As the six month anniversary of the Virginia Tech massacre approaches, a potential lawsuit looms over the state of Virginia. Personal injury attorney Peter Grenier, representing 20 students and their families, has accused the Town Attorney Larry Spencer of negligence in their handling of the case.
These days, anyone can be sued for negligence - babysitters, hospital workers, and now the state of Virginia. Virginia Tech's school policy prohibits students from bringing weapons onto campus, but there aren't any metal detectors at the entrance to buildings to prevent it. Since Seung-Hui Cho broke the rule and brought two guns onto campus, why aren't the people who sold the guns to Cho being sued? Aren't they at fault more so than the state and its employees?
On April 16, 2007 state police responded to a shooting in a dormitory on Virginia Tech's campus. The suit alleges that state police did not conduct a thorough enough investigation and did not adequately inform students of the shooting in a timely manner. Two hours passed before students were sent warning e-mails, in part because it was believed the gunman had left campus.
Even if the University had sent out an e-mail telling students to stay indoors, many students were on their way to school and would not have received the message in time.
This is a poor excuse. Students en route to campus can't check their mail, but they can receive text messages. Also, students already on campus can be alerted via sirens or a PA system. The administration is partially at fault for not utilizing all methods of communication.
After the horrific massacre, many reports of Seung-Hui Cho's instability surfaced. Many wondered if it could have been prevented, but there is no way that the University could have predicted what Cho was capable of doing. Cho was silent in class, and even though he gave his classmates and teachers the heebie-jeebies, the University couldn't force him into counseling. That responsibility falls on his parents' shoulders.
If the state can be sued for allowing a crazy person on campus, couldn't his parents be sued for raising a child capable of doing such a horrendous deed? Cho's parents should have realized that their son was playing a tremendous amount of violent video games and been concerned for his wellbeing. They probably could tell Cho was depressed from his anti-social tendencies, but they stopped short of intervening to get Cho the therapy he needed.
If parents don't intervene, and students don't seek counseling on their own, could a university enact a policy requiring suspicious students to be subjected to a screening of their mental health histories? While Cho wrote violent screenplays, other unstable students may be even subtler. To make sure they don't miss anyone, universities could screen every student, and expel those who may be a danger to themselves or others.
However, expelling students deemed "disturbed" may push them over the edge instead of preventing a disaster; likewise, if a student has a history of depression but otherwise does well in school and gets expelled, the school could be liable.
The families torn apart by the Virginia Tech massacre could learn from the Columbine tragedy. While Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris had brushes with the law before killing 12 of their classmates and a teacher, the victims' families did not sue the school.
The families participating in the lawsuit are also going to Washington to promote the Brady Act, legislation requiring anyone buying a gun to submit to background checks, according to MSNBC.com.
A large settlement will not ease the pain the families suffered when their loved ones went to school and didn't come home. Families should focus on the future, through the Brady Act and other preventative measures, such as trying therapy and counseling to make sure this does not happen anywhere again.
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
