Parents of slain boy sue school district for not enforcing the dress code.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cancel3
  • Start date Start date
I don't buy it actually. I'm pretty sure if you show a pattern of neglect you can sue for something.

I don’t know. Schools may not have any legal liability in failing to protect students from bullying. I’d like to check that out. I know that there are some things that school districts generally do as a matter of course, that people assume they are legally mandated to do, but that they aren’t.
 
I don't buy it actually. I'm pretty sure if you show a pattern of neglect you can sue for something.

Yeah, I'm sure you're right. I'm just trying to think of a reason why their lawyer would have them go this route instead of focusing on the neglect, because it's kind of insane.
 
Maybe this has something to do with it:

King was a ward of the court and living at the Casa Pacifica shelter for abused, neglected and emotionally troubled children at the time of the shooting.
 
Its really easy to see these suits as frivolous.

The Mcdonalds coffe burn lady suit was scoffed at and if you look at the real facts behind it she was burned horriblely.
Had she been burned when a McD's employee dumped coffee on her, sue away! Had she been burned because the lid was not on correctly, sue away! Neither of these is the case.

She was burned when she took the cover off the cup WHILE HER SON WAS DRIVING! Sorry her Ya-ya got burned, but it's not McD's fault and it's a bad analogy.

However, I have changed my mind on this. The school may well be liable. They DID have a policy, and they (apparently) did not enforce it. I do remember that some girls in my high school used to have 'traveling clothes' and then changed when they got to school. In any case, he should not be dead simply for being gay.
 
Last edited:
I found more info on this.

Apparently the kid was "...a ward of the court and living at a shelter for abused, neglected and emotionally troubled children at the time of the shooting."

So either he was taken from the home or they sent him to the shelter because they couldn't handle him.

In either case, it certainly sounds as though the parents have NO room to be suing anyone.



From what I have read, the kid didn't violate the dress code. He wore the uniform, he just added things to it.


But the person that killed this kid is the one who pulled the trigger.
 
From the linked article

1. The county's risk manager, Chuck Pode, said he expected to reject the claim.

2. King was a ward of the court and living at the Casa Pacifica shelter for abused, neglected and emotionally troubled children at the time of the shooting.

3. Assistant Principal Joy Epstein, the only person named in the complaint, is accused of encouraging the boy to wear "women's clothing, shoes and makeup." She created an environment of "perceived safety" for King when "in fact she could not and did not protect Larry from the threats and ultimate death," the claim says.

4. County government is accused not only of failing to control King's dress at school but also of improperly supervising the boy

5. King's mother had complained to county Child Protective Services that she feared the boy would be hurt because of his appearance, the claim says. The county Behavioral Health Department also failed to properly diagnose and treat the boy, according to the claim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems like a legitimate lawsuit to me.
 
Yeah, I'm sure you're right. I'm just trying to think of a reason why their lawyer would have them go this route instead of focusing on the neglect, because it's kind of insane.

naturally there was a lot more to the story and the kid wasn't even in his parents care at the time.
 
Had she been burned when a McD's employee dumped coffee on her, sue away! Had she been burned because the lid was not on correctly, sue away! Neither of these is the case.

She was burned when she took the cover off the cup WHILE HER SON WAS DRIVING! Sorry her Ya-ya got burned, but it's not McD's fault and it's a bad analogy.

The product was not drinkable at a scolding temperature.

When you sell an ediable product that causes major harm to humans you should be sued.
 
..........
From what I have read, the kid didn't violate the dress code. He wore the uniform, he just added things to it.


But the person that killed this kid is the one who pulled the trigger.

True, I'm suprised his parents didn't sue the killer's parents straight away. I think I would have flipped out on the entire family in the worse possible way.
 
Last edited:
Had she been burned when a McD's employee dumped coffee on her, sue away! Had she been burned because the lid was not on correctly, sue away! Neither of these is the case.

She was burned when she took the cover off the cup WHILE HER SON WAS DRIVING! Sorry her Ya-ya got burned, but it's not McD's fault and it's a bad analogy.

No, you need to (as was suggested) get the FACTS on a case.

The coffee at this particular McDonalds was hotter than is suggested. The manager had the temperature turned UP on the coffee pot to cut down on refills. If the coffee is hotter they don't drink as much.

So his negligence lead to her injuries. If the coffee had been the temperature that McDonalds AND the coffee maker recommend there would have been no serious damage.
 
Bottomline:

Desh was right. You need to get all the information on a particular case before judging. I don't think this was nearly as black and white as suggested in the opening thread.
 
True, I'm suprised his parents didn't sue the parents straight away. I think I would have flipped out on the entire family in the worse possible way.


The boy who shot him just turned 14 two weeks before.

He is being tried as an adult.

That to me an injustice also.


My son had a friend in middleschool who came out. My son stood and defended him against the onslaught of idiocy he recieved. Some taunted my son as being gay for sticking by his friend. Children can be so cruel and stupid when their parents cant see what is truely right.

My son is a better person for the experience. But it was very painful and I always told him just how proud I was of him.
 
Last edited:
The product was not drinkable at a scolding temperature.

When you sell an ediable product that causes major harm to humans you should be sued.
Who spilled the coffee from a properly sealed cup?
 
No, you need to (as was suggested) get the FACTS on a case.

The coffee at this particular McDonalds was hotter than is suggested. The manager had the temperature turned UP on the coffee pot to cut down on refills. If the coffee is hotter they don't drink as much.

So his negligence lead to her injuries. If the coffee had been the temperature that McDonalds AND the coffee maker recommend there would have been no serious damage.
She spilled the coffee. It's that simple.
 
Back
Top