cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/3089104
NEWPORT NEWS — The Newport News Education Association President condemned the premise of the school division’s motion to dismiss Abigail Zwerner’s pending $40 million lawsuit.
The motion was filed last week by attorneys representing the School Board and argues that Zwerner, who was shot in her classroom at Richneck Elementary in January by a 6-year-old student, is only entitled to file a worker’s compensation claim because the injury she sustained from the shooting is a “workplace injury,” and that the shooting was a hazard of the job.
You guys saying “well are they wrong?” Are missing the point, the lawyer is attempting to normalize school shootings, and he’s trying to do this in order to let the school get away with not taking the appropriate steps to prevent this incident from happening.
Not fair to blame the lawyer though. He’s hired to defend them to the best of his ability.
You want to be mad. Be mad at the school that agreed that this is the defense they agreed to go for.
You know, fuck that. I don’t agree. The lawyer is willfully making people and society worse in this defense, consciously. That is indefensible and condemnable.
There’s nothing stopping lawyers from dropping clients that make them go against their morals, so either the lawyer has no morals or their morals weigh less than the paycheck they’ll get.
They’re there to do their job. Creating the best defense possible. Why is that not fair given that the prosecution will do everything in their power to maximize damages?
I don’t agree with the defense either. But who am I to say they can’t have one? It’s for the court to decide what happens next. I fully expect the prosecution, and the court to slam the defense to the ground.
Everyone has the right to the best defense possible. That’s the only way it works.
The defense does everything they can for their client. The prosecution does everything they can for theirs. And somewhere in the middle you’ll often find justice.
No, I choose to blame the guy making money by defending the status quo.
He could have chosen an honorable career, instead chose to defend scumbags for $$$.
Again. Either everyone is entitled to the best defense possible. Or no one is. Because who’s going to decide who can get a good defense and not?
Do you know how many people have been tried for crimes they didn’t commit? People have been falsely accused of rape and gone to trial.
Do they not deserve a good lawyer? Or is your moral compass going to decide ahead of each trial who is innocently accused or not to determine if they are allowed a lawyer or not?
Calm down, Clarence Darrow, this is a civil case.
Someone is spending money on lawyers instead of spending money to keep their employees safe.
So what?
So your claims don’t apply.
No they still apply. Someone is having to defend themselves in a court. Doesn’t matter if it’s civil or criminal.
You can’t have a court where only the plaintif is allowed a lawyer.
So this normalization extends than to lawyer offices too right…?
To be fair how is it the schools fault if muricans are retarded with their gun laws?
The lawsuit is based on that she told the school multiple times about this kid, but no action was taken. That the schools negligence is the cause of her injury.
Rather than this being a random shooting
and our liability laws
Yeah, that makes sense. This filling isn’t wrong to attempt, but there’s also no reason to not believe negligence wasn’t involved in protecting their teachers. I doubt the judge will dismiss based on this reasoning. That’s what the trial is for. I don’t blame the attorney for trying though, and I don’t doubt the reasoning will be a very large part of their defense in the end.
Well, okay then. Did the school do everything it could to mitigate this professional hazard?
Let’s see the “school shooting” part of the risk assessment, the prevention steps taken, the training, and so on.
Time to bring in OSHA
deleted by creator
Do the ALICE drills count?
Oops, better watch what you say; I hear the licensing for that training is $100k+ now.
Yeah, this argument is likely going to backfire for the school.
I mean… they have a point. In America, getting shot while teaching kindergarten is a hazard of the job.
So maybe, just maybe, it is a good idea to… give a shit about that?
While I understand the assholes are trying to get a lower payment, if this is a workplace hazard, then every teacher should sue for back hazard pay, violations on clearly showing it’s a possibility and expectation to get shot, and I’m sure OSHA has something on providing proper PPE. It’s a workplace hazard after all.
Honestly? Yeah.
If we aren’t going to do anything about the completely out of control assault rifle epidemic in this country, we can at least use it as an excuse to pay teachers a living wage… and maybe get them some kevlar for the next time they dare to… read Clifford The Big Red Dog.
