Collegiate Times

Good to see that my tax dollars are going to pay these legal swine feeding from the public trough. All the Commonwealth has done today is make higher education more expensive for the next generation of students.

Amen Kyle !!!!!

You're right Kyle. They should have gone to trial and risked millions more, not to mention draining more tax dollars on the Commonwealth's attorneys and the University's resources in terms of engaging professors, administrators and other personnel in discovery proceedings over the course of a year. Because surely a Virginia jury would find in favor of the Defendants. Great thinking Kyle. You're brilliant. Maybe you should run for office.

3:26 your so right!

Nothing like hiding behind the mantle of anonymity. The point is that the settlement should never have been needed, because a lawsuit should never have been filed. There are an awful lot of people profiting from this disaster, and it especially pains me to know that some of the dollars future Tech students pay for tuition, fees, etc. will never go towards making their campus safer, nor their education more broad and enlightening, nor their college experience more profound. Juries respond to emotion, because people are emotional. To that end, I'm glad this didn't go to trial (as you are correct to point out). But I find it morally contemptible for lawsuits to have been filed, and I find it even worse that the money that everyone will get out of this is going to come from the state coffers and from Virginia Tech itself. What a mess.

Huh, you think that settlement is high and unjustified. In 2003, an 86 year old man plowed his Buick through a crowd at a Santa Monica farmers market. He killed 10 people and injured another 63. He was found guilty of 10 counts of vehicular manslaughter, but because of illness he was released under house arrest. Anyways, Santa Monica was found "liable" since they had used wooden sawhorses to block traffic. Of course, a maniac can still drive up on a sidewalk and commit the same act. $27 million http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-market22-2008may22,0,5516449.story

Personally, I find the thought of these lawsuits disgusting. I was in Norris hall that morning and I received $11k from the memorial fund. Students who got hurt and the families of those who were killed that day received up to $100k. I don't see a point to go to court in an effort to gain more settlement money...that's dishonoring the name of those who died. There was no precedent for what happened last year and I sincerely believe that Tech did its best to handle the situation.

You're wrong Kyle. Who profited? The lawyers? Because they had to work to get it to this point? Shouldn't they be paid for the work invested in getting the State to this point? That's called remuneration, not profit. The families of the victims? Because their children aren't worth the settlement money? How about this "disaster". Was it forseeable? If it wasn't forseeable, could the consequences have been lessened by actions taken in the middle of it? So, really, isn't the settlement just representative of the cost of learning that lesson? Kind of like tuition. Oh what a land of milk and honey this would be without lawsuits. mmmmm, drunk drivers on sidewalks; tires that blow-out; houses that explode or fall down because of faulty construction; lazy doctors that misdiagnose diseases; bridges that collapse because of faulty engineering...what a wonderful world of unicorns and no accountability...it's all just bad luck! Just your bad luck to be at the stoplight when the kid sending a text message while driving slams into the back of your car. You'd better not be "profiting" from that. How morally contemptible!

Your assessment makes the assumption that the state was culpable. That may or may not be true - the case never went to trial, so we'll really never know. But the fact of the matter is that the state doesn't produce anything at all, so all of its funds are generated through taxing the population. Hence, when the state loses money, it doesn't come from some private account - it comes from taxpayers like you and me. Now, I didn't have anything at all to do with April 16 other than that I was in Squires and one of my friends died. So why should I be held financially responsible for the actions of the shooter? And why should the current and future students of Virginia Tech be held financially liable for Cho's actions? It's a question of from where the money comes - I find the claim dubious at best that the administration could have foreseen its action (or lack thereof) would lead to a greater risk to students, and I find it absolutely ludicrous that either the Commonwealth of Virginia or the Town of Blacksburg should be held liable in any way. If anyone should pay, it should be Cho's Estate - and once the funds there are exhausted, that's when the payment ought to end. He's the only one actually responsible for anything that happened.

One victim gets shot through the arm, but it heals without any lasting scars or loss of mobility (good). But why does she now get health insurance for life, funded by the university? (bad call). Those who were grievously and permanently wounded e.g. the guy shot in the head and now can't blink his eyes, should have received such compensation. Cho's estate? He doesn't have an estate and his parents have gotten off scot-free from any financial liability even though they were supporting their son. Instead, they are allowed to hide behind their papered over windows in their NoVA area townhouse.

How exactly are his parents liable for his actions? "They should have known better" isn't a valid legal argument - unless he specifically told them that he had intentions to cause harm, in which case they would be liable by virture of 'criminal negligence.' But we need to remember that Cho was, for all intents and purposes, an adult - and while his parents may (or may not, I don't know) have been paying for him to attend college, they aren't responsible in any way for his ACTIONS at college, heinous though they may be. So in the end - yeah, it sucks that Cho doesn't have an estate. But that doesn't mean that all taxpayers, and all future students, ought to be compelled to foot the bill.

I still haven't heard who profited. Regarding your June 21 comments; it's called the "social contract". If it is pay-as-you-go, I want a refund for my tax dollars that maintain roads I don't travel on, and for schools that I don't have kids in. The money comes from the State because your elected representatives decided to be self-insured. And the state isn't being held liable for Cho's actions, it risked liability for its inaction. Finally, I look forward to your taxpayer-derivative suit against Cho's estate. Start it or do nothing. But don't throw stones at those resolving the risks. Instead, if you think you can do a better job, go run for office. This issue can be your main plank. Good luck.

