Teacher shot at Newport News elementary school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good. The mother of the child, is pleading guilty to the federal charges and faces up to 25 years in prison for those. She faces up to 6 years in prison for the state charges.

People who purchase guns should be held responsible when a minor accesses them. A person who owns a gun with minors in the household is absolutely responsible for ensuring that the guns stay out of the hands of the minors. So a person who allows a minor to access guns should be responsible for any consequences that occur due to that negligence. I hope she serves her terms consecutively.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65822345

I will be shocked if she serves a single day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does it mean that the parent is judgment proof. Because he’s a minor? I thought states were starting to go after parents of shooters… I’ve always heard that if a child is hurt on my trampoline I’m liable. But not in this case?

It means that they have no means to pay a judgment and if pressed will likely file for bankruptcy.

I heard that the parents of other kids are also suing the school and the teacher who was shot. Don’t know if any suit has been filed.

Why would they sue the teacher? That's insane!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does it mean that the parent is judgment proof. Because he’s a minor? I thought states were starting to go after parents of shooters… I’ve always heard that if a child is hurt on my trampoline I’m liable. But not in this case?

It means that they have no means to pay a judgment and if pressed will likely file for bankruptcy.

I heard that the parents of other kids are also suing the school and the teacher who was shot. Don’t know if any suit has been filed.

Why would they sue the teacher? That's insane!

Because the teacher knew about the gun and didn’t make what they believe were reasonable efforts to prevent the shooting. It might be a means to attempt to get around legal immunity issues if the school has to defend her. Don’t really know their theories and strategies. I would normally think of a teacher as judgment proof but she has no apparent income yet is not working which makes it a murky situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does it mean that the parent is judgment proof. Because he’s a minor? I thought states were starting to go after parents of shooters… I’ve always heard that if a child is hurt on my trampoline I’m liable. But not in this case?

It means that they have no means to pay a judgment and if pressed will likely file for bankruptcy.

I heard that the parents of other kids are also suing the school and the teacher who was shot. Don’t know if any suit has been filed.

Why would they sue the teacher? That's insane!

Because the teacher knew about the gun and didn’t make what they believe were reasonable efforts to prevent the shooting. It might be a means to attempt to get around legal immunity issues if the school has to defend her. Don’t really know their theories and strategies. I would normally think of a teacher as judgment proof but she has no apparent income yet is not working which makes it a murky situation.

Teachers' unions traditionally are supposed to defend teachers in a case. I don't know if she was a member or not--but that was the unions' big selling point to teachers--to protect you if you are sued.

Are you sure they are suing the teacher and not the school system? Seems to me that it is the administrators who are mostly at fault--other than the mother, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I must have missed the kindergarten strangling of his teacher. I think it's bizarre that the school required this kid's parent to attend school with him. How could that ever be enforced? What if mom had to work?

I wonder how parent being with him was decided and how it worked.

I bet it could have been useful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does it mean that the parent is judgment proof. Because he’s a minor? I thought states were starting to go after parents of shooters… I’ve always heard that if a child is hurt on my trampoline I’m liable. But not in this case?

It means that they have no means to pay a judgment and if pressed will likely file for bankruptcy.

I heard that the parents of other kids are also suing the school and the teacher who was shot. Don’t know if any suit has been filed.

Why would they sue the teacher? That's insane!

Because the teacher knew about the gun and didn’t make what they believe were reasonable efforts to prevent the shooting. It might be a means to attempt to get around legal immunity issues if the school has to defend her. Don’t really know their theories and strategies. I would normally think of a teacher as judgment proof but she has no apparent income yet is not working which makes it a murky situation.

Teachers' unions traditionally are supposed to defend teachers in a case. I don't know if she was a member or not--but that was the unions' big selling point to teachers--to protect you if you are sued.

Are you sure they are suing the teacher and not the school system? Seems to me that it is the administrators who are mostly at fault--other than the mother, of course.

NP here. I read too that a group of parents of students who were in the classroom were considering suing the teacher for the reasons already stated. I would think the public backlash would be serious and I read that a few months ago and haven't read anything re it again. I believe one of the parents has a daughter who was threatened individually by the shooter earlier in the day and she had complained about the boy to the teacher and the teacher told her to sit down.

I definitely think suing the teacher is the wrong approach. It was reported on wavy.com which is a local tv station's website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does it mean that the parent is judgment proof. Because he’s a minor? I thought states were starting to go after parents of shooters… I’ve always heard that if a child is hurt on my trampoline I’m liable. But not in this case?

It means that they have no means to pay a judgment and if pressed will likely file for bankruptcy.

I heard that the parents of other kids are also suing the school and the teacher who was shot. Don’t know if any suit has been filed.

