Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
To summarize the report is indicating that spending on teacher benefits has skyrocketed compared to the increase on spending students k-12. It's most likely due to increased costs in medical insurance and existing pension debt that the states are trying to pay.
It makes perfect sense to me. . . insurance companies are out to make money and they've been increasing their costs for decades. On the flip side, we haven't in the last couple years, suddenly come up with a new pedagogy that is more expensive than previous models become mandatory. So while insurance companies are gouging all of us, education companies have remained the same.
LordofHats wrote:I’d consider that to simply be a continuation of one of educations most persistent problems; being tragically underfunded. If anything the report itself showcases how Americans are happy to ignore the struggle to of the education system except when it can be used for the rousing game of culture wars dodge ball.
I'm not even sure it is underfunded in some states, just that the spending is going towards retirement benefits at an alarming rate. I'm struggling to find good data on the spending each year in Illinois right now but I'll link when I can.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/28 16:47:14
To summarize the report is indicating that spending on teacher benefits has skyrocketed compared to the increase on spending students k-12. It's most likely due to increased costs in medical insurance and existing pension debt that the states are trying to pay.
It makes perfect sense to me. . . insurance companies are out to make money and they've been increasing their costs for decades. On the flip side, we haven't in the last couple years, suddenly come up with a new pedagogy that is more expensive than previous models become mandatory. So while insurance companies are gouging all of us, education companies have remained the same.
LordofHats wrote:I’d consider that to simply be a continuation of one of educations most persistent problems; being tragically underfunded. If anything the report itself showcases how Americans are happy to ignore the struggle to of the education system except when it can be used for the rousing game of culture wars dodge ball.
I'm not even sure it is underfunded in some states, just that the spending is going towards retirement benefits at an alarming rate. I'm struggling to find good data on the spending each year in Illinois right now but I'll link when I can.
Because the number of teachers retiring and drawing pensions has grown at a similar rate. It's the baby boomers, man.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
I’m not sure what the alternative is to paying people their retirement benefits. We’ve been putting off dealing with entitlement payouts for years and those are as underfunded as education. Arguably the education budget shouldn’t be paying pension plans instead of a state wide pension program or maybe an expansion of Social Security to cover government pensions but there’s no way around paying people their promised benefits other than telling them to feth off or paying them so little you might as well have. If paying those entitlements has become a burden for the richest nation in human history then obviously we haven’t been planning very well and boy have we not been planning very well but w/e the rich will give us our due when all that trickle down kicks in right
LordofHats wrote: I’m not sure what the alternative is to paying people their retirement benefits. We’ve been putting off dealing with entitlement payouts for years and those are as underfunded as education. Arguably the education budget shouldn’t be paying pension plans instead of a state wide pension program or maybe an expansion of Social Security to cover government pensions but there’s no way around paying people their promised benefits other than telling them to feth off or paying them so little you might as well have. If paying those entitlements has become a burden for the richest nation in human history then obviously we haven’t been planning very well and boy have we not been planning very well but w/e the rich will give us our due when all that trickle down kicks in right
Have you tried cutting taxes? I'm sure it will work this time and get you more tax income and not lead to a giant black hole in government finances!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/28 17:10:41
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Healthcare and retirement are skyrocketing cost issues just about everywhere unfortunately.
My boomer parents will likely live another twenty or thirty years. Neither has worked in years, both are comfortably retired. Both have pensions and healthcare for life, my mother also pulled disability for years. They put in a combined ~40+ years with the state of CA for those benefits, but they cost the state more than 90% of actual productive employees today, and will likely continue to do so for decades.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
To summarize the report is indicating that spending on teacher benefits has skyrocketed compared to the increase on spending students k-12. It's most likely due to increased costs in medical insurance and existing pension debt that the states are trying to pay.
- Spending on education overall has increased 1.6% from 2005 to 2014 (adjusted for inflation).
- Enrollment in education has increased 3.6% from 2005 to 2014.
- Spending on benefits has increased by 22% from 2005 to 2014.
- Spending on benefits as a share of overall spending increased from 16% to 19% from 2005 to 2014.
In my opinion, the study has a few glaring problems:
- I just did a cursory reading, but as far as I could tell the author never actually mentioned the educational staffing levels. He focuses on the increase in overall benefit spending, but he didn't spend any time researching or showing the increase in per-teacher benefit spending. If a school with 100 teachers in 2004 ends up with 105 teachers in 2014, they will have an increase of 5% in benefit spending just by the simple virtue of having 5% more staff to provide benefits for.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics shows an increase of less than 1% in teachers. So if that is correct it wouldn't make a significant impact, but it would be nice of the author to address that. The NCES doesn't address the number of administrative and support staff, but teachers are usually the most numerous employees of a district so they would have the biggest impact. An additional limit of the NCES numbers is that it doesn't count the actual number of employees, but utilizes FTEs instead. So we might end up with two part time staff getting more in benefits combined than a full-time staff alone, or we might end up with two part-time staff getting less benefits than a full-time person.
