Active Shooter Trial by Jury

Active Shooter Trial By Jury

On November 30, 2021, a terrible tragedy took place at Oxford High School in Oxford, Michigan. Four high school students were killed and many others injured, both physically and psychologically. Some of the victim's families are now plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the school district and employees involved. Their complaint alleges that the shootings were entirely preventable and they have recently entered a complaint in a request for a jury trial. It is the complaint's assertion that each named Defendant created and increased the dangers then-existing at Oxford High School and further that each committed conduct amounting to gross negligence, causing serious and permanent physical and emotional trauma.

It should be made clear that Defendants are considered innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers. For this reason, we will not be mentioning any names in this evaluation and think piece. A jury must decide if the Defendants are each responsible through their actions for making the student victims less safe, causing the students to be in direct harm, and acting in a manner that was so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results.

If the allegations in this complaint are true, then the acts are unconscionable.

In the security tech space, we find ourselves talking about the shift we see in the industry as it relates to active shooter situations. We have witnessed, and continue to witness, cases where a duty of care was assigned to the organization where the active shooter event took place. Courts are finding (when it comes to active shooter tragedies) that it was the responsibility of the organization to plan for what is now, oftentimes considered, a foreseeable event. When a lack of reasonable care was not taken, organizations are being held liable.

Given this witnessed shift, we are now going to approach this pending complaint in the Oxford shooting as a think piece. We encourage you, the reader, to follow us along a path of putting yourselves in the Defendants' shoes and evaluating how you would approach this complaint if the situation had happened at your organization or you were actually a named Defendant. We will generically evaluate the stated particulars of the case and the accusations that follow in the complaint. We will refer to the Defendants generically and assume they were all acting under the color of state law within the course and scope of his/her employment at the organization (school). We have added emphasis to key terminology and redacted names for objectivity.

A Timeline of Events

Before we begin, let's outline the details as stated in the complaint.

On November 30, 2021, the accused brought a Sig Saur 9mm semi-automatic handgun to school and opened fire slaughtering students, resulting in the death of four (4), and seriously injuring six (6) other students and a teacher.
Upon information and belief, in the days leading up to the November 30, 2021, incident, the accused, acted in such a way that would lead a reasonable observer to know and/or believe that he was planning to cause great bodily harm to the other students and/or staff at the school.

By way of example, and not limitation, previous to the November 30, 2021, incident, the accused posted countdowns, and threats of bodily harm, including death, on his social media accounts, warning of violent tendencies and murderous ideology prior to actually coming to school with the handgun and ammunition to perpetuate the slaughter. For example, a threat on social media the night before the shooting, reading, “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds. See you tomorrow Oxford.”

Upon information and belief, on November 11, 2021, the accused brought a severed bird head in a mason jar containing a yellow liquid to the school and left the jar on a toilet paper dispenser in the boy's bathroom.
On November 11, 2021, students reported to school administration officials, the discovery of the jar in the boy's bathroom containing a severed bird head and yellow liquid.
The following day, on November 12, 2021, the school administration sent an email to parents of students indicating, “Please know that we have reviewed every concern shared with us and investigated all information provided…[w]e want our parents and students to know that there has been no threat to our building nor our students.”
On or about November 16, 2021, days prior to the actual incident, multiple parents of students provided communications to one Defendant with concerns about threats to students made on social media, and the incident of the severed animal heads at school, the two weeks before.
The parents’ communications to one defendant in part stated, “I know it’s been investigated but my kid doesn’t feel safe at school," "He didn’t even want to go back to school today."
That same day, November 16, 2021, one defendant emailed parents indicating, "I know I'm being redundant here, but there is absolutely no threat at the HS…large assumptions were made from a few social media posts, then the assumptions evolved into exaggerated rumors."
Two Defendants reviewed the social media posts of the accused prior to November 30, 2021, which threatened school students.
Two Defendants had actual knowledge of concerns from parents of students as well as the students themselves.
Two Defendants were aware that the accused brought a severed bird head to school and left it in the boy's bathroom.
Two Defendants had actual knowledge of the accused's violent tendencies and ideations.
Despite the posts and knowledge of threats of violence, one Defendant sent correspondence and emails to parents reassuring them that their children were safe at the school.
Following the November 16, 2021, email exchanges and other communications from one Defendant to the parents of students, said Defendant warned the students, via loudspeaker, to stop spreading information over social media and to stop relying on the information on social media, reiterating that there were no threats that posed any danger to students.
At all times relevant hereto, said Defendant discouraged students and parents from reporting, sharing, or otherwise discussing the threatening social media posts.
At all times relevant hereto, said Defendant directed the teachers and counselors to tell students to stop reporting, sharing, or otherwise discussing the threatening social media posts and violent animal slaughter.
At all times relevant hereto, the accused’s Instagram and other social media accounts were not set to private and were available to the public, including Defendants.
Two Defendants and other employees and/or agents of the school had knowledge of threats made to the students.
At all times relevant, One Defendant's actions, by advising each and every student that there was no credible threat, demonstrated conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury result.
At all times relevant hereto, students were safer before said Defendant took action and advised each and every student that there was no credible threat. By virtue of said Defendant's actions, he substantially increased the harm to Plaintiffs’ Minors.
Said Defendant knew and/or should have known, that his announcement to the students would discourage the students and/or their parents from reporting credible threats of bodily harm to teachers, counselors, and staff.
At all times relevant, Plaintiffs’ Minors were safer before said Defendant took the actions described and advised each and every student, and parents, including Plaintiffs, that there was no credible threat. By virtue of said Defendant’s actions, he substantially increased the harm to Plaintiffs’ Minors.
At all times relevant, said Defendant's actions, by advising each and every student, including Plaintiffs’ Minors that there was no credible threat, constitutes conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury result.
Said Defendant knew and/or should have known that his assurances that social media threats were not credible would discourage the students and/or their parents from reporting credible threats of bodily harm to teachers, counselors, and staff.
On November 26, 2021, the accused's father purchased a Sig Saur 9 mm semi-automatic handgun for his son.

On November 26, 2021, the accused posted a picture of the Sig Saur 9 mm semi-automatic handgun to his social media account with the caption, “just got my new beauty today” with an emoji with heart eyes, followed by, “Sig Saur 9 mm. Any questions I will answer.” Emphasis added.

At all times relevant hereto, the accused posted to his Instagram account a post with a picture and caption of the Sig Saur 9 mm semi-automatic handgun. This post was for public viewing and accessible to all Defendants.
On November 27, 2021, the accused’s mother posted a message on her social media account reading, “mom and son day testing out his new Christmas present.” Emphasis added.
At all times relevant hereto, the mother's social media account was not set to private, and the post was available to the public.
At all times relevant hereto, the mothers' social media account with the picture and caption of the Sig Saur 9 mm semi-automatic handgun was available for public viewing and accessible to all Defendants prior to the accused returning to school on Monday, Nov 29, 2021.
On November 29, 2021, the accused brought live ammunition to school and openly displayed the same while in the classroom.
On November 29, 2021, Defendant TEACHER #1 at the school observed the accused searching for ammunition on his cell phone during class and reported the incident to COUNSELOR #1.
Defendant TEACHER #1 allowed the accused to stay in the classroom despite the threats of violence with the minor children at school.
Defendant TEACHER #1 knowingly and deliberately decided to exclude the school safety liaison officer from notice of such dangers, despite knowing that the accused was searching for ammunition during class, and the aforesaid social media posts regarding his weapon were available to the public, including Defendant TEACHER #1.
Defendant TEACHER #1 had actual knowledge of the violent threats of bodily harm and further had knowledge of the accused’s intent to perpetrate those acts when he/she found the accused searching for ammunition and then did knowingly and deliberately decided to exclude the school safety liaison officer from reporting this incident.
Following the search for ammunition on the accused’s cell phone, two named Defendants in authority were notified of the incident, placing them on further alert of the threat.
Upon information and belief, the accused met with Defendants, COUNSELOR #1, and STAFF MEMBER about the search for ammunition during class on November 29, 2021.
On November 29, 2021, after meeting with Defendants COUNSELOR #1 and STAFF MEMBER, and as a result of the accused’s search for ammunition during class, the accused's mother was contacted via telephone by Defendant STAFF MEMBER who left a voicemail regarding the accused’s inappropriate internet search.
On November 29, 2021, Defendant STAFF MEMBER followed up on the unreturned voicemail to the accused's mother, with an email to the accused’s parents regarding the search for ammunition during school hours.
Defendants COUNSELOR #1 and STAFF MEMBER made a knowing and deliberate decision to exclude involving the school safety liaison officer of the accused’s behavior and knowingly decided to refrain from informing the school safety liaison of the meeting with the accused regarding the same.
Defendants TEACHER #1 and COUNSELOR #1, deliberately and knowingly sent the accused home after school, without any discipline or follow-up search regarding his inappropriate search for ammunition during class.
At all times relevant, Defendant STAFF MEMBER knew and/or should have known that the information regarding the accused’s inappropriate internet search would likely be relayed to the accused by his parents and would encourage and/or entice the accused into more affirmative actions.
At all times relevant, the students at the school were safer before Defendant STAFF MEMBER, affirmatively contacted the accused’s parents via telephone and email, and afferently chose to allow the accused to return to school the next day. This action assisted with an acceleration of plans to effectuate the slaughter of his classmates and provided clearance for the accused to commit the violent slaughter of his classmates.
Defendant, STAFF MEMBER, made a knowing and deliberate decision against taking any meaningful corrective action against the accused, increasing the risk that Plaintiffs’ Minors would be exposed to the accused’s acts of violence.
At all times relevant, Plaintiffs were safer before Defendant COUNSELOR #1, affirmatively contacted the accused’s parents via telephone and email, affirmatively chose against certain actions, and affirmatively decided to allow the accused to return to school the next day. This action assisted in the perpetuation of his plans to effectuate and provided the clearance for the accused to commit, a violent slaughter of classmates and increased the risk that Plaintiffs’ Minors would be exposed to the accused’s acts of violence.
On November 29, 2021, Defendants TEACHER #1 and COUNSELOR #1, knowingly and deliberately released the accused without further investigation or discipline. Further, the accused's public social media posts regarding his Sig Saur 9 mm semi-automatic handgun and the accused’s mother's public social media post were available to everyone, all of which altered said Defendants to the imminent attack.
Upon information and belief, in the evening of November 29, 2021, after Defendants TEACHER #1, COUNSELOR #1, and STAFF MEMBER, released the accused from school without discipline and without investigating his inappropriate internet search, and without notifying the school safety liaison officer, that the accused had posted to his Twitter account, “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds. See you tomorrow [school name].” Although his Twitter account was set to private, the posting was made to his profile biography, and visible to anyone who could search his name, including Defendants.
The accused returned to school the next day unchained and emboldened by the knowledge that Defendants decided to allow him to return to school. The students at the school were safer before Defendant TEACHER #1, COUNSELOR #1, and STAFF MEMBER, knowingly and deliberately allowed the murderous student to return to school the next day, despite the clear and present dangers he posed to students at the school.
At all times relevant, Defendant TEACHER #1, COUNSELOR #1, STAFF MEMBER, made a knowing, intentional, and deliberate decision to intentionally withhold and exclude important and vital information from the school liaison officer before allowing the accused to return to school the next day, putting all students in immediate danger, accelerating the accused’s plans to effectuate his planned slaughter of classmates and providing clearance for the accused to commit his acts of violence, by said decisions increasing the risk that Plaintiffs’ Minors would be exposed to the accused's acts of violence.
The actions of TEACHER #1, COUNSELOR #1, and STAFF MEMBER amounted to conduct so reckless so as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results.
On the morning of November 30, 2021, Defendant TEACHER #2 discovered horrific drawings on assignments left on the accused’s desk, after the accused was caught searching for and watching violent shooting videos on his phone. These horrific writings and drawings, and the accused’s watching of shooting videos, were reported to one named Defendant and Defendant COUNSELOR #1 and took a picture of said note with his/her cell phone.
Upon information and belief, the note contained the following:

1. A drawing of a semi-automatic handgun pointing the words, “the thoughts won’t stop help me;”
2. In another section of the note was the drawing of a bullet with the following words above the bullet, “blood everywhere;”
3. Between the drawing of the gun and bullet is a drawing of a person who appears to have been shot twice and bleeding;
4. Below that figure is a drawing of laughing emoji;
5. Further down the drawing are the words, “My life is useless” with the words, “the world is dead” to the right.

