Merely a few short weeks after the inexplicably-heinous school shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, a Newtown attorney has filed suit and submitted affidavits to state Claims Commissioner J. Paul Vance, Jr. (At time of this writing, it was noted that Connecticut State Police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance, the lead law enforcement spokesperson from the beginning of the school massacre, and days thereafter, bears the exact same name as the state Claims Commissioner noted in this lawsuit).
Attorney Irving Pinsky, based in Newtown, CT., has filed papers with Commissioner Vance, requesting approval to proceed with litigation against the State of Connecticut and its Board of Education. In Connecticut, the law delineates that the state is protected against such litigation by a “sovereign immunity” clause, unless a state Claims Commissioner overrides the “immunity” and approves a lawsuit to proceed further in the Courts.
However the claimant’s rights to sue should be at least noted, ponder the potential aspect that the very basis for which “Jill Doe” and her parents (on her behalf) are suing, the reasoning proffered as so-called traumatization: The school speaker system piping in the horrific actions as they were thrust upon every soul in that school, at that very moment, alerting more students, teachers and staff. Many lives were attributably saved thanks to the principal’s acutely-minded actions to hit the switch in the “on” position and allow all ears to be alerted as to a horrific event in-progress. Thus, in lieu of such an act ripe with wisdom, is it quite possible that MORE lives may have been graphically extinguished, if not for Principal Dawn Hochsprung and her quick-thinking deed to activate the school Public Announcement system, raising the conscience of everyone in that building on that fateful day?
And, in the event such a philosophical point is evident and irrefutable, shouldn’t such a lawsuit proposal be forestalled and quashed by sheer basis of substantive logic and myopic legal view? No matter the parents’ right to litigate on behalf of “Jill Doe”, is it not beyond comprehension that Jill Doe is indeed alive because of an agent of the school administrative body. Yes, perhaps the school may have had other barriers and security measures in place so as to prevent such a tragedy from occurring. These aspects considered, however, may prove to have been to no avail. This talks to the issue of a child, albeit reportedly emotionally scarred by such an unspeakable incident, who may be better served by consoling, nurturing and caring parents, the likes of which will not likely serve much with respect to these aforementioned attributes while under the most-certain duress of litigating anyone or anything (entity). Moreover, is it not a dubious aspect that this soon after such a tragedy a legal maneuver is planned and sprung, instead of paying those moments in time to console and wrap that child with warmth and love?
The plaintiff’s attorney, Irving Pinsky, said this of the tragic incident at Sandy Hook Elementary: “As a consequence, the … child has sustained emotional and psychological trauma and injury, the nature and extent of which are yet to be determined.” How is it that these very words, expressly “the nature and extent of which are yet to be determined”, somehow renders completeness to then file a lawsuit? If elements to the accusation are not yet known, how is it allowable, conceivable, without substantive merit, validly appropriate to compellingly be received as with basis? Implicity, the very jargon utilized in the plaintiff’s allegation, as drawn up by Mr. Pinsky, clearly summons speculation by way of such phraseology and its inherent incompleteness.
Additionally, however endemic it may be to suggest that there exist 20 sets of parents whose children perished in the same tragic incident, it is wholly conceivable that such a legal action (lawsuit) stirs the anguish of the absolute loss of 20 children, and indeed pulls at the heart strings all over again. So, the question remains: What is fair and judicious with respect to these exact circumstances and participants involved? To allow or not allow such a lawsuit from proceeding, especially with regard to the totality of circumstances doctrine, is the ultimate question?
In the meantime, what do you think is equitable with respect to this lawsuit?
Yes, it is healthy to deal with painful issues, however awkward it may be. Doing so facilitates growth, wisdom, the ability to instruct others better, and enables furtherance of life goals and prosperous future. At which point do we stand with the victims in support of significant loss, grateful for what he have, and recognize the insurmountable deeply-felt pain of the 20 sets of parents who sent their respective children off to school on December 14, 2012, never to hear their youthfully inquisitive and dearly-soulful voices again?
We await the decision of state Claims Commissioner J. Paul Vance, Jr. Somehow