- Related to the first complaint, he uses two different metrics to compare spending: overall spending on benefits vs per-pupil spending. The author acknowledges, by virtue of methodology used, that the change of numbers of students makes a difference in how spending is calculated and at the same time he did not use the same spending-per-teacher methodology to take the change of numbers of teachers into account. Per-pupil spending has decreased by 2% alone just based on having 3.6% more students and only 1.6% more funding. That's before you have to use that 1.6% increase to pay for other stuff as well.
- The author also did not appear to make an effort to compare the rate of spending on benefits in the education sector with the rate of spending on benefits in the population at large. It's no secret that healthcare costs alone rose by a significant amount from 2005 to 2014. This chart gives some numbers for the average cost of insurance premiums for those years:
Spoiler:
Adjusted for inflation (unless I fethed up my math) the average increase on healthcare premiums from 2005 to 2014 was 21%.
So the author is writing a big paper to make a point that the overall cost of educational benefit spending has risen by 22%, but doesn't address that the spending on employee based health-insurance benefits alone has risen by 21% for the population at large.
So my takeaway from the study would be this:
- We should be thanking the educational system for managing to keep the increase in cost for health insurance, vision insurance, dental insurance, disability insurance, pension plans, retirement contributions, and flex days down to 22% when the rest of the nation is spending 21% more on employee-based health benefit plans alone.
- We should be wondering about the thing that got a few sentences in the whole paper: why did spending on education only increase by 1.6% when enrollment has gone up by twice that amount and the cost of labor (that every single private/public/government employer faces) keeps on going up. If the cost of labor increases for Walmart, they will increase the price of goods sold at their store. If the cost of labor increases for a car manufacturer, they will increase the cost of the product they sell.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/28 17:16:40
Vaktathi wrote: Healthcare and retirement are skyrocketing cost issues just about everywhere unfortunately.
My boomer parents will likely live another twenty or thirty years. Neither has worked in years, both are comfortably retired. Both have pensions and healthcare for life, my mother also pulled disability for years. They put in a combined ~40+ years with the state of CA for those benefits, but they cost the state more than 90% of actual productive employees today, and will likely continue to do so for decades.
Are there stats for relative cost of pensioners vs active workers? That would be interesting data especially if someone has it broken down by state somewhere. I’d bet some states are much worse off than others, with the rust belt being particularly bad off.
Edit: oh hey ninja’d! Tho maybe put that chart in some spoiler tags XD
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/28 17:13:22
Edit: oh hey ninja’d! Tho maybe put that chart in some spoiler tags XD
My auto-adjusting screen has misled me, and it turns out that on some screens pixel spending on charts has increased by a significant amount and fewer pixels were available for other stuff.
Edit: oh hey ninja’d! Tho maybe put that chart in some spoiler tags XD
My auto-adjusting screen has misled me, and it turns out that on some screens pixel spending on charts has increased by a significant amount and fewer pixels were available for other stuff.
To summarize the report is indicating that spending on teacher benefits has skyrocketed compared to the increase on spending students k-12. It's most likely due to increased costs in medical insurance and existing pension debt that the states are trying to pay.
- Spending on education overall has increased 1.6% from 2005 to 2014 (adjusted for inflation).
- Enrollment in education has increased 3.6% from 2005 to 2014.
- Spending on benefits has increased by 22% from 2005 to 2014.
- Spending on benefits as a share of overall spending increased from 16% to 19% from 2005 to 2014.
In my opinion, the study has a few glaring problems:
- I just did a cursory reading, but as far as I could tell the author never actually mentioned the educational staffing levels. He focuses on the increase in overall benefit spending, but he didn't spend any time researching or showing the increase in per-teacher benefit spending. If a school with 100 teachers in 2004 ends up with 105 teachers in 2014, they will have an increase of 5% in benefit spending just by the simple virtue of having 5% more staff to provide benefits for.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics shows an increase of less than 1% in teachers. So if that is correct it wouldn't make a significant impact, but it would be nice of the author to address that. The NCES doesn't address the number of administrative and support staff, but teachers are usually the most numerous employees of a district so they would have the biggest impact. An additional limit of the NCES numbers is that it doesn't count the actual number of employees, but utilizes FTEs instead. So we might end up with two part time staff getting more in benefits combined than a full-time staff alone, or we might end up with two part-time staff getting less benefits than a full-time person.