I know I’m beating a dead horse here, but assault rifles have been illegal for decades. I live in Texas, have many friends with literal armories, and have had a range membership - I have never in my life seen an assault rifle outside of active duty. Not once. Not at a gun show, not in a private collection, not even from my crazy libertarian prepper friend that takes his bug out bag everywhere he goes.
This media craze about assault rifles/weapons is the epitome of a strawman.
For all the haters: assault rilfe, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Source
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004. In the civilian context, an assault weapon is semiautomatic. Fully automatic weapons are, to put it lightly, uncommon among civilians so assault weapon refers to a variety of styles of semiautomatic firearm.
Those nra talking points also conveniently ignore that, ever increasingly, military doctrines are acknowledging that automatic fire in a rifle is largely pointless and should be avoided outside of very specific circumstances.
But hey. The biggest issue with kids and teachers being murdered is the terminology used.
Why is that? The first time I noticed it was a few years ago. I know some circles think that not-gun-people thought AR=Assault Rifle, which maybe some did, but why the inaccurate blanket statement? Also, shouldn’t we be going after handguns since they’re used 4-5x as much for gun deaths in the US? I just don’t get it.
Why is what? Why did the ban expire? It had a sunset date and wasn’t extended. Why are fully autos not popular? Combination of laws and practicality. Why are certain civilian semiauto rifles called assault weapons? Military has assault rifles, civilians use the broader term assault weapons to capture a broader category.
Why not go after handguns? NRA and their ilk keep blocking those efforts.
So… you wander into discussions of the continuing mass murder of children by nuts with guns. And your “contribution” is to… complain that people aren’t showing proper deference to the arbitrary terminology used with firearms.
Do you actually think you are a good person? Or do you understand the kind of scum who would do that?
Consider this: not everyone familiar with firearms is a right wing lunatic. In fact, there is a surprisingly large and generally quite chunk of the population that is moderate to left leaning with various levels of support for civilian firearm ownership. If you go far enough left you find the people actually willing to fight for the good of the people and against tyranny (not like, "no step on snek tyranny, but more a long the lines of the black Panthers of old, or the current volunteers providing armed protection to lgbtq events in Texas, etc).
How would you suggest that such a person point out to you that you’re using emotionally charged language to create a false dichotomy and ramble off blatant ad hominem attacks?
Here’s something else to consider: the US government is bad at writing laws. If you want a great example, check the CAFE emissions standards. Using a chart that effectively allows bigger vehicles to get lower mileage has not resulted in manufactures making more fuel efficient vehicles, it’s resulted in larger vehicles. This is why you can’t buy a small pickup truck like the old ranger or s-10. So people are forced to buy larger vehicles (that use more resources to manufacture) that get worse mileage, and in turn actually increasing total fuel consumption. That’s obviously really stupid if you think about it for a few minutes.
Most gun laws are equally as stupid and short sighted, but because the topic is more political and constantly in the news (even though the planet burning up is way more important, but I digress) it is debated more emotionally. In the example above if one doesn’t take the time to understand general concepts about modern vehicles, legislation, and the various terms used to describe it, they won’t have an educated opinion. An uneducated opinion is just noise.
This is relevant to firearms because most laws are feature restrictions of some kind. For example, banning a vertical foregrip. Defining what that is surprisingly tricky, and the government gets it wrong, or leaves loopholes, or has some other weird side effect. That’s ignoring the fact that the purpose of a foregrip is to give the shooter better ergonomics and control. More control is safer and the odds of a shooter missing a target are reduced. So why would the government decide to ban something that is effectively a safety device while using incorrect jargon? Great question! Go ask the state of California, and new Jersey, etc.
At the end of the day, the only way to eliminate gun violence is to eliminate all guns. In the US that is logically impossible even if the constitution and will of the people is ignored. Calling something “assault” is as meaningless as cereal manufacturers saying a bowl of sugary carbs in milk is good for your heart.
If you are actively supporting “protection of firearms” as a “solution” to the widespread mass shooting and murdering of children: That is inherently a conservative position. I don’t care how you feel about social justice or health care (actually, I kind of do since viewing human life as being less important than squeezing a trigger are diametrically opposed).
All aside from that: the bog standard NRA talking points are
- Get pissy that people aren’t using the right terminology as a way to distract from those pesky dead crisis actors
- Insist that other people refuse to try to solve the actual problem… while actively refusing to engage with any proposed solutions
- Mock past laws for nonsensical loopholes while actively ignoring that those loopholes were largely put there by pro-gun/anti-life lobbyists
But: Hey, if you think banning assault weapons is not sufficient, I agree with you. Let’s ban all guns. Pretty much all civilized countries do so. Like most conservatives, you are incapable of empathy. You think that because you refuse to ban any guns that doing a “gotcha” by arguing for even stronger bans is an argument. Rather than… you agreeing with me.
But, regardless: it takes a REAL ghoul to join a conversation about how death by firearms has become so prolific that it genuinely a workplace hazard for teachers with “Well, ackshually, the term for the kind of gun that almost killed this person is…”
I think you need to go re-read and do some research. I never suggested a solution to school shootings at all. If you want one it’s simple: better quality of life overall, better quality education, and guaranteed social services of various kinds. This is quite straightforward.
Now, if you’ll stop putting words in my mouth I’ll give you one more try. Otherwise, it seems like it’s you that’s sticking to the talking points and not at all paying attention.
The terminology isn’t arbitrary, and the story was about a teacher getting shot (with a pistol) and the legal battle going on with her claim. But good job on the emotionally charged comment. If we wanted ban all diesel trucks to help the environment, would we picket with signs that say ban leaded gasoline? That would make us look ignorant, right?
If you want to solve a problem you need to understand the problem, using terms like “assault rifle” when 97% of all gun violence uses hand-guns including school shootings shows you don’t actually care about understanding the problem, let alone solve it.
So… you do think you are a good person. Wow
Also: Since you bring it up, pistols are bad too. So I would totally be happy banning all guns, if that makes you feel better. I am sure it does since you felt the need to point out how dangerous handguns are too.
No civilized nation has this many firearms in the hands of private civilians and, shockingly, no civilized nation has reached the point where we mix up which mass murder of children a given news story is talking about because so many happened last month.
We should just ban schools. That way school shooting won’t happen.
Short-barrel carbine ban doesn’t have the same ring. I still think they should go as they really amount to nothing more than murder fantasy toys for grown boys.
I get that, and I’m sure there’s a fair bit of LARPers out there with their tacticool gear just itching for a reason to use it.
But the highest gun violence in this country is done by handguns, and now we have glock modifications that make them fully automatic that anyone can buy off what is essentially Etsy. Are we going after assault weapons because they’re an easier target than semiauto pistols and trying to make some headway against the gun lobby, or are they just the big bad right now because of our profoundly sick society.
Not saying most people should own one, but the AR platform has value in that it relatively cheap, fully modular, and has a variety of uses. I know it’s a sour subject, but objectively it’s a great tool.
Like a sign that says “X days without shooting”?
Country wide? That sign comes with a permanent 0.
Each school. Country-wide a Mass shootings per day would be more effective.
I was thinking the same, the outrageous thing here is not the claim, but the fact that they do have a point.
getting shot in America is a hazard of just existing in that country…
I read a little more about it. They are saying that she was entitled to claim workman’s comp, but refused to do so. She has thus far refused benefits to which she was/is entitled.
Their theory is that whatever damages are eventually assessed in this case should not include the benefits she is entitled to receive separate and apart from the case. This would be important if she is awarded triple damages, for example. They are effectively arguing that the medical bills shouldn’t be tripled, even if every other claim is.
It’s a technical point, but likely a solid one.
Workplace injury?? It’s a school, not a fucking shooting range.
I’d love to see the data on deaths at shooting ranges vs schools. And by “love” I mean that I’ll probably be queasy to learn more people die at schools than shooting ranges.
i mean…there is a LOT more security/safety measures in a shooting range Because there are a lot more guns. even if someone went on a killing spree they would be shot by one of the other dozen people holding a loaded weapon. not defending school shootings.
I expect nothing else but for the judge and prosecution to absolutely dunk on that defense
By a kindergartener as well. 20 years ago this would have been an Onion headline.
To be fair, that’s true for most US headlines these days:
- coup-leader repliblican favorite for president.
- Pro-life movement causes infant and maternal mortality to rise.
- Debt ceiling negotiations will start about 4 weeks before deadline.
