Should Nancy Lanza's Estate Be Held Accountable?

[Lancecastor]

Here's a question for you...in 3 parts:

1. Given that Nancy Lanza taught her disturbed son how to use her weapons, should her estate be held legally responsible for the Sandy Hook killings?

and

2. If Adam Lanza hadn't killed his mother, would you have wanted to see her tried in the murders?

Her house is worth 1.5 Million.

The Father is a General Electric Vice President making $445,000 a year and paying $240,000 a year in alimony and child support, according to court records.

3. Should he also be on the "hook"?

Discuss.

 

[Lancecastor]

Turns out Adam Lanza was quite bright (attended university at age 16).

His brother's a Tax expert....his dad's a GE VP and his mom was used to living well.

I guess everyone just wants to let this one slide...26 dead, not 28.

 

[bumlicker]

i think

obama should be held responsible. hes divided this country

 

[Bidin~Time]

Is there a precedent for this?

 

[bg23]

i think

i've seen no evidence of this.





lance...legally or morally?

legally a civil case could probably be made, not based on whether the mother was aware of her son's problems but based on the fact that she gave him access to her firearms. i wouldn't argue based on foreknowledge of his psychological problems, that's a floodgate issue. i feel like you could link causation fairly easily but i don't know whether it'd fly.

morally, fuck yeah. at the very least the money could go towards something to help the community.

regarding 2 -- civil case yes, criminal no

regarding 3 -- not unless you want to start holding every criminal's parents accountable for their kid's actions

 

[Lancecastor]

lance...legally or morally?

legally a civil case could probably be made, not based on whether the mother was aware of her son's problems but based on the fact that she gave him access to her firearms. i wouldn't argue based on foreknowledge of his psychological problems, that's a floodgate issue. but i don't know whether it'd fly.

morally, fuck yeah. at the very least the money could go towards something to help the community.

I'm thinking wrongful death civil action.

The details will come out about how and where the guns were stored, the mother's role in training her disturbed son to use them, the thousands of dollars in violent video games in the house, the fact she took him out of school and never utilized any private or public funded resources available for people with his condition.

When those details emerge....and assuming they are not all rosy in the details...shouldn't her estimated 2 million dollar estate go towards the damage done?

I'm thinking that's an easy one...

 

[bumlicker]

youve seen no evidence?

of obama dividing our country? rich vs poor black vs white young vs old union vs non union? this kid was a rich UNEMPLOYED white boy, no relation at all? i think not!!

 

[KyleW]

Why is the dad held responsible? I don't have details of his divorce or contact with the kids. But he gave about half of his GE salary in alimony. 200+k is a significant chunk. So it's not like he skipped out and left her with no money to raise the kids.

Is there something I don't know?

 

[Sean]

I think there would be a case against the mother for reckless endangerment. If she wasn't dead, obviously.

 

[Lancecastor]

Why is the dad held responsible? I don't have details of his divorce or contact with the kids. But he gave about half of his GE salary in alimony. 200+k is a significant chunk. So it's not like he skipped out and left her with no money to raise the kids.

Is there something I don't know?

I'm asking the question...should he be held accountable?

He bailed out on his problem child, who by all accounts became worse after his father ceased contact with him.

Minors and incapacitated persons can indeed bring civil liability upon their guardians if there is negligence.

Granted, the father's a longshot...he probably gets away with it.

 

[LadyVer]

The gun industry should be held responsible.

 

[Lancecastor]

The gun industry should be held responsible.

Vetteman was talking about the drugs the kid was taking being responsible...he thinks the drug companies should take the blame.

But your argument makes just as much sense as his.

 

[bg23]

I'm thinking wrongful death civil action.

The details will come out about how and where the guns were stored, the mother's role in training her disturbed son to use them, the thousands of dollars in violent video games in the house, the fact she took him out of school and never utilized any private or public funded resources available for people with his condition.

When those details emerge....and assuming they are not all rosy in the details...shouldn't her estimated 2 million dollar estate go towards the damage done?