- Related to the first complaint, he uses two different metrics to compare spending: overall spending on benefits vs per-pupil spending. The author acknowledges, by virtue of methodology used, that the change of numbers of students makes a difference in how spending is calculated and at the same time he did not use the same spending-per-teacher methodology to take the change of numbers of teachers into account. Per-pupil spending has decreased by 2% alone just based on having 3.6% more students and only 1.6% more funding. That's before you have to use that 1.6% increase to pay for other stuff as well.
- The author also did not appear to make an effort to compare the rate of spending on benefits in the education sector with the rate of spending on benefits in the population at large. It's no secret that healthcare costs alone rose by a significant amount from 2005 to 2014. This chart gives some numbers for the average cost of insurance premiums for those years:
[spoiler]
Adjusted for inflation (unless I fethed up my math) the average increase on healthcare premiums from 2005 to 2014 was 21%.
So the author is writing a big paper to make a point that the overall cost of educational benefit spending has risen by 22%, but doesn't address that the spending on employee based health-insurance benefits alone has risen by 21% for the population at large.
So my takeaway from the study would be this:
- We should be thanking the educational system for managing to keep the increase in cost for health insurance, vision insurance, dental insurance, disability insurance, pension plans, retirement contributions, and flex days down to 22% when the rest of the nation is spending 21% more on employee-based health benefit plans alone.
- We should be wondering about the thing that got a few sentences in the whole paper: why did spending on education only increase by 1.6% when enrollment has gone up by twice that amount and the cost of labor (that every single private/public/government employer faces) keeps on going up. If the cost of labor increases for Walmart, they will increase the price of goods sold at their store. If the cost of labor increases for a car manufacturer, they will increase the cost of the product they sell.
[/spoiler]
Looking at the state budgets by year would be interesting. If I get the time I'll look at IL and see if there have been any major changes in how they were distributing the funds. In any case finding a way to get more funding for the schools is going to be necessary.
"Unfortunately, under your leadership, the Bureau has abandoned the very consumers it is tasked by Congress with protecting," it read. "Instead, you have used the Bureau to serve the wishes of the most powerful financial companies in America."
Good to see my future is in the hands of people who are really doing their best to look out for me and the thousands of other debt-ridden college students which the entire future of the US depends on.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
tneva82 wrote: And now trump is pissed off to google for trump news search word not bringing in news he approves
I saw that, and lol'ed at the poor triggered old snowflake having a big public cry about mean ol' google reporting the infantile things he says and does, but then saw that Econ Advisor Larry Kudlow is now floating a government oversight on google searches trial balloon.
But he once made out with an American flag, so he's not an authoritarian wannabe literal traitor.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Looking at the state budgets by year would be interesting. If I get the time I'll look at IL and see if there have been any major changes in how they were distributing the funds. In any case finding a way to get more funding for the schools is going to be necessary.
One issue seems to come down every year to sports. . . I've sat in on a few school board meetings (the public variety, for some of my undergrad classes) and the one thing that always strikes me is how when someone says "we have a surplus of X amount" when the librarians/academics say, "we can use those funds for X, Y, Z which will have this major impact" and when the football coach responds with "well, I 'need' these things to help us improve our record next season" . . . . well, it's usually the damn football coach who wins.
tneva82 wrote: And now trump is pissed off to google for trump news search word not bringing in news he approves
I saw that, and lol'ed at the poor triggered old snowflake having a big public cry about mean ol' google reporting the infantile things he says and does, but then saw that Econ Advisor Larry Kudlow is now floating a government oversight on google searches trial balloon.
But he once made out with an American flag, so he's not an authoritarian wannabe literal traitor.
That's my main beef with all this crap.
If at any point in time our Dictator-in-Waiting Obama would have suggested that not having enough positive search results could be illegal, it would have been a gak-storm from people who are not silent.
Looking at the state budgets by year would be interesting. If I get the time I'll look at IL and see if there have been any major changes in how they were distributing the funds. In any case finding a way to get more funding for the schools is going to be necessary.
One issue seems to come down every year to sports. . . I've sat in on a few school board meetings (the public variety, for some of my undergrad classes) and the one thing that always strikes me is how when someone says "we have a surplus of X amount" when the librarians/academics say, "we can use those funds for X, Y, Z which will have this major impact" and when the football coach responds with "well, I 'need' these things to help us improve our record next season" . . . . well, it's usually the damn football coach who wins.