If we’re not going to enact common sense gun laws and protections for the public, then it is a workplace injury. She should still be allowed to sue those responsible for not protecting her and the children in her care, but when you normalize school shootings this is what you get. If a cop can say getting shot is a workplace injury and receive compensation for the rest of his life, so should she.
If I understand the article correctly they’re trying to say it’s a workplace injury to cap the payout to something lower than she was trying to get.
That’s absolutely what they’re saying. And I don’t agree that the payout should be capped. Especially when in some places it’s not capped for cops. But on the other hand… This is the worst time line.
The way the law is set up (and thus the reason the lawyers are arguing it) is that you can’t sue your employer for a workplace injury, it is purely a workers compensation (insurance) claim, and those do not pay any millions of dollars, and also the school would be covered by their insurance.
Capitalism demands reducing human lives to resources.
Were they at work when the injury occurred? Check Were there safeguards that the workplace could have done to prevent the injury? Check.
“Safeguards” lol. In America, gun safety lock is safeguard enough.
They actually searched the kid for a gun and didn’t find it because it was hidden in his pants.
Wanting to not get shot at work is so woke…
yeah man the woke libtards have gone too far, do they really expect to survive their jobs?? so privileged!
Only in in gun nut America would anyone in their right mind would call being fucking shot a ‘workplace injury’. I mean if this is what is expected then they should be making 100K+ a year since they face being shot more than being a cop.
James Graves, the president of the Newport News teachers union
Graves said, “These lawyers have started a significant hurricane in our district by saying that being shot is part of what teachers signed up for.”
this is grim but when i saw his last name, the first thing i thought of was nominative determinism theory (hypothesis that people tend to gravitate towards areas of work which reflect their names.)
lastly, at what point does something become labeled a “work hazard”? i’m looking forward to seeing how this case pans out. also, i wonder how insurance companies are going to react to this.
What happened to holding the parent liable for what their kids do? Like the Oxford MI shooting the parents were charged. Lets keep doing that, keep charging the parents for the kids crimes. Maybe parents will take a more vested interest in what the fuck their kids are doing, watching, websites they are viewing.
Charging parents for kids crimes will just be used as a weapon to lock up parents that authorities don’t like. The only way to stop school shootings is to have better gun laws in the first place, as unpopular as that might be in America.
Maybe true to an small extent, but if you own a firearm and have a kid in the house, it’s your responsibility to ensure they can’t access it. Responsible gun ownership should be the norm and expectation, and to an extent legally required as well.
In that particular case, 100% the parents should be responsible as they failed in their duty to lock up their firearm like responsible firearm owners. It’s the latter part that’s important, it doesn’t matter if they were also parents or not.
You can’t apply a blanket rule to hold parents responsible for all of their kids criminal actions. It will lead to much more child abuse and worse.
I don’t think anyone is saying they should be responsible because he performed a criminal action. They are saying they should be held responsible, at least as accomplices, because they facilitated access to the firearm that was used in the act. Parents obviously shouldn’t be held responsible if their kids purchase weed from someone and use it where they had no involvement or knowledge, for example, but that’s not what happened in this case.
So cops being shot is too?
I wonder if you’re a postal worker and get shot by another postal worker if it’s a workplace injury. If that’s a workplace hazard.
Isn’t any injury at a workplace by definition, a workplace-injury?
The question is who is liable? Seems like people think the employee is liable by default if it’s branded a workplace injury.
This kid has major Boondocks vibes.
That character was inspired by this real life kid.
Are. They. Wrong.
Yes. If it’s a workplace injury, OSHA has the authority to come in and dictate mitigation measures.
Clearly this isn’t true.
There are mitigation measures! Unfortunately, OSHA can only dictate mitigation measures inside the workplace.
Yes. Being shot is not part of the job description.
Stabbed with a pencil? Sure. Hit with a chair a kid threw? Okay. Harmed with an actual weapon? That they searched the kid for and didn’t find? Nope, sorry. I can’t accept that work hazard.
I’m pretty sure mass shootings are actually addressed in the handbook.
Trying to downplay a mass shooting? IDK Einstein, you tell me.
They’re downplaying it because this is normal.
Getting mowed down by a mass shooter is a workplace hazard because this is a shithole country where people die to gun violence every day.
