DigitalTraveler42 comments on Educators ‘outraged’ after attorneys argue 1st-grade teacher shot in school is ‘workplace injury’

Educators ‘outraged’ after attorneys argue 1st-grade teacher shot in school is ‘workplace injury’ (www.denverpost.com)

submitted 3 years ago by DevCat@lemmy.world to c/usa@lemmy.ml

75 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/3089104

NEWPORT NEWS — The Newport News Education Association President condemned the premise of the school division’s motion to dismiss Abigail Zwerner’s pending $40 million lawsuit.

The motion was filed last week by attorneys representing the School Board and argues that Zwerner, who was shot in her classroom at Richneck Elementary in January by a 6-year-old student, is only entitled to file a worker’s compensation claim because the injury she sustained from the shooting is a “workplace injury,” and that the shooting was a hazard of the job.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world 167 points 3 years ago (4 children)

You guys saying "well are they wrong?" Are missing the point, the lawyer is attempting to normalize school shootings, and he's trying to do this in order to let the school get away with not taking the appropriate steps to prevent this incident from happening.

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 years ago (2 children)

Not fair to blame the lawyer though. He's hired to defend them to the best of his ability.

You want to be mad. Be mad at the school that agreed that this is the defense they agreed to go for.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] iegod@lemm.ee 19 points 3 years ago (2 children)

You know, fuck that. I don't agree. The lawyer is willfully making people and society worse in this defense, consciously. That is indefensible and condemnable.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] RickyRigatoni@lemmy.ml 17 points 3 years ago (1 child)

There's nothing stopping lawyers from dropping clients that make them go against their morals, so either the lawyer has no morals or their morals weigh less than the paycheck they'll get.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 years ago

They're there to do their job. Creating the best defense possible. Why is that not fair given that the prosecution will do everything in their power to maximize damages?

I don't agree with the defense either. But who am I to say they can't have one? It's for the court to decide what happens next. I fully expect the prosecution, and the court to slam the defense to the ground.

parent

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 years ago

Everyone has the right to the best defense possible. That's the only way it works.

The defense does everything they can for their client. The prosecution does everything they can for theirs. And somewhere in the middle you'll often find justice.

parent

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

No, I choose to blame the guy making money by defending the status quo.

He could have chosen an honorable career, instead chose to defend scumbags for $$$.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Again. Either everyone is entitled to the best defense possible. Or no one is. Because who's going to decide who can get a good defense and not?

Do you know how many people have been tried for crimes they didn't commit? People have been falsely accused of rape and gone to trial.

Do they not deserve a good lawyer? Or is your moral compass going to decide ahead of each trial who is innocently accused or not to determine if they are allowed a lawyer or not?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Calm down, Clarence Darrow, this is a civil case.

Someone is spending money on lawyers instead of spending money to keep their employees safe.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

So what?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

So your claims don’t apply.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 years ago

No they still apply. Someone is having to defend themselves in a court. Doesn't matter if it's civil or criminal.

You can't have a court where only the plaintif is allowed a lawyer.

parent

[–] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago

So this normalization extends than to lawyer offices too right...?

parent

[–] Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 3 years ago (2 children)

To be fair how is it the schools fault if muricans are retarded with their gun laws?

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 years ago

The lawsuit is based on that she told the school multiple times about this kid, but no action was taken. That the schools negligence is the cause of her injury.

Rather than this being a random shooting

parent

[–] zeusbottom@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 years ago

and our liability laws

parent

[+] roguetrick@kbin.social -22 points 3 years ago*

Yeah, that makes sense. This filling isn't wrong to attempt, but there's also no reason to not believe negligence wasn't involved in protecting their teachers. I doubt the judge will dismiss based on this reasoning. That's what the trial is for. I don't blame the attorney for trying though, and I don't doubt the reasoning will be a very large part of their defense in the end.

parent