I went to a tiny rural high school (graduating class of 30some people) and the high school coach was our principal.
Not evidence of any wrong doing, but is just came to my mind.
I also got called into the office for being mean to the football players my senior year, but the stoic iron-faced principal-coach cracked a smile and dismissed their complaint against me when I told him my side of the story: The nerd table liked hot sauce, and the school had a few bottles out by the salad bar. But frequently they would all be gone very quickly, so we would just ask the lunch ladies for another bottle and they were always happy to give us one. The jocks didn't like asking the lunch ladies, so they would just lean over and grab the bottle from the nerd table if the salad bar was out and they couldn't be bothered to ask for a bottle of their own. After 6 months of that we got tired of it and decided to fill a bottle of Louisiana hot sauce with the hottest ghost pepper sauce we could find and the next day (pizza day) we placed it on our table. The jocks came by, they took it, we bitched, they told us to feth off, and they covered their pizza with lots of the usually fairly mild hot sauce. A few bites and a few screams later I (as the primary perpetrator) found myself in his office. I explained to him that we felt that the school hot sauce wasn't hot enough, so we brought our own, and it's not our fault that the jocks keep on stealing our sauce we brought from home. They never took another bottle from us and we didn't get in trouble.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/28 17:47:52
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
tneva82 wrote: And now trump is pissed off to google for trump news search word not bringing in news he approves
I saw that, and lol'ed at the poor triggered old snowflake having a big public cry about mean ol' google reporting the infantile things he says and does, but then saw that Econ Advisor Larry Kudlow is now floating a government oversight on google searches trial balloon.
But he once made out with an American flag, so he's not an authoritarian wannabe literal traitor.
That's my main beef with all this crap.
If at any point in time our Dictator-in-Waiting Obama would have suggested that not having enough positive search results could be illegal, it would have been a gak-storm from people who are not silent.
gak-storm? Nah.
Ding him a bit? You bet. (as el Trumpo deserves same criticism for being a baby).
tneva82 wrote: And now trump is pissed off to google for trump news search word not bringing in news he approves
I saw that, and lol'ed at the poor triggered old snowflake having a big public cry about mean ol' google reporting the infantile things he says and does, but then saw that Econ Advisor Larry Kudlow is now floating a government oversight on google searches trial balloon.
But he once made out with an American flag, so he's not an authoritarian wannabe literal traitor.
That's my main beef with all this crap.
If at any point in time our Dictator-in-Waiting Obama would have suggested that not having enough positive search results could be illegal, it would have been a gak-storm from people who are not silent.
gak-storm? Nah.
Ding him a bit? You bet. (as el Trumpo deserves same criticism for being a baby).
Dude. The ODS was insane. 'Member Jade Helm? Actual adults in charge of important things dreamed that nonsense up.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
tneva82 wrote: And now trump is pissed off to google for trump news search word not bringing in news he approves
I saw that, and lol'ed at the poor triggered old snowflake having a big public cry about mean ol' google reporting the infantile things he says and does, but then saw that Econ Advisor Larry Kudlow is now floating a government oversight on google searches trial balloon.
But he once made out with an American flag, so he's not an authoritarian wannabe literal traitor.
That's my main beef with all this crap.
If at any point in time our Dictator-in-Waiting Obama would have suggested that not having enough positive search results could be illegal, it would have been a gak-storm from people who are not silent.
gak-storm? Nah.
Ding him a bit? You bet. (as el Trumpo deserves same criticism for being a baby).
Dude. The ODS was insane. 'Member Jade Helm? Actual adults in charge of important things dreamed that nonsense up.
The ODS was insane... the BDS was off the chain... this isn't TDS as Trump is throwing a petulant hissy fit:
People filing suit based on "inadequate security" as if everyone should be strip searched before they walk into a restaurant or an arcade. It's really too bad - the owner of the restaurant will likely have to fork out tons of money for their defense. Probably will go out of business. 2 Dead - 10 wounded - and 1 restaurant out of business. Quite a toll. Some weasel is gonna make money off of it though - I assure you.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
People filing suit based on "inadequate security" as if everyone should be strip searched before they walk into a restaurant or an arcade. It's really too bad - the owner of the restaurant will likely have to fork out tons of money for their defense. Probably will go out of business. 2 Dead - 10 wounded - and 1 restaurant out of business. Quite a toll. Some weasel is gonna make money off of it though - I assure you.
Can small business owners get insurance for this kind of thing?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
People filing suit based on "inadequate security" as if everyone should be strip searched before they walk into a restaurant or an arcade. It's really too bad - the owner of the restaurant will likely have to fork out tons of money for their defense. Probably will go out of business. 2 Dead - 10 wounded - and 1 restaurant out of business. Quite a toll. Some weasel is gonna make money off of it though - I assure you.
