That sounds much more idealistic, not less.

What class disruption. An alarm on my watch goes off. A cell phone rings. That also requires detention for class disruption?

The whole thing exists because multiple adults were emotional multiple times. Every fact was ignored because adult were emotional. Then penalties increased because adult were even more emotional. So emotional as to refuse to admit how foolish and wrong they had been.

I have no problem penalizing the school system for hiring adults who repeatedly acted emotional like children. $15 million is excessive. But I would not be surprised if he got one year of free college tuition. These adults were so emotional (illogical) as to even make international news. Their school board should be reviewing other decisions by these employees for a pattern of emotionally justified decisions. If not, a lawsuit is clearly justified if the school board is also complicit - also acting emotionally.

They screwed up. Take responsibility for being so emotional. Instead they want to deny everything including their painfully obvious and repeated mistakes. If not, that is why lawsuits are necessary.

Clodfobble recommends taking the high road. Both are options. But little tolerance exists for adult who act like children. An adult would have openly admitted their mistake and apologized. Those adults who are still children could not even do that.

Perhaps "simplistic" would have been a better choice of words. Solutions do not come in neat monetary packages, no matter their size.

There was no hoax.

Zero-tolerance policies are in place because school districts think it protects them from liability, because "their hands were tied". Until it's more expensive to maintain a zero-tolerance policy, the policy will remain.

On that, we still disagree. I think at best the kid was an unknowing pawn in his father's game.

No, because even $15 million, even sought by every kid who faces even the slightest discrimination, will still never outstrip the financial liability of a cafeteria full of blown-up kids. In Newtown, Connecticut, various Sandy Hook Elementary victims and their families have sued the city, the gun manufacturer, the shooter's dead mother's insurance company, and, of course, the school. One lawyer of a kid who didn't even die sued the school for unspecified millions because someone in the office turned on the intercom as the gunman entered the building (presumably to warn the classrooms of what was coming,) and the child heard "violence" and other "disturbing sounds" over the speaker, which traumatized her.

Being a non-lawyer, my interpretation of shot-gun law suites is...

The judge and/or jury can hear a case with multiple defendents,
and, on their own, assign fractional responsibility.

So, not-withstanding how deep the pockets, the city, state, school,
LE Officer, gun-manufacturer, gun-seller, parents-of-shooter,
insurance companies, ... one or all can be proportionally responsible.

(Of course, the LLD's are never at risk and always get first bite.)

What the fuck is a LLD?

LLB and LLD - Bachelor's and Doctor's of Law

IOW, your friendly attorney down the street.

Then what is a JD?

Different countries have different degrees.

Most lawyers in the US are JDs.

LLB and LLD (which doesn't exist anymore and was replaced by LLM) is mostly a fuzzy ferriner thing.

But the specific degrees don't matter so much, what really matters is if they are members of the bar.

In theory, could I join the bar and be licensed to practice law even if I just read a lot and never went to law school?

That used to be the case, but isn't any more. It's a law school scam.

I stand corrected. :blush:

Rereading all these posts I don't see any of the words I use to describe lawyers. :eyebrow: