Hey Mid Heres ya another Altruistic lawyer

[olevetonahill]

Campiche said that even if Bauer and the boy's family doesn't have much money, they might have homeowners policies that would cover some of the damages to Amina and her parents, who witnessed her injuries.

But a principal point of suing is to get the school district to make changes, he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/wash-district-being-sued-over-backpack-shooting-181637189.html

[cleller]

So courts in NYC are being asked to limit stop and frisk tactics by police, and now this case wants teachers to increase searches of students. Really, that is the only way to get a gun off someone.

The same lawyer would surely have sued the district if a teacher routinely searched the kid, but found no guns. For him its a win-win, for the school district lose-lose.

[Midtowner]

Or they could just do as thousands of schools around the country do... metal detectors at the front door would have prevented this. Maybe a big judgment will be enough to get them to make a change.

[diverdog]

Campiche said that even if Bauer and the boy's family doesn't have much money, they might have homeowners policies that would cover some of the damages to Amina and her parents, who witnessed her injuries.

But a principal point of suing is to get the school district to make changes, he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/wash-district-being-sued-over-backpack-shooting-181637189.html

What impresses me the most is that Olvet knows what altruistic means.

[olevetonahill]

Or they could just do as thousands of schools around the country do... metal detectors at the front door would have prevented this. Maybe a big judgment will be enough to get them to make a change.

Yea thats all that lawyer wants is to see the school change , LMAO, Just in case suing the District dont do , Hes including the Mom, The dad , The Uncle , the Boyfriend , Just in case they have any insurance that can toss some bucks In, that will help Force the School to improve , Huh :greedy_dollars:
Ya know what I dont understand is why yall cant just come out and say it, "WE gonna rip every ******* out there and find every dollar we can for you, But we gonna keep 1/2 ? Now that I can understand. But quit trying to tell us you are only getting paid to try to make the world a better place



What impresses me the most is that Olvet knows what altruistic means.

I fount that there werd in a Cracker jack box, thot Id take it out an play wit it some

[sappstuf]

Or they could just do as thousands of schools around the country do... metal detectors at the front door would have prevented this. Maybe a big judgment will be enough to get them to make a change.

This happened in elementary school. Can you please provide proof that "thousands" of elementary schools around the country use metal detectors?

TIA

[cleller]

I actually don't mind the suing of the parents, or whatever in this instance. Its much better than going after the school, which is clearly not responsible for the kid getting ahold of a gun. It should open some parents eyes that if they want to keep guns, they better keep them away from the kids.
The courts are a little screwy in the whole liability thing, sometimes giving parents a break, but hammering employers, etc. The real problem is that no matter how much we all complain, juries made up of people like us are still handing out these awards.

I doubt metal detectors in every elementary school is something most districts and parents would want, or could afford to effectively implement. Even if they did, kids would just end up shooting each other outside the entrances.

[REDREX]

Or they could just do as thousands of schools around the country do... metal detectors at the front door would have prevented this. Maybe a big judgment will be enough to get them to make a change.
---Maybe they should require stirp searches of all students ---Did metal detectors prevent 9-11?-----No lets go with strip searches----

[Midtowner]

This happened in elementary school. Can you please provide proof that "thousands" of elementary schools around the country use metal detectors?

TIA

https://www.google.com/search?q=elementary+schools+metal+detectors&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS383US383&sugexp=chrome,mod=19&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[olevetonahill]

I actually don't mind the suing of the parents, or whatever in this instance. Its much better than going after the school, which is clearly not responsible for the kid getting ahold of a gun. It should open some parents eyes that if they want to keep guns, they better keep them away from the kids.
The courts are a little screwy in the whole liability thing, sometimes giving parents a break, but hammering employers, etc. The real problem is that no matter how much we all complain, juries made up of people like us are still handing out these awards.

I doubt metal detectors in every elementary school is something most districts and parents would want, or could afford to effectively implement. Even if they did, kids would just end up shooting each other outside the entrances.

Exactly Bro, This is in NO way the schools fault. But the attorney even said Hes gonna sue the parents and uncle JUST IN CASE they have insurance
Dude is going after the Money Not the ones at real fault

[Midtowner]

[QUOTE=olevetonahill;3502417]d. But quit trying to tell us you are only getting paid to try to make the world a better place

You still haven't answered me as to whether you work for free?

[Midtowner]

Exactly Bro, This is in NO way the schools fault. But the attorney even said Hes gonna sue the parents and uncle JUST IN CASE they have insurance
Dude is going after the Money Not the ones at real fault

It would be malpractice not to name any potential responsible party. If a lawyer fails to do that, he can get sued himself.

[Midtowner]

---Maybe they should require stirp searches of all students ---Did metal detectors prevent 9-11?-----No lets go with strip searches----

Well, I'm sure if some terrorists were to walk into a school, attempt to hijack it with boxcutters and then fly it into a building, yeah, you're probably right, those metal detectors wouldn't do sh**.

Arguing with you people is sometimes so inane. What a stupid comparison.

[olevetonahill]

[QUOTE=olevetonahill;3502417]d. But quit trying to tell us you are only getting paid to try to make the world a better place

You still haven't answered me as to whether you work for free?

Dint see ya ask that But sure Ill play . For the most part No i wouldnt work for Free, But I have in certain cases.Does that Mean That If I see a chance to Bone someone for Millions of dollars that I would Jump at it, No because I still got to look at myself in the mirror .? Now Why dont you go ahead and admit That You sit around and dream of the Big case thats gonna make you rich. Has nothing to do with working for free . Has everything to do with Legal extortion IMHO

[olevetonahill]

Well, I'm sure if some terrorists were to walk into a school, attempt to hijack it with boxcutters and then fly it into a building, yeah, you're probably right, those metal detectors wouldn't do sh**.

Arguing with you people is sometimes so inane. What a stupid comparison.


You are a Racists?
http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/4019938%2B_ff737cd80eeca0ae1d3229b7c7f86d66.jpeg

[olevetonahill]

It would be malpractice not to name any potential responsible party. If a lawyer fails to do that, he can get sued himself.


Sorry I dont buy that lawyer gettin sued ****
Sharks dont eat their own

[Midtowner]

[QUOTE=Midtowner;3502453]

Dint see ya ask that But sure Ill play . For the most part No i wouldnt work for Free, But I have in certain cases.Does that Mean That If I see a chance to Bone someone for Millions of dollars that I would Jump at it, No because I still got to look at myself in the mirror .? Now Why dont you go ahead and admit That You sit around and dream of the Big case thats gonna make you rich. Has nothing to do with working for free . Has everything to do with Legal extortion IMHO

If someone harms someone else and has to pay the consequences because the law and a jury say so, that ain't extortion. That's making things right. It's really hard to get a judgment. Even harder to collect sometimes. Takes a lot of work and sometimes, even good cases go south. These frivolous lawsuits you speak of don't exist for the most part. If this case has survived summary judgment as to the mother and the uncle, just like with the hot coffee case, there are facts not being shared by the article. These sorts of news releases are made by pro tort-reform folks who want to convince you that there's something wrong with the system.

Maybe if someone neglected their kid and that kid brought a gun to school and shot your kid, you'd understand?

[olevetonahill]

[QUOTE=olevetonahill;3502456]

If someone harms someone else and has to pay the consequences because the law and a jury say so, that ain't extortion. That's making things right. It's really hard to get a judgment. Even harder to collect sometimes. Takes a lot of work and sometimes, even good cases go south. These frivolous lawsuits you speak of don't exist for the most part. If this case has survived summary judgment as to the mother and the uncle, just like with the hot coffee case, there are facts not being shared by the article. These sorts of news releases are made by pro tort-reform folks who want to convince you that there's something wrong with the system.