Why would they sue the teacher? That's insane!

Because the teacher knew about the gun and didn’t make what they believe were reasonable efforts to prevent the shooting. It might be a means to attempt to get around legal immunity issues if the school has to defend her. Don’t really know their theories and strategies. I would normally think of a teacher as judgment proof but she has no apparent income yet is not working which makes it a murky situation.

Teachers' unions traditionally are supposed to defend teachers in a case. I don't know if she was a member or not--but that was the unions' big selling point to teachers--to protect you if you are sued.

Are you sure they are suing the teacher and not the school system? Seems to me that it is the administrators who are mostly at fault--other than the mother, of course.

NP here. I read too that a group of parents of students who were in the classroom were considering suing the teacher for the reasons already stated. I would think the public backlash would be serious and I read that a few months ago and haven't read anything re it again. I believe one of the parents has a daughter who was threatened individually by the shooter earlier in the day and she had complained about the boy to the teacher and the teacher told her to sit down.

I definitely think suing the teacher is the wrong approach. It was reported on wavy.com which is a local tv station's website.

As a lawyer I would strongly recommend against suing the teacher who was shot. The deep pockets here are the school system and the administrators who were on notice of this kid’s violent behavior and that he had a gun on him that day. You cannot get anything out of suing the teacher that you couldn’t get out of suing the school system and the Richneck administrators, other than tremendous backlash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does it mean that the parent is judgment proof. Because he’s a minor? I thought states were starting to go after parents of shooters… I’ve always heard that if a child is hurt on my trampoline I’m liable. But not in this case?

It means that they have no means to pay a judgment and if pressed will likely file for bankruptcy.

I heard that the parents of other kids are also suing the school and the teacher who was shot. Don’t know if any suit has been filed.

Why would they sue the teacher? That's insane!

Because the teacher knew about the gun and didn’t make what they believe were reasonable efforts to prevent the shooting. It might be a means to attempt to get around legal immunity issues if the school has to defend her. Don’t really know their theories and strategies. I would normally think of a teacher as judgment proof but she has no apparent income yet is not working which makes it a murky situation.

Oh so preventing kids from shooting guns at school is now a teacher’s responsibility? Ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does it mean that the parent is judgment proof. Because he’s a minor? I thought states were starting to go after parents of shooters… I’ve always heard that if a child is hurt on my trampoline I’m liable. But not in this case?

It means that they have no means to pay a judgment and if pressed will likely file for bankruptcy.

I heard that the parents of other kids are also suing the school and the teacher who was shot. Don’t know if any suit has been filed.

Why would they sue the teacher? That's insane!

Because the teacher knew about the gun and didn’t make what they believe were reasonable efforts to prevent the shooting. It might be a means to attempt to get around legal immunity issues if the school has to defend her. Don’t really know their theories and strategies. I would normally think of a teacher as judgment proof but she has no apparent income yet is not working which makes it a murky situation.

Oh so preventing kids from shooting guns at school is now a teacher’s responsibility? Ridiculous.

As a teacher I have to laugh because yeah, blaming us for getting shot was always gonna be the logical conclusion here. Not shitty negligent parents or kids with undiagnosed and unaddressed issues or school policies that enable everyone. Yeah, the teachers. As always. Classic lmao

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does it mean that the parent is judgment proof. Because he’s a minor? I thought states were starting to go after parents of shooters… I’ve always heard that if a child is hurt on my trampoline I’m liable. But not in this case?

It means that they have no means to pay a judgment and if pressed will likely file for bankruptcy.

I heard that the parents of other kids are also suing the school and the teacher who was shot. Don’t know if any suit has been filed.

Why would they sue the teacher? That's insane!

Because the teacher knew about the gun and didn’t make what they believe were reasonable efforts to prevent the shooting. It might be a means to attempt to get around legal immunity issues if the school has to defend her. Don’t really know their theories and strategies. I would normally think of a teacher as judgment proof but she has no apparent income yet is not working which makes it a murky situation.

Teachers' unions traditionally are supposed to defend teachers in a case. I don't know if she was a member or not--but that was the unions' big selling point to teachers--to protect you if you are sued.

Are you sure they are suing the teacher and not the school system? Seems to me that it is the administrators who are mostly at fault--other than the mother, of course.

NP here. I read too that a group of parents of students who were in the classroom were considering suing the teacher for the reasons already stated. I would think the public backlash would be serious and I read that a few months ago and haven't read anything re it again. I believe one of the parents has a daughter who was threatened individually by the shooter earlier in the day and she had complained about the boy to the teacher and the teacher told her to sit down.

I definitely think suing the teacher is the wrong approach. It was reported on wavy.com which is a local tv station's website.