I'm thinking that's an easy one...

i didn't know the details about how she took him out of school or never got him psych help, that's interesting. i wonder why she did that.

on one level part of me hesitates to punish parents based on how their kids turn out for their choices in parenting. feels like that would open up a whole host of issues ("you didn't parent him right, now we're going to sue you) -- on the other hand, can a distinction be drawn between parents of mentally disturbed vs "normal but criminal"? if it can, do we then have to devise correct parenting techniques and legislate them? or do we just retroactively judge case by case whether the parents were neglectful or contributing factors, etc?

for me it's simpler to judge based on the easy access to guns. i'd sue a cop for leaving a gun within easy access of the public if that gun was then used to kill somebody, rather than get into whether nancy lanza parented correctly.

i edited my first post a bit before you replied, sorry!

 

[bg23]

of obama dividing our country? rich vs poor black vs white young vs old union vs non union? this kid was a rich UNEMPLOYED white boy, no relation at all? i think not!!

i was more referring to seeing no evidence of your statement "i think"

but you continue to make my point.

 

[KyleW]

i didn't know the details about how she took him out of school or never got him psych help, that's interesting. i wonder why she did that.

on one level part of me hesitates to punish parents based on how their kids turn out for their choices in parenting. feels like that would open up a whole host of issues ("you didn't parent him right, now we're going to sue you) -- on the other hand, can a distinction be drawn between parents of mentally disturbed vs "normal but criminal"? if it can, do we then have to devise correct parenting techniques and legislate them? or do we just retroactively judge case by case whether the parents were neglectful or contributing factors, etc?

for me it's simpler to judge based on the easy access to guns. i'd sue a cop for leaving a gun within easy access of the public if that gun was then used to kill somebody, rather than get into whether nancy lanza parented correctly.

i edited my first post a bit before you replied, sorry!

Have you even slept yet?

 

[mark_j]

The gun industry should be held responsible.

Why is that?

 

[bumlicker]

bg s

typical liberal!! if you dont see it MY way your wrong!! such hypocrytes

 

[Sean]

typical liberal!! if you dont see it MY way your wrong!! such hypocrytes

You're. Hypocrites.

 

[unregistered]

 

[bumlicker]

oh danm im speling wong agin shoet

 

[unregistered]

 

[JohnnySavage]

She had custody. She owned the guns, She knew he was unstable. She failed in her duty to secure her firearms. She's at fault. She'll no doubt be sued. Husband being legally absent it's responsible.

You can't sue a dead person, dummy.

That's kinda the point of the thread.

 

[Ishmael]

First of all the father isn't going to be touched financially, he was NOT the custodial parent.

The back story about his breaking off contact with the kid has yet to be told. Could the reason be that the mother would NOT take the proper action to see that the kid got the mental health attention, including the institutionalization that he so clearly needed?

The mothers estate is probably vulnerable under tort law. And I wouldn't be surprised to see some class action suit to attach same. They might even win given the circumstances and the facts as are known to date.

But let's face it, it will be a hollow victory, symbolic at best. The lawyers are going to walk away with the lions share and after the residue is divided among the long list of claimants there might be enough to pay for the funeral expenses.

Probably won't even be a fair trial either. Who is going to stand up for the estate? To even begin to defend against such a suit would require that the estate be liquidated anyway just to pay for those attorneys. And even should the estate prevail, unlikely, there would barely be enough left to have fought over to begin with. While $2 million sounds like a lot of money it evaporates very quickly when you get lawyers to squabbling.

Ishmael

 

[LadyVer]

Vetteman was talking about the drugs the kid was taking being responsible...he thinks the drug companies should take the blame.

But your argument makes just as much sense as his.

How so?

Why is that?

Why not?

Total bullshit.

Why? Makes more sense than your constitutional "theory" of meds.

 

[cjh]

typical liberal!! if you dont see it MY way your wrong!! such hypocrytes

Well, other than the fact that your responses have absolutely nothing to do with the posted topic.