Maybe if someone neglected their kid and that kid brought a gun to school and shot your kid, you'd understand?


I'd understand it wasnt the ****in SCHOOLS Fault :frog:

[Midtowner]

You are a Racists?
http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/4019938%2B_ff737cd80eeca0ae1d3229b7c7f86d66.jpeg

No, I'm folkswhoreadacoupleofmisleadingparagraphsandnowthi nktheyarepolicyexpertsist.

[Midtowner]

[QUOTE=Midtowner;3502459]


I'd understand it wasnt the ****in SCHOOLS Fault :frog:

They're being sued as well... did you even read the article?

[olevetonahill]

No, I'm folkswhoreadacoupleofmisleadingparagraphsandnowthi nktheyarepolicyexpertsist.

Now yer just making **** up aint ya?:devilish:

[Midtowner]

Now yer just making **** up aint ya?:devilish:

http://www.probillfish.com/pics/homepage0.jpg

[olevetonahill]

http://www.probillfish.com/pics/homepage0.jpg

Yer dumber than i thot if you think you "HOOKED" me with ****

Go find ya a slip an fall

[cleller]

https://www.google.com/search?q=elementary+schools+metal+detectors&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS383US383&sugexp=chrome,mod=19&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I looked at this, it was a mix of "schools are safer with metal detectors" and "metal detectors in schools are racist". Obviously, schools that can actually afford the metal detectors and personnel to staff them will be big city schools with higher minority populations. I don't doubt that metal detectors make schools safer, but don't think the absence of them makes schools liable for what happens when a kid brings a gun to school.

Vet's original intent was to gig the lawyer, who wants to spread the responsibility as far and wide as possible, to enhance his ability to collect money.

[REDREX]

Well, I'm sure if some terrorists were to walk into a school, attempt to hijack it with boxcutters and then fly it into a building, yeah, you're probably right, those metal detectors wouldn't do sh**.

Arguing with you people is sometimes so inane. What a stupid comparison.---Nothing to do with planes---But where does it end ? metal detectors?----background checks?---armed guards?----How far does a grade school need to go?---What is reasonable?---I am suprised a man of your intellect would somehow think the comparison had anything to do with planes

[olevetonahill]

Right after we put Metal detectors and armed guards on every school in the country from Day cares on up we need to follow the Israeli plan

And Rocket proof em also

http://triblive.com/usworld/2489186-74/rocket-gaza-rockets-fire-israel-proof-sderot-israeli-monday-attack#axzz24wWcNBSF

[sappstuf]

https://www.google.com/search?q=elementary+schools+metal+detectors&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS383US383&sugexp=chrome,mod=19&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

In another words, no you cannot provide proof. Instead you post a link to a vague google search that immediately brought up stories of kids using metal detectors to find stuff under the ground...

Your treading on thin ice counselor. ;)

[rock on sooner]

Right after we put Metal detectors and armed guards on every school in the country from Day cares on up we need to follow the Israeli plan

And Rocket proof em also

http://triblive.com/usworld/2489186-74/rocket-gaza-rockets-fire-israel-proof-sderot-israeli-monday-attack#axzz24wWcNBSF

Yup, and how many Israeli jet liners get hijacked?

[Midtowner]

In another words, no you cannot provide proof. Instead you post a link to a vague google search that immediately brought up stories of kids using metal detectors to find stuff under the ground...

Your treading on thin ice counselor. ;)

Just demonstrating that if you had Googled the subject, there was plenty of evidence out there.

Like this:

http://www.ehow.com/about_5059031_benefits-metal-detectors-schools.html

[Midtowner]

---Nothing to do with planes---

Bull****. You said metal detectors didn't prevent 9/11. Comparing a grade school student who brings a gun to school to a trained terrorist who has been planning a hijacking for years is just moronic.