I assert that the victims families profited (at the expense of the Virginia taxpayer and at the expense of current and future Virginia Tech students) based on an assessment of risk which runs counter to what an ordinary person would see as culpability. When you say the state risked liability for its 'inaction,' (I presume you mean that it 'didn't do everything it could do to prevent the tragedy'), I can't find any evidence to support the claim that it was the state's responsibility to stop the attack! Please provide some. I can't accept the assessment of lawyers fees as remuneration instead of profit - court costs perhaps, but if this was really 'in the best interests of everyone involved' the case ought to have been taken on pro bono, at least on the side of the families. My point ultimately is that I disagree with the actions that were taken - not that I can resolve them any better. Just like a lot of people disagree with the manner in which Steger handled the crisis without offering any real evidence that their suggestions would have, with any certaintity, reduced the impact of the crimes committed.

Basically, it seems to me that the state and Virginia Tech are being held financially liable because Cho's estate has nothing in it. But the bottom line here is that claims of negligence on the part of the state or the VT administration are founded on the same sorts of dubious hypotheses on which the claims supporting their respective actions - so why is one set of unsubstantiated hypotheticals supported, while another set condemned? Because it isn't politically fashionable to tell the victims families that the only person at fault was a guy who took his own life and didn't leave the resources to compensate people for his acts of atrociousness.

Wow, "the victims families profited." Does Tech offer classes on economics?, public policy? how about human decency? You should take some. Or trade your sibling or parent for $200,000. No one is being held financially liable for failing to prevent the attack. It's the failure to act while knowing the danger exists, or acting for some, but not for others. Tech makes its money on enrollment. People enroll because Tech ensures "some" level of safety. When Tech selectively chooses who is warned and who is not, then it can be liable to those not warned...the victims and their families. Apparently those viewing the evidence saw more than a hypothetical. If you don't think lawyer's fees are earned, start your derivative lawsuit please. And when you're finished, I want my nickel. After all, you did it for free and in the best interests of all taxpayers.

The point, ultimately, is that human life isn't worth ANY amount of money - and trying to 'compensate' people for the loss of a life merely trivializes the lives lost in the process. Suppose the settlement was worth $10 million for each of the deceased. What if his parents don't think that's enough? What if their kid was worth $20 million? $300 million? How do you estimate the value of a life without either inflating or trivializing its worth?

The other point to consider, and it's been brought up before, is the nature of the connectedness (or distinct lack thereof) between the two shooting incidents. The police reports, to my recollection, seemed to indicate that there was no reason to believe the shooter in the first incident had remained on campus - and as I recall, the police were actually actively looking for a person of interest at Radford WHILE the shootings were happening in Norris. So what, as a member of the administration, do you do in such a situation? Your information tells you that there's no longer a high risk threat - do you cancel classes anyway? Seems like that would be an overreaction. And at the end of the day, since the suit never went to court, we'll never actually know how whether the evidence against the state and the school was anything more than hypothetical. But let's suppose that you're right (not a point I'm willing to concede by any means) - in what way is the state liable? Lastly, I know that lawyers' fees are earned - my dad was a lawyer for years before he became a judge. But some lawyers seek out lawsuits where none ought to exist, and regardless of how vigorously they represent their clients, lawyers don't always act with the public interest in mind.

Lastly, I'm curious to know what degree of danger ought to be the delineation between aggressive action (shutting down the school), passive action (informing the student body), and total inaction. Further, I'm curious to hear your opinion regarding to how much information students and faculty are entitled when a particular incident occurs. Do they need to be informed immediately, even if all the facts aren't yet known? And how do we address the pandemonium that may or may not ensue when improperly reported incidents are disseminated rapidly without proper investigations?

No, the payment is not merely compensation for lives lost, but also for medical or psychological care received and to be received. And there is also an incentive component, which is beneficial as a matter of public policy. Would you rather have the state pay for improved notification systems or mental health care instead of lawyers? Well, now you have your argument. $6.0 million budgeted for that now...or $6.0 million...or more... in damages later. You get to allocate that risk. Also, put that in our collective consciousness the next time we whine about taxes or gleefully applaud slashing of essential services budgets, including "all of the money we saved by not paying insurance premiums." The point is, the taxes you pay are not YOUR money. They are the state's money, and you elected people to collect it and spend it. If they're not doing a good job, fire them.

Well, I'm with you on the accountability ideal at least. The problem with the electorate is that there are too many people who vote 'because it's their civic duty' without actually understanding what the candidates stand for (or even who they are sometimes!). The political process in the United States is an utter joke, and this country is rapidly devolving on account of a poorly educated and generally apathetic electorate (generally speaking, of course). But that's what we get for selling our souls to a republican system (small r) as opposed to a democratic system. But I digress - nobody yet has made a convincing case that it is the state's responsibility to cover these costs. It's a bit more convincing to allocate the responsibility to VT, and absolutely convincing to allocate it to Cho's estate (such that it may be) - but it seems right now like the argument is "only the state has enough money to actually DO anything about this - so the responsibility defaults to it -" and that's not really an explanation rooted in any sort of common sense.