I suppose this lawsuit was inevitable.
On one hand, my sense is wondering how far a school (or other similar settings) should go in "locking down" those in it. Granted GMHS has a bad rep, but on the other hand, parents/students, teachers, administrators do reach a point where they push back against what is seen as "too much cracking down" (be it discipline, dress codes, hall pass limitations/rules on congregating, intruding into private affairs/relationships, etc.). Further complicating all of this is that what I think is appropriate in these various areas would be seen by others as too much while others would see my take as too little.
I would love to read the proof behind what the article claims is in the complaint:
The complaint mentions a threat of mass violence made less than a month before the shooting, during which the school allegedly increased security for that day only, and another threat of mass violence made less than 24 hours before the fatal shooting, after which the complaint adding allegations the school did not use metal detecting wands, safety vestibules or security cameras that were at their disposal to prevent the incident.
Again, on one hand, no one is surprised that this was the thrust of the complaint. Yet, on the other, it would be interesting to see how the school made sense of this/acted for this particular case, but also (and perhaps, more importantly) how this fit into the matrix of all the other numerous issues/problems the school had/has to deal with.
Bottom line, for me, unless there is proof of gross negligence (and how does one prove that?) I'm not sure the lawsuit will be successful. Having said that, I'm fairly sure what will happen will be a pre-trial settlement (with attendant NDAs).
We can all agree that the whole thing was tragic, though.
--- End of line (MCP)
