unable to defend themselves.
Rich New York families of 9/11 victims received huge sums while the Oklahoma bombing victims were treated quite differently.
if the loss of life won’t move them, perhaps the costliness of “gun free zones” will force them to reconsider.
It’s a state run college, right?
Nod.
On what grounds could there be a lawsuit here?
Other than in the world of John Edwards, “shit happens” isn’t grounds for a lawsuit.
That's a deal killer.
Tech is being cheap.
Yes.
Who owns, funds, and runs the campus?
Good Lord, the only answer a reasonable court could give is violation of the Second Amendment. Other than that a suicidal idiot on the loose is the guilty party.
They’ll never make the connection.
I think they will, when it is shown to take money out of their pockets; when perhaps it can be shown that they created an environment of endangerment.
It’s a state school. The Virginia General Assembly authorizes funding. Of course, the school also charges tuition.
The governor appoints the people who are the equivalent of the board of directors. In Virginia, they are called the Board of Visitors.
Probably because lawyers happen.
It is nice to hope.
However, they’ll turn it around and blame it on American’s easy access to firearms.
The Gov’t will now pick winners and losers for us.
Oklahoma City got nothing, but we are just hicks.
Yes, I knew it was a state school. I was trying to get the other poster to think. It’s called the Socratic method, and it has unfortunately fallen into disuse in higher education.
Most of these students would have made this much in a few years after graduating. Don’t take it, unless they also pass a state law that people that are licenced can carry concealed anywhere. No restrictions.
Yall can sue for your rights, too.
Workers affected by the 1993 bombing got a mug that said “Welcome Back to the World Trade Center” and a free book on post-traumatic stress disorder. That was back in the day when being a victim didn’t mean you were entitled to be enriched by the other taxpayers.
The university is at fault because it - contrary to Virgina law - made its campus an “unarmed victim zone”.
I wouldn’t settle for the 100k. I’d go for $100 mil, to be first taken out of the personal assets of the idiots who put that illegal policy into place on campus.
The Virginia taxpayer shouldn’t be on the hook for this. If the law had been followed the shooter would not have had the opportunity to cause such widespread destruction.
This is way too low. Families of the World Trade Center got $3 million. Absolute fact. All tax payer printed money. All signed liability releases.
And, as such, ultimately the folks in Richmond are liable to pay. But, $100K is so small that it's insulting. And, the irony is that many of the families of the victims are Virginia residents and taxpayers...who are already footing the bill (through taxes) for Richmond's mistakes.
The taxpayers are going to be footing the bill, but they deserve it for having elected the liberals. Suggestion - take the money out of the welfare budgets - liberals created the problem, let the liberals pay.
Many of those victims were mid-career or later. Given the younger age of most of the VPI victims, $4 million would probably be a fair number for the state to proffer. But yes, $100,000 and a one week deadline should be viewed as an insult.
Didn't they vote for the bums who said it was ok to have a "gun free" campus?!
Not necessarily.
Not all of us vote for liberals, but all of us pay for the damage caused by liberal stupidity.
What do you mean easy. The school is not at fault nor is the State. This is the stupidity of our country. This law suit will be used as another means to get rid of firearms. They cost the taxpayers money. I know it is stupid but we as a people are nuts.
The idea that the world trade center deaths should be compensated is also nuts. It was an act of war. Why should the taxpayers pay. Charity yes. Lawsuit protection stupid. Law suit stupid. I am still angry about it.
We who work our collective @$$e$ off to elect responsible conservatives invite you to kiss said collective @$$e$.
That said, there was a great deal of criticism about how VT and the surrounding authorities handled the situation. (lack of notice, etc.). So that's where the thought of a lawsuit comes in. Still, because of their nature, many of these entities are likely immune to the lawsuits.
This gesture will hopefully settle the matter without huge court costs. And it will allow VT to move forward.
This amount of money feels much too low to me, but that being said, I didn't have a child there. My gut also tells me that if my child had been a victim NO amount of money would be enough. Personally, I'd trade a million dollars for the right for other kids to carry... but that's me.
I agree with you though, the state and university need to move forward, hopefully with more wisdom than before.
Two years ago the state had the opportunity to fix the Va Tech “no guns” policy and end restrictions on permitted students and faculty being able to carry on campus, but they kow-towed to the Va Tech Board of Regents and killed the legislation. In my not so humble opinion they share responsibility for enabling Cho’s killing spree.
The government provided a compensation fund because it didn't want a lawsuit against the airlines that would have shown the airlines' and the government's security procedures to be a joke. There are often reasons other than the legal merits of a case as to why someone might want to settle.
And, by the way, if the airlines were negligent in their security procedures, I don't see what's wrong with a lawsuit at all.
Really. The airlines were supposed to do what exactly to keep box cutter out.
Really they are guilty of what. I just do not agree with you. Those responsible are the terrorists and the terrorists ONLY.. Good Grief. You must be a lawyer.
Really. The airlines were supposed to do what exactly to keep box cutter out.
Really they are guilty of what. I just do not agree with you. Those responsible are the terrorists and the terrorists ONLY.. Good Grief. You must be a lawyer.
Box cutters have metal blades. Seems like a metal detector would work pretty well. Seeing as how we keep box cutters off planes now, I would suppose that our current procedures would have been fairly, but not perfectly, adequate in keeping box cutters off planes.
Moreover, the purpose of airline security is not to *really* keep stuff off planes, but to give travelers the perception that flying is safe. It's really bad for business if the consuming public doesn't believe your product to be safe, regardless of whether it is, in fact, safe. So in order to give consumers the perception that a particular flight is safe from hijackers, airlines have instituted really elaborate safety procedures that are terribly burdensome even thought they are not particularly effective. Everyone complains about these procedures, but if the airlines took away all these checkpoints, the public would be jumping up and down about how the airlines aren't keeping the fliers safe.
Because of this, no one, including the government, wanted a long, public trial that exposed airline security as inadequate, so it bought off the victims. Fine. Everyone goes home happy. We still have several viable airline companies to shuttle folks around the country and the 9/11 victims get a few bucks for their trouble.
Your attitude is part of the problem is this country. Do you have no Shame? You obviously have no principles.
Yeah, well, here's my principle to live by: I believe that when the negligence of someone causes injury to another, then the tortfeasor should compensate the victim. That rule even applies when there's really, really big instances of negligence.
Sort of like when, say, an airline allows its plane to be hijacked and flown into a building. If the government is part of the problem, it should pay, too.
Well as I said THERE YOU HAVE IT. I suppose you would sue God if possible. Wonder if those at Pearl Harbor should have sued. If we sue each other enough maybe we can stop all WAR. Yep.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.