Teacher shot at Newport News elementary school

[Anonymous]

It’s a civil case, not a criminal one. I was guessing that the AP is covered by the school’s insurance policy, which may not have limits high enough for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Payment of a judgment may be unlikely but according to AI a person is still affected:

The debt does not disappear: Being judgment proof does not erase the debt. The judgment remains on the public record for an extended period, accruing interest and negatively affecting the debtor's credit score.
Credit impacts: The judgment will appear on the person's credit report, making it difficult to obtain loans, credit cards, or even rent a home. In some cases, it may also impact eligibility for employment.

For many reasons the life of that AP is ruined. Even if she is not found liable. The debt is icing on the cake. So many lives ruined by that gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The defense is trying to pin the responsibility on “Mrs. Kovak”. She’s a reading specialist who held down “JT” after he shot the teacher.

How in the world is the reading specialist at fault?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The defense is trying to pin the responsibility on “Mrs. Kovak”. She’s a reading specialist who held down “JT” after he shot the teacher.

How in the world is the reading specialist at fault?

I think the argument that they are trying to use it that the teachers should have ensured their own safety and not have concerned themselves with the assistant principal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Payment of a judgment may be unlikely but according to AI a person is still affected:

The debt does not disappear: Being judgment proof does not erase the debt. The judgment remains on the public record for an extended period, accruing interest and negatively affecting the debtor's credit score.
Credit impacts: The judgment will appear on the person's credit report, making it difficult to obtain loans, credit cards, or even rent a home. In some cases, it may also impact eligibility for employment.

For many reasons the life of that AP is ruined. Even if she is not found liable. The debt is icing on the cake. So many lives ruined by that gun.

So many lives ruined by the mother and father of that six year old with a gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The defense is trying to pin the responsibility on “Mrs. Kovak”. She’s a reading specialist who held down “JT” after he shot the teacher.

How in the world is the reading specialist at fault?

I think the argument that they are trying to use it that the teachers should have ensured their own safety and not have concerned themselves with the assistant principal.

Oh wow. I hope the teacher wins her suit. I agree that she’s not likely to be financially compensated as she deserves (unless the VP had a private liability or umbrella policy). But it’s important that people learn that inaction, not just actions, have consequences. Ignoring the warning signs of schools violence has happened for far too long with no repercussions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Payment of a judgment may be unlikely but according to AI a person is still affected:

The debt does not disappear: Being judgment proof does not erase the debt. The judgment remains on the public record for an extended period, accruing interest and negatively affecting the debtor's credit score.
Credit impacts: The judgment will appear on the person's credit report, making it difficult to obtain loans, credit cards, or even rent a home. In some cases, it may also impact eligibility for employment.

For many reasons the life of that AP is ruined. Even if she is not found liable. The debt is icing on the cake. So many lives ruined by that gun.

Let’s be clear, this AP should not just get to go back to life as it was. She ignored numerous reports that this child may be armed and did absolutely nothing. I’m sure someone at the trial will say the quiet part out loud, but she thought the young white teacher was overreacting to this “spirited” Black child and ignored her, which ended up with the teacher nearly being killed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Payment of a judgment may be unlikely but according to AI a person is still affected:

The debt does not disappear: Being judgment proof does not erase the debt. The judgment remains on the public record for an extended period, accruing interest and negatively affecting the debtor's credit score.
Credit impacts: The judgment will appear on the person's credit report, making it difficult to obtain loans, credit cards, or even rent a home. In some cases, it may also impact eligibility for employment.

For many reasons the life of that AP is ruined. Even if she is not found liable. The debt is icing on the cake. So many lives ruined by that gun.

Let’s be clear, this AP should not just get to go back to life as it was. She ignored numerous reports that this child may be armed and did absolutely nothing. I’m sure someone at the trial will say the quiet part out loud, but she thought the young white teacher was overreacting to this “spirited” Black child and ignored her, which ended up with the teacher nearly being killed.

I mean maybe, but some admin just suck and are toxic. They had multiple teachers and students say something that day. The school Counselor who said something was Black. I mean teachers have gone on and on since COVID about the concerning student behavior and the admin gaslighting about it. I see how it looks that way, but I think she was just lazy and didn’t care more than anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Payment of a judgment may be unlikely but according to AI a person is still affected:

The debt does not disappear: Being judgment proof does not erase the debt. The judgment remains on the public record for an extended period, accruing interest and negatively affecting the debtor's credit score.
Credit impacts: The judgment will appear on the person's credit report, making it difficult to obtain loans, credit cards, or even rent a home. In some cases, it may also impact eligibility for employment.

