^^^ Pretty much. The way courts work these days (and have for several decades) is to allow plaintiffs to sue everybody, hoping to hit at least one defendant with deep pockets.
Back in the early 1980s I was an expert witness in a lawsuit that arose out of construction defects in a mid-rise condominium structure. The owners' association sued the architects, the engineers, the developer, the general contractor, and (IIRC) some of the subcontractors. When the case was called in the morning, the first thing the judge did was to poll each defendant to ask if their respective insurance companies were in court. Most said "Yes," and a couple said "No." The judge immediately recessed until 1:00 p.m., with the instruction that ALL the defendants would have their insurance company representatives in court at that time.
The implication is obvious: The judge wasn't interested in determing who was actually at fault, he was only interested in figuring out who was in a position to pay some money to the plaintiffs. That's what will happen here. The shooter -- they only guy really responsible -- is dead and had next to no assets. So the victims and their families sued the government
in a civil lawsuit (this isn't a criminal case), and the government is shirking responsibility based on a finely-nuanced legal technicality.
As zukiphile posted:
Quote:
|
Since it is a fed reg, it doesn't have to make sense to you, or me, or anyone.
|