suing

 I wonder about the kid being charged with terrorism?  What kind of law is that, and how does it define terrorism?  And he is a lead pipe cinch to be convicted of four murders, why bother to charge him with anything else?

And why are they suing the school district?  Did the school district have some policy that mandates that kids who threaten shooting be allowed to return to class no matter what?  It would make more sense to sue the school officials at the school at the time, but of course there is no money there.  And how culpable are they?  Was this kid a known nut?  Had he done stuff like this before?  Normally by now we would have known most of his history, there would be comments from teachers and students telling what they knew about the kid.  But there is nothing. 

It seems to me that the parents are the ones who are mainly guilty in this case.  I'm saying this because I am assuming the kid is nuts, but again we need more information on that.  The fact that they both hired top-notch lawyers indicate that they have money.  But where did it come from?  What are their jobs?  How come nobody knows?

And this suing thing.  I think the rationale is that by allowing people to sue the guilty are punished, and therefore they are unlikely to sin again, and just knowing they can be sued, they are more likely to walk the straight and narrow and this makes for a better world.  But how does this apply to government agencies? 

If the suers win ten million dollars this will be no skin off the nose of the government officials. The people paying the fine will be the taxpayers, and the money going to the suers will not be available for the public good, so what is accomplished?

It's kind of like the cops in Chicago, and other cities I presume, who shoot people with seeming impunity, and then the laws being the way they are, largely skate, and then the city is sued for a pile of money, and they generally lose and then that money is not available to hire more cops that politicians are always promising when they run for office.  And the cop who did it is likely to not even be fired, so what incentive does he have to not shoot with impunity?

So, I don't know, what's up with that?