Court says State isn't responsible for crime for foster kids

Seattle Times ^ | February 17, 2006 | Peter Lewis

[OnRightOnLeftCoast]

A near-unanimous state Supreme Court has swept aside an $8.3 million civil judgment against the state for the vicious beating in 1999 of a Somali refugee by a group of teenagers living in a West Seattle foster home.

[coloradan]

Nice. They're wards of The State, except when they aren't.

[The Worthless Miracle]

Well, politicians vote themselves pay raises, ban smoking and except themselves from the ban, ban lawsuits in areas that would harm their lobbyists, etc etc etc. Should we be surprised?

[OnRightOnLeftCoast]

Worse...the state knew of their violent potential and all but ignored the foster parent pleas!

[grey_whiskers]

Anything that would embarrass govt. employees, or require them to exhibit accountability, or cost the govt. money which it doesn't choose to spend, is going to be found unconstitutional.

I ran across stories of an IRS agent who was literally acting as a Peeping Tom, but defended it saying he was surveying some property for the purposes of assessing its value, and he was acquitted...

Nice work if you can get it...

[taxesareforever]

When I first read about this I said "yeah, the Supreme Court is holding individuals responsible for their own actions". However, I do not for one minute believe that the Court means this. I believe the Washington State Supreme Court ruled on this to protect their employer from this lawsuit. Really though, they were protecting THEIR governor who they managed to put into office.