Upon information and belief, Defendant TEACHER #2, was also aware of a school policy of excluding backpacks in the classroom, and TEACHER #2, made a knowing and deliberate decision to leave, unsearched, the accused’s backpack, even after discovering the alarming note authored by the accused.
Defendant TEACHER #2 knowingly and affirmatively allowed the violent and threatening student to continue to maintain control of his backpack, phone, and other possessions, giving him easy access to store a weapon, all demonstrating conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results.
At all times relevant hereto, the students at the school, and in particular, minor Plaintiffs, were safer before Defendant TEACHER #2 knowingly and affirmatively allowed the accused to continue to maintain control of his backpack, phone, and other possessions, giving him easy access to store a gun, thereby increasing the risk that Plaintiff’ Minors would be exposed to the accused’s acts of violence.
At all times relevant, the students at the school, were safer before Defendant TEACHER #2 took action and intentionally did not report the violent notes and drawing by the accused, containing threats of bodily harm, including death, to the school liaison officer, causing the accused to have the opportunity to shoot the classmates, but to do so on an accelerated timeline, by providing clearance for the accused to commit his acts of violence, thereby increasing the risk that Plaintiffs’ Minors would be exposed to the accused’s acts of violence.
Upon information and belief, upon discovery of the concerning note, the accused was removed from the classroom, in front of his classmates, with his backpack, by Defendant COUNSELOR #1 and was made to sit in the office with Defendants COUNSELOR #1, and COUNSELOR #2 for approximately an hour and a half while waiting for his parents to arrive at the school.
Defendant COUNSELOR #1 knew and/or should have known that by removing the accused from class, in front of his classmates, with his backpack and making him sit for an hour and a half while waiting for his parents after the accused had drawn violent pictures and notes depicting death and violence against students at the school, such actions provided clearance for the accused to commit his acts of violence and would, and did, further accelerate the accused’s murderous plans.
Upon information and belief, during the period of time that the accused sat with the counselors, he maintained control of his backpack which then contained the Sig Saur 9 mm semi-automatic handgun with 30 live bullets to be used to slaughter classmates.
Defendant COUNSELOR #1 and COUNSELOR #2, knowingly and deliberately decided to exclude the school safety liaison despite having knowledge of threats against the school, the accused’s search history the day before, and the violent drawing which was the reason for his removal from the classroom.
At all times relevant, the students were safer before Defendant COUNSELOR #1 and COUNSELOR #2 took action and deliberately decided against reporting the violent note drawn by the accused, containing threats of bodily harm, including death, to the school liaison officer, providing clearance for the accused to commit his acts of violence, allowing the accused thereby to have the opportunity to carry out his murderous rampage on an accelerated timeline, thereby increasing the risk that Plaintiffs’ Minors would be exposed to the accused’s acts of violence.
Upon information and belief, the accused’s parents arrived at the school and a meeting was held with Defendant COUNSELOR #1, Defendant COUNSELOR #2, one named Defendant, Defendant STAFF MEMBER, and another named Defendant, at which the accused was present and at which time they were shown the aforesaid drawing and advised by Defendants that the accused was required to go to counseling within 48-hours.
Upon information and belief, the accused’s parents were advised by Defendants COUNSELOR #1, COUNSELOR #2, STAFF MEMBER, and two named Defendants, in the very presence of the accused, that a failure to attend counseling within 48 hours would result in the school contacting Child Protective Services.
At no point prior to the meeting with the accused and his parents did any Defendant contact Child Protective Services.
All Defendants are mandatory reporters under Michigan Law.
All Defendants received specialized training in identifying abuse and child endangerment.
Despite the threats, posts of guns and ammunition, threats of violence, and terror, no Defendant made contact with Child Protective Services, which would have investigated the accused and warned the students at the school of his imminent threats.
Alternatively, and additionally, Defendants failed to institute, train, or otherwise instruct Defendants on their duties as mandatory reporters.
Defendants’ failure to mandatorily report such demonstrated violent conduct and threats is so reckless as to have a substantial disregard for whether injury would occur or otherwise amount to gross negligence.
Defendants COUNSELOR #1, COUNSELOR #2, STAFF, and two named Defendants took these actions during school hours, while students were present at the school.
After the meeting which Defendants COUNSELOR #1, COUNSELOR #2, STAFF MEMBER, TEACHER #1, TEACHER #2, two named Defendants, the accused, and his parents, the accused was allowed to by Defendants and returned to the classroom with his backpack containing the Sig Saur 9 mm semiautomatic handgun and 30 live bullets.
At all times relevant Defendants deliberately conducted this meeting