$100M lawsuit for 6-year-old who heard shooting over loudspeaker

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Evo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lawyer School Year
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
9 replies · 3K views
Evo
Staff Emeritus
Messages
24,114
Reaction score
3,277
A $100 million dollar lawsuit for a "traumatized" 6 year old that heard foul language and noises over a loudspeaker. This is just outrageous. It's turning a tragedy into an attempt for financial gain, outrageous financial gain.

According to the attorney
A lawyer who's asking to sue Connecticut for $100 million on behalf of a 6-year-old Newton school shooting survivor who heard violence over the school's intercom system says the potential claim is about improving school security, not money.

"It's about living in a world that's safe," New Haven attorney Irving Pinsky told The Associated Press on Saturday. "The answer is about protecting the kids."

http://news.yahoo.com/lawyer-100m-school-shooting-claim-security-184925148.html

The school did nothing wrong, the lawsuit serves no practical purpose, IMO.
 
Physics news on Phys.org

Discussion

It's about living in a world that's safe," New Haven attorney Irving Pinsky told The Associated Press on Saturday.
Reality is that there is no way we can realistically achieve this. There is no way we can make this world completely safe. We cannot prevent events that are so remotely possible. What, he wants authorities to hunt down and remove every gun in the country? Yes, that would drastically reduce gun fatalities, and it's not even remotely possible. Turn elementary schools into Fort Knox? Not feasable.

What about the kids waiting for a school bus, on the bus, off the bus at school, going outside to play? What about playing outside in the park, soccer, little league, at the ice cream parlor? We already know the mall and theatres aren't safe. This attorney is in this for the notariety and money, nothing else, unless he's completely delusional, IMO.
 
Borek said:
Is there a way to sue people for outrageous lawsuits?
One could counter-sue.

In this case the court could reject the suit as frivolous. I hope that would be the case. The lawyer apparently claims that the school system failed to prevent a forseeable event. Such a claim is absurd.

I'd like to see Pinsky held in contempt, fined and disbarred.
 
Pinsky is one of New Haven's most recognizable characters - just not quite recognizable enough to get his own trading card (an omission some didn't agree with, but the cards were made in 2006 - maybe this will ensure he gets included in the next batch of cards).

By Fred’s reckoning, the most glaring omission from the deck was Irv Pinsky, a personal-injury attorney who offers free legal advice to pedestrians on his lunch break. “You know, if you think you might slip, or you might fall, give Irv a call,” Fred said. “Ever see those umbrellas that say ‘1-800-LAWYERS’? You dial that number and Irv’s phone rings, right here in New Haven.”
 
Borek said:
Is there a way to sue people for outrageous lawsuits?
Yes.
NBC news.

This creep isn't suing yet. He's just asking for permission to do so. Without that permission, which I doubt he'll get, the township is protected.
 
Last edited:
So taking 100 million dollars away from the school system is supposed to help the school system provide security? Or motivate them to provide security so they don't get sued... with money they're no longer going to have? The judge needs to throw out the case, but not before ridiculing the people involved.
 
leroyjenkens said:
So taking 100 million dollars away from the school system is supposed to help the school system provide security? Or motivate them to provide security so they don't get sued... with money they're no longer going to have? The judge needs to throw out the case, but not before ridiculing the people involved.
As far as I can tell from the news article on Yahoo, Pinsky is seeking to file a lawsuit against "The state Board of Education, Department of Education and state education commissioner," which Pinsky claims, "failed to protect the child "from foreseeable harm," including by failing to provide a safe school setting, . . ."

If it is 'forseeable' that a crazed gunman is going to shoot his way into any school, then our society is in deep trouble.
 
which Pinsky claims, "failed to protect the child "from foreseeable harm," including by failing to provide a safe school setting, . . ."

By Pinsky logic, a lawsuit should be brought about against Pinki himself, for not having enough forsight to have sought this lawsuit previous to the shooting. Pinksi was negligent in failing to forsee that the school authorities were negligent in failing to provide enough safety against a forseeable event ( or would that be unforseenable event ).