But where does it end ? metal detectors?----background checks?---armed guards?----How far does a grade school need to go?---What is reasonable?---I am suprised a man of your intellect would somehow think the comparison had anything to do with planes

Plenty of schools have metal detectors, including grade schools. Armed guards too, if the situation warrants. What is reasonable depends on the school. Who decides what is reasonable is the administration. If they're wrong, a jury gets to decide what is reasonable. The school was in Seattle. If it was in a high crime area which primarily serves at-risk kids, then yes, armed guards and a security guard are probably a good idea. You might even go so far as to say not having them would be negligent.

As far as the uncle getting sued, I'm more on board with him being sued than the parents. He had legal custody, i.e., responsibility. It's hard to imagine a 9-year-old getting a gun without someone being negligent and bringing it to school and shooting someone? The jury's out. Maybe there's a settlement, maybe everyone gets their day in court.

[olevetonahill]

Just demonstrating that if you had Googled the subject, there was plenty of evidence out there.

Like this:

http://www.ehow.com/about_5059031_benefits-metal-detectors-schools.html


Now can you explain how what you just posted makes the incident that I made the OP about , The Fault of the school?

Hell If he needs to sue any an every one that might be liable, then he should name the maker of the back pack the kid used , the maker of his shoes that allowed him to walk around the school. ETC.

[sappstuf]

Just demonstrating that if you had Googled the subject, there was plenty of evidence out there.

Like this:

http://www.ehow.com/about_5059031_benefits-metal-detectors-schools.html

There is no evidence that thousands of elementary schools have metal detectors.

Also, per your article, 4 guns were confiscated in 1995-1996 from schools and elementary students accounted for 1 in 10 of guns confiscated. That means that out of approximately 60K elementary schools around the country that year, .4 guns were found.

Hardly supporting evidence.

[olevetonahill]

There is no evidence that thousands of elementary schools have metal detectors.

Also, per your article, 4 guns were confiscated in 1995-1996 from schools and elementary students accounted for 1 in 10 of guns confiscated. That means that out of approximately 60K elementary schools around the country that year, .4 guns were found.

Hardly supporting evidence.

Heres Mid doing what he does best
http://robbcorbett.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/BlowingSmoke.jpg

[Midtowner]

Now can you explain how what you just posted makes the incident that I made the OP about , The Fault of the school?

I never said it was. It's certainly possible though if a case can be made that the school owed a duty to protect the children from a student carrying a gun to school, they breached their duty and that there were damages which the school was the proximate cause of. The school deserves their day in court.


Hell If he needs to sue any an every one that might be liable, then he should name the maker of the back pack the kid used , the maker of his shoes that allowed him to walk around the school. ETC.

Tell ya what.. I'll stick to lawyerin', you stick with making up stupid **** on the internet. Those ideas are so goddamn ridiculous it's not even funny. You're in the zone of products liability there, so if you can tell me how the backpack or the shoes failed in their intended use, the user wasn't warned, etc., and as a result, the kid got shot, then you can make a case.

[olevetonahill]

Now can you explain how what you just posted makes the incident that I made the OP about , The Fault of the school?

Hell If he needs to sue any an every one that might be liable, then he should name the maker of the back pack the kid used , the maker of his shoes that allowed him to walk around the school. ETC.


I never said it was. It's certainly possible though if a case can be made that the school owed a duty to protect the children from a student carrying a gun to school, they breached their duty and that there were damages which the school was the proximate cause of. The school deserves their day in court.



Tell ya what.. I'll stick to lawyerin', you stick with making up stupid **** on the internet. Those ideas are so goddamn ridiculous it's not even funny. You're in the zone of products liability there, so if you can tell me how the backpack or the shoes failed in their intended use, the user wasn't warned, etc., and as a result, the kid got shot, then you can make a case.

You are the one who said its The lawyers duty to sue everyone who MIGHT Be at fault are you not?
You go ahead and Stick to yer Lawyerin I dont want any part of it.
There are some lawyers who I admire and think theyb are out to do a good job and provide a service . Then there are , well YOU who just wanta make the Big score

[Midtowner]

You are the one who said its The lawyers duty to sue everyone who MIGHT Be at fault are you not?

Yes. And there's no way I can imagine the backpack company is at fault. That's just ridiculous. The school on the other hand? Much less ridiculous. Maybe they're not at fault, maybe they're only 10% at fault. That's why we have courts and juries to sort that out. All I'm saying is they could be arguably at fault and that's what lets you into court.


There are some lawyers who I admire and think theyb are out to do a good job and provide a service . Then there are , well YOU who just wanta make the Big score

I do plenty of pro bono work representing children in cases where they've been taken away from their abusive/addicted parents. I also want to make money and didn't invest over $100K in my education and 7 years in post-high school education to be poor.

[olevetonahill]

Yes. And there's no way I can imagine the backpack company is at fault. That's just ridiculous. The school on the other hand? Much less ridiculous. Maybe they're not at fault, maybe they're only 10% at fault. That's why we have courts and juries to sort that out. All I'm saying is they could be arguably at fault and that's what lets you into court.



I do plenty of pro bono work representing children in cases where they've been taken away from their abusive/addicted parents. I also want to make money and didn't invest over $100K in my education and 7 years in post-high school education to be poor.

Thats My point thank you, You are Not in it except to make money I can agree with that , Its great that you do Pro Bono. Buts neither of those are what Im gettin at
Im saying that suing the school for 10 Mil Is Greed pure and simple , By Both the Lawyer and the little girls family.

A friend of Mine who is a Local lawyer here was hired by a family to sue another couple for 100K the Lawyer knew these people had no money and it was a waste of time to sue The hiring couple insisted so he made them Pay him up front and sued the folks, Won the case and the folk promptly filed bankruptcy

Now My friend tried to get em to not waste their time and money
But Greed won out

Now what Ive really been saying is If you all took the astronomical figures out of this you would have more sympathy from the Common man and less derision

GREED

[Midtowner]

Thats My point thank you, You are Not in it except to make money I can agree with that , Its great that you do Pro Bono. Buts neither of those are what Im gettin at
Im saying that suing the school for 10 Mil Is Greed pure and simple , By Both the Lawyer and the little girls family.

I'm not sure where the $10MM figure comes from. A lot of the time, there are certain jurisdictional limits or things that have to be plead in Washington courts. $10MM is an awfully 'round' number to be representative of some actual amount of damages. For example, you often see in Oklahoma reporters saying that someone is being sued for "in excess" of $10,000. In Oklahoma, whether you're suing for anything over $10K, you have to go in front of a District Judge (rather than a special) and the $10K language is the magic language for that. I can't tell you why the $10MM or even whether it's a number based in any sort of reality or expectation that anyone's going to get paid anything.


A friend of Mine who is a Local lawyer here was hired by a family to sue another couple for 100K the Lawyer knew these people had no money and it was a waste of time to sue The hiring couple insisted so he made them Pay him up front and sued the folks, Won the case and the folk promptly filed bankruptcy

Sounds like the other couple did something to deserve getting sued. They didn't get away with it. They may have filed for bankruptcy. That doesn't stop judgment creditors from getting paid. They just have to go up to Muskogee to fight it out in bankruptcy court. And sometimes, it's not just about getting money. Sometimes it's about making someone suffer some consequences for their actions. That attorney very likely told these folks that they weren't going to make any money on this and that's why he didn't take it on contingency. I'd have done the same thing. If the client wants to sue, so long as I've explained that it's unlikely they'll get paid, I've done my due diligence.


Now My friend tried to get em to not waste their time and money
But Greed won out

You're sure it was greed?


Now what Ive really been saying is If you all took the astronomical figures out of this you would have more sympathy from the Common man and less derision

Yeah, I'm not sure where the $10MM figure comes from. I agree that unless there are formal legal requirements for putting the amount of damages in pleadings, it can sometimes backfire on you as it did here.

[olevetonahill]

I'm not sure where the $10MM figure comes from. A lot of the time, there are certain jurisdictional limits or things that have to be plead in Washington courts. $10MM is an awfully 'round' number to be representative of some actual amount of damages. For example, you often see in Oklahoma reporters saying that someone is being sued for "in excess" of $10,000. In Oklahoma, whether you're suing for anything over $10K, you have to go in front of a District Judge (rather than a special) and the $10K language is the magic language for that. I can't tell you why the $10MM or even whether it's a number based in any sort of reality or expectation that anyone's going to get paid anything.



Sounds like the other couple did something to deserve getting sued. They didn't get away with it. They may have filed for bankruptcy. That doesn't stop judgment creditors from getting paid. They just have to go up to Muskogee to fight it out in bankruptcy court. And sometimes, it's not just about getting money. Sometimes it's about making someone suffer some consequences for their actions. That attorney very likely told these folks that they weren't going to make any money on this and that's why he didn't take it on contingency. I'd have done the same thing. If the client wants to sue, so long as I've explained that it's unlikely they'll get paid, I've done my due diligence.



You're sure it was greed?



Yeah, I'm not sure where the $10MM figure comes from. I agree that unless there are formal legal requirements for putting the amount of damages in pleadings, it can sometimes backfire on you as it did here.

These people that got sued dint have a Pot to pizz in nor a winder to throw it out of, They didnt even hire a Lawyer to defend em . Just went along showed up said yea an nay . then went and used some cheap lawyer er something like a do it yerself deal and filed BKCY
They wernt out very much if anything
The ones pushing the suit thot they had a little money

[Midtowner]

These people that got sued dint have a Pot to pizz in nor a winder to throw it out of, They didnt even hire a Lawyer to defend em . Just went along showed up said yea an nay . then went and used some cheap lawyer er something like a do it yerself deal and filed BKCY
They wernt out very much if anything
The ones pushing the suit thot they had a little money

If they were advised that they probably wouldn't make any money out of the deal and went forward, that's one thing.

If the attorney took their money and told them they'd get rich, he's a slime ball.

[olevetonahill]

If they were advised that they probably wouldn't make any money out of the deal and went forward, that's one thing.

If the attorney took their money and told them they'd get rich, he's a slime ball.

Guess I shoulda spelled out he told em they wouldnt get **** .

[Midtowner]

Guess I shoulda spelled out he told em they wouldnt get **** .

And they chose to pay the lawyer to bring the case anyway? That's not dumb on the lawyer, that's dumb on the clients. They had all the information and they chose to throw bad money after bad money. I tell my clients that this is a business transaction and to take emotion out of the equation, even in divorce. The courts aren't made to heal your emotional scars, the courts are there to give you an avenue to be made whole which doesn't involve killing or maiming someone.

[olevetonahill]

And they chose to pay the lawyer to bring the case anyway? That's not dumb on the lawyer, that's dumb on the clients. They had all the information and they chose to throw bad money after bad money. I tell my clients that this is a business transaction and to take emotion out of the equation, even in divorce. The courts aren't made to heal your emotional scars, the courts are there to give you an avenue to be made whole which doesn't involve killing or maiming someone.

Why i said it was GREED on their part, THEY thot they could get the folks house , which is nothing more than a tumble down, Plus its in the dudes Uncles name

[Midtowner]

Why i said it was GREED on their part, THEY thot they could get the folks house , which is nothing more than a tumble down, Plus its in the dudes Uncles name

If the lawyer told 'em they could get the house, that was malpractice. If they owned it, it's homestead property--exempt (unless they have a lot of land). If not, then you can't go after the uncle.

So they wasted their money and forced some folks who did something bad to file bankruptcy. It sounds like the lawyer was pretty up front in that he thought this was a waste of time. I'm not seeing any cause for outrage here.