As a lawyer I would strongly recommend against suing the teacher who was shot. The deep pockets here are the school system and the administrators who were on notice of this kid’s violent behavior and that he had a gun on him that day. You cannot get anything out of suing the teacher that you couldn’t get out of suing the school system and the Richneck administrators, other than tremendous backlash.

As a litigator in a government job, I actually think it’s brilliant. Often immunities prevent success in lawsuits against government entities. But negligence by government employees is a different matter. And government entities may be responsible for the torts of their employees. So it’s a back door to get to the government entity. If a suit was filed, and I don’t know if one was, it will be difficult. There are so many bad feelings all around but the teacher and the school will be forced to cooperate because they will be on the same side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does it mean that the parent is judgment proof. Because he’s a minor? I thought states were starting to go after parents of shooters… I’ve always heard that if a child is hurt on my trampoline I’m liable. But not in this case?

It means that they have no means to pay a judgment and if pressed will likely file for bankruptcy.

I heard that the parents of other kids are also suing the school and the teacher who was shot. Don’t know if any suit has been filed.

Why would they sue the teacher? That's insane!

Because the teacher knew about the gun and didn’t make what they believe were reasonable efforts to prevent the shooting. It might be a means to attempt to get around legal immunity issues if the school has to defend her. Don’t really know their theories and strategies. I would normally think of a teacher as judgment proof but she has no apparent income yet is not working which makes it a murky situation.

Teachers' unions traditionally are supposed to defend teachers in a case. I don't know if she was a member or not--but that was the unions' big selling point to teachers--to protect you if you are sued.

Are you sure they are suing the teacher and not the school system? Seems to me that it is the administrators who are mostly at fault--other than the mother, of course.

NP here. I read too that a group of parents of students who were in the classroom were considering suing the teacher for the reasons already stated. I would think the public backlash would be serious and I read that a few months ago and haven't read anything re it again. I believe one of the parents has a daughter who was threatened individually by the shooter earlier in the day and she had complained about the boy to the teacher and the teacher told her to sit down.

I definitely think suing the teacher is the wrong approach. It was reported on wavy.com which is a local tv station's website.

As a lawyer I would strongly recommend against suing the teacher who was shot. The deep pockets here are the school system and the administrators who were on notice of this kid’s violent behavior and that he had a gun on him that day. You cannot get anything out of suing the teacher that you couldn’t get out of suing the school system and the Richneck administrators, other than tremendous backlash.

As a litigator in a government job, I actually think it’s brilliant. Often immunities prevent success in lawsuits against government entities. But negligence by government employees is a different matter. And government entities may be responsible for the torts of their employees. So it’s a back door to get to the government entity. If a suit was filed, and I don’t know if one was, it will be difficult. There are so many bad feelings all around but the teacher and the school will be forced to cooperate because they will be on the same side.

I defend one of our local governments in suits brought against it (which generally encompasses conduct by individual agencies and their employees) and I do not see the upside in adding the shot teacher to a potential lawsuit. From what I know about this case the school administrators are easy targets as is the school system (our local school systems get sued all the time). I also understand that the teacher reported the kid’s behavior that day and it was ignored by the school administrators, so if the teacher told the girl to sit down but made the administrators aware he was threatening other students and they said too bad deal with him, I’m not seeing where the teacher is liable. Additionally, any award comes from the same pot of money, there is nothing you can get from suing the teacher that you can’t get from suing the administrators and the school system.

[Anonymous]

I'm in tested in hearing if he had a Special Ed eligibility category with an IEP. If he did, was there a formal change to an IEP sogned by all attendibg the mtg.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm in tested in hearing if he had a Special Ed eligibility category with an IEP. If he did, was there a formal change to an IEP sogned by all attendibg the mtg.

I'd have to look for the link, but supposedly his mother refused to sign the IEP and also refused to consider alternate placement for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm in tested in hearing if he had a Special Ed eligibility category with an IEP. If he did, was there a formal change to an IEP sogned by all attendibg the mtg.

I'd have to look for the link, but supposedly his mother refused to sign the IEP and also refused to consider alternate placement for him.

I hadn’t heard this. I’d love to see the link if you find it. This is such a complicated case in terms of this child’s needs and what services are available for very young kids with serious behavioral problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm in tested in hearing if he had a Special Ed eligibility category with an IEP. If he did, was there a formal change to an IEP sogned by all attendibg the mtg.

I'd have to look for the link, but supposedly his mother refused to sign the IEP and also refused to consider alternate placement for him.

Ugh. If this is true, this child should’ve been placed in an “alternative” school. Parents like this are driving the bus in the race to the bottom.
I hadn’t heard this. I’d love to see the link if you find it. This is such a complicated case in terms of this child’s needs and what services are available for very young kids with serious behavioral problems.