Family of man killed at LAX files $30 million claim against city

Associated Press (via San Jose Mercury News) ^ | 4 January 2003

[CounterCounterCulture]

LOS ANGELES - The family of Yaakov "Jacob" Aminov, the 46-year-old diamond importer who was killed July 4 by a gunman at Los Angeles International Airport, has filed a claim seeking $30 million from the city, the family's attorney said.

[rovenstinez]

I wonder if Jacob Aminov had any life insurance?

[Consort]

I think that the city's money comes from the tax payers. This family is, in effect, suing the tax payers. As a tax payer, I take it personally. They are trying to turn terrorism into a business: Hire a killer or a terrorist to kill one or two people in an airport or other such place and then sue the city for big bucks.

[Fred Mertz]

I suppose this is why the gummint tries to never admit to mistakes and wrongdoings.

[Sen Jack S. Fogbound]

Most likely it is the money-hungry lawyer that is behind all this! Sheeesh!

[Mulder]

The only legitimate grounds they have for suing the gov't is for denying their 2nd amendment Right to bear arms so they could have defended themselves.

[templar]

As a tax payer, I take it personally.

By the same token: You as a taxpayer, are also the one that denies them the right of defending himself at your airport. By substituting yourself for the right of the individual to defend himself, you have taken on the responsibility to protect him.

[Free the USA]

Unless AP offers some insight into a possible legal theory as to the bases for the lawsuit why publish anything more than a headline, some reporters are incompetent.

[Deathmonger]

Here's the legal theory: if we get the right jury, we can make a ****load of money.

[Consort]

By the same token:....

I misplaced my decoder ring. Can you try to explain that statement in understandable terms?

[lizma]

When are we gonna get frickin tort reform??? Shakespeare was on the money.

[Free the USA]

Here's the legal theory: if we get the right jury, we can make a ****load of money.

But all of that is covered by the headline.

[templar]

. Can you try to explain that statement in understandable terms?

An old saying that means (roughly) by the same standard or by the same reasoning. Thought everbody knew it ... guess I'm gettin old :(

[templar]

The only legitimate grounds they have for suing the gov't is for denying their 2nd amendment Right to bear arms so they could have defended themselves.

Yup. Persue these things enough and that situation could get corrected. If only we weren't so averse to using the courts, that is.

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

including a 6-year-old witness

Hold on, a 6 year old is suing?!?!

[TheBattman]

Sue Allah!

[mvpel]

California Government Code section 854 states:

845. Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.

This lawsuit is going nowhere.

[adakotab]

How does a taxpayer deny someone the right to defend himself?

If lawsuits of this manner were simply a matter of protection failure, then there would be no end to the number of frivolous lawsuits taxpayers would be burdened by.

[mvpel]

The taxpayer elects representatives that pass laws such as the one that prohibits possession of loaded firearms on airport grounds except by the few-and-far-between police officers.

[snowstorm12]

$8.5 million from four others, including a 6-year-old witness and a man credited with helping disarm the gunman, also were filed Friday against the city.

What? How were they damaged? Mental distress? I wonder why they don't say?