For many reasons the life of that AP is ruined. Even if she is not found liable. The debt is icing on the cake. So many lives ruined by that gun.

Let’s be clear, this AP should not just get to go back to life as it was. She ignored numerous reports that this child may be armed and did absolutely nothing. I’m sure someone at the trial will say the quiet part out loud, but she thought the young white teacher was overreacting to this “spirited” Black child and ignored her, which ended up with the teacher nearly being killed.

I mean maybe, but some admin just suck and are toxic. They had multiple teachers and students say something that day. The school Counselor who said something was Black. I mean teachers have gone on and on since COVID about the concerning student behavior and the admin gaslighting about it. I see how it looks that way, but I think she was just lazy and didn’t care more than anything else.

This was also a violent student that had already been removed from a school while a kindergartner. He should have been monitored closely, but I agree this was likely a lazy admin since multiple people notified her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s a civil case, not a criminal one. I was guessing that the AP is covered by the school’s insurance policy, which may not have limits high enough for this.

Doubtful. The gross negligence and willful disregard for safety. It’s very difficult to find coverage for that. It’s the only claim that can be made against her - simple negligence, which you can’t insure for, isn’t an option because of VA’s sovereign immunity laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s a civil case, not a criminal one. I was guessing that the AP is covered by the school’s insurance policy, which may not have limits high enough for this.

Sorry for the typos. Here’s what I was trying to say.

Doubtful. The claim is gross negligence and willful disregard for safety. It’s very difficult to find coverage for that. It’s the only claim that can be made against her - simple negligence, which you can insure for, isn’t an option because of VA’s sovereign immunity laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The defense is trying to pin the responsibility on “Mrs. Kovak”. She’s a reading specialist who held down “JT” after he shot the teacher.

How in the world is the reading specialist at fault?

I think the argument that they are trying to use it that the teachers should have ensured their own safety and not have concerned themselves with the assistant principal.

I haven’t listened so I’m just speculating here. I doubt the defense is going to blame the teachers. That would just inflame the jury. I could see an argument that the situation did not seem that concerning if teachers went back to work as normal. If the situation seemed so bad and so dangerous, they would have taken a different course of action to protect their safety and the safety of their students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The defense is trying to pin the responsibility on “Mrs. Kovak”. She’s a reading specialist who held down “JT” after he shot the teacher.

How in the world is the reading specialist at fault?

Basically, they’re saying that because she did not search his backpack when she had the opportunity to do so. They asked if she was intimidated by a six-year-old, so mocking her abilities. They also questioned her in her lack of urgency at the playground when they suspected he took “something” out of his bag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The defense is trying to pin the responsibility on “Mrs. Kovak”. She’s a reading specialist who held down “JT” after he shot the teacher.

How in the world is the reading specialist at fault?

Basically, they’re saying that because she did not search his backpack when she had the opportunity to do so. They asked if she was intimidated by a six-year-old, so mocking her abilities. They also questioned her in her lack of urgency at the playground when they suspected he took “something” out of his bag.

They don’t have much of a defense so I guess they have to reach for something, but the idea that the reading specialist is responsible instead of the school administrator who was warned no less than 4 times that this kid might be armed is laughable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The defense is trying to pin the responsibility on “Mrs. Kovak”. She’s a reading specialist who held down “JT” after he shot the teacher.

How in the world is the reading specialist at fault?

Basically, they’re saying that because she did not search his backpack when she had the opportunity to do so. They asked if she was intimidated by a six-year-old, so mocking her abilities. They also questioned her in her lack of urgency at the playground when they suspected he took “something” out of his bag.

They don’t have much of a defense so I guess they have to reach for something, but the idea that the reading specialist is responsible instead of the school administrator who was warned no less than 4 times that this kid might be armed is laughable.

My feelings are that not only is the school administrator responsible but this shooting could’ve been prevented at other points, so the defense has a point. Had somebody searched his backpack as soon as kids started telling them that the boy had a gun.

However, they were very concerned about protecting the shooters dignity and they did not search his person because the administrator told them to hold until the mom came later in the day.

They were all very concerned with the chain of command and their abilities to take action without permission.