Can small business owners get insurance for this kind of thing?
I don't know the details about this particular place, so I don't know if they had any particular policy one way or the other.
But generally speaking, could you make the argument that if a place decides to ban firearms on their premises they would be responsible for any injuries that could have been prevented if you were allowed to bring a weapon to defend yourself with?
There would be a ton of "what-if" in that situation of course: what if you hurt someone while engaging the person, can you somehow prove that your self defense would have been successful, did you agree to the risk by entering a gun-free zone, etc etc etc. But at the very basic level, could/should that be an argument that can be made?
d-usa wrote: I don't know the details about this particular place, so I don't know if they had any particular policy one way or the other.
But generally speaking, could you make the argument that if a place decides to ban firearms on their premises they would be responsible for any injuries that could have been prevented if you were allowed to bring a weapon to defend yourself with?
There would be a ton of "what-if" in that situation of course: what if you hurt someone while engaging the person, can you somehow prove that your self defense would have been successful, did you agree to the risk by entering a gun-free zone, etc etc etc. But at the very basic level, could/should that be an argument that can be made?
That's a real Catch-22. Sued for allowing firearms that were used to injure me. Sued for not allowing firearms that I could use to defend myself with. Yeesh.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
d-usa wrote: I don't know the details about this particular place, so I don't know if they had any particular policy one way or the other.
But generally speaking, could you make the argument that if a place decides to ban firearms on their premises they would be responsible for any injuries that could have been prevented if you were allowed to bring a weapon to defend yourself with?
There would be a ton of "what-if" in that situation of course: what if you hurt someone while engaging the person, can you somehow prove that your self defense would have been successful, did you agree to the risk by entering a gun-free zone, etc etc etc. But at the very basic level, could/should that be an argument that can be made?
You could make the argument, it would be a negligent security suit which is a type of premises liability. The person who sued would need to prove that their security measures weren't enough to reasonably expect their safety was ensured.
Can I then sue a premise where weapons were allowed and I was injured by a bystander who defended himself? If the premise didn't allow legal carry, he wouldn't have defended himself and I wouldn't be injured. Would it have escalated to a firefight if nobody pulled their own weapon to confront a bad guy with a gun?
That's a real Catch-22. Sued for allowing firearms that were used to injure me. Sued for not allowing firearms that I could use to defend myself with. Yeesh.
Yeah, I don't know that I have a good answer to that problem either way.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/28 19:34:19
d-usa wrote: Can I then sue a premise where weapons were allowed and I was injured by a bystander who defended himself? If the premise didn't allow legal carry, he wouldn't have defended himself and I wouldn't be injured. Would it have escalated to a firefight if nobody pulled their own weapon to confront a bad guy with a gun?
That's a real Catch-22. Sued for allowing firearms that were used to injure me. Sued for not allowing firearms that I could use to defend myself with. Yeesh.
Yeah, I don't know that I have a good answer to that problem either way.
Nor I. This country has gone absolutely nuts.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
d-usa wrote: Can I then sue a premise where weapons were allowed and I was injured by a bystander who defended himself? If the premise didn't allow legal carry, he wouldn't have defended himself and I wouldn't be injured. Would it have escalated to a firefight if nobody pulled their own weapon to confront a bad guy with a gun?
That's a real Catch-22. Sued for allowing firearms that were used to injure me. Sued for not allowing firearms that I could use to defend myself with. Yeesh.
Yeah, I don't know that I have a good answer to that problem either way.
Nor I. This country has gone absolutely nuts.
Hopefully this case is tossed out immediately. We don't need every indoor space to be a virtual castle.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
d-usa wrote: Can I then sue a premise where weapons were allowed and I was injured by a bystander who defended himself? If the premise didn't allow legal carry, he wouldn't have defended himself and I wouldn't be injured. Would it have escalated to a firefight if nobody pulled their own weapon to confront a bad guy with a gun?
That's a real Catch-22. Sued for allowing firearms that were used to injure me. Sued for not allowing firearms that I could use to defend myself with. Yeesh.
Yeah, I don't know that I have a good answer to that problem either way.
Nor I. This country has gone absolutely nuts.
=
Hopefully this case is tossed out immediately. We don't need every indoor space to be a virtual castle.
I doubt it gets tossed out. The good news for the restaurant though is that Florida uses the pure comparative negligence standard so it is possible that if they do pay anything it won't be for the full amount.
3500+
3300+
1000
1850
2000 
