Arguments were then heard as to whether the remaining officials showed gross negligence. Attorneys for the defendants argued that the policy group did not show gross negligence, noting that it would have been displayed by simply not meeting following the initial shootings.
Arguments were then heard on whether the officials had a duty to warn the students of the shootings and whether officials had a duty to aid Cho more because of the “special relationship” that could have existed between Cho and employees of the Cook Counseling Center.
On one hand, the question has been raised whether or not Tech officials should have more fully warned students of the events of April 16.
Melis said during his arguments that in order to be held responsible for warning of events that do not constitute imminent harm, a special relationship must exist between two people. He said that the defendants had no knowledge that the plaintiffs were in imminent danger and that there was no special relationship between the two parties.
Hall cited multiple incidents earlier that academic year, one involving the appearance of escaped murderer William Morva on campus in August and two involving bomb threats made against buildings on campus the week before the shootings, as proof that university officials had previously felt the need to assume a duty.
The other issue involves the Cook Counseling Center’s duty to Cho. Arguments were heard as to whether center officials’ previous knowledge of Cho’s mental state should have been used to attempt to monitor or restrain his behavior. Attorneys for the defendants argued that a psychiatrist is only duty-bound if the patient “makes specific or immediate threats to harm an easily identifiable person,” so no duty was owed to the Tech community in general.
A final argument was heard as to whether the university actually had a policy in place at the time of the April 16 shootings that gave guidelines for dealing with threats to the community.
The judge could dismiss the suits if he grants either motion by the defendants. He could also rule that cases against some defendants may continue while others are dismissed.
A motion to compel Miller to respond to inquires about the case will also be heard in the near future.
Continue Reading: « Previous12
Leave a comment 4 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
When I came across the phrase "special relationship" when referring to Cho and the employees of the Cook Counseling Center as well as Assistant Attorney General Mike Melis' explanation of the above phrase, I cannot help but be reminded that we are responsible for our individual/personal safety and of those with us, not the police--all of them throughout the U.S. of A., including all college campus police nationwide--and/or government at all levels.*1*2*3*4*5
Reply to this Top
(cont) Now I have great respect for police, military, and other government officials who do everything humanly possible to protect us from criminal acts. What I'm saying is with the U.S. of A. resident population numbering at 308,000,000+ (this number changes every few seconds)*6, only 970,000+ of them consist of sworn police officers and civilians working for law enforcement throughout the country (970,588--675,734 S.O. plus 294,854 civilians...).*7 This leaves the remaining above population at 307,030,000+. With so little police, it's impossible for them to protect us all individually. Many law-abiding citizens in the U.S. of A. who own guns for protection, especially concealed-carry permit/license holders, understand this sad, harsh truth.
Reply to this Top
(cont) Based on the above facts regarding whos responsible for our individual/personal safety and the small number of police in this country, if the families of Erin Peterson and Julia Pryde are suing the remaining defendants for failing to protect Erin and Julia individually (which, from what I've been reading so far on these lawsuits, is not the case), they will lose. Please, in a polite manner, correct and enlighten me if what I've said so far is wrong and if I'm misunderstanding as well as leaving out a lot of details pertaining to the two families' lawsuits. And again, I have great respect for our police, military, and other government officials who do everything humanly possible to protect us from violent and deadly criminal acts. Thanks.
Reply to this Top
(cont) SOURCES:
*1.) Taking on Gun Control - Do You Have a Right to Police Protection:
hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html
*2.) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981:
gunrightsalert.com/documents/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia_444_A_2d_1.pdf
*3.) DeShaney v. Winnebago City Deptartment of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989):
supreme.justia.com/us/489/189/case.html
*4.) Rhaney v. University of Maryland Eastern Shore, 858 A 2d 497 (Md Ct Spec App 2004):
www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/coa/2005/118a04.pdf
*5.) Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005):
ncdsv.org/images/SupremeCastleRockdecision04-278PZO.pdf
AND
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-278 (CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINIONS INCLUDED)
*6.) U.S. POPClock Projection:
census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html
*7.) Law Enforcement Personnel - Crime in the United States 2004:
fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/law_enforcement_personnel/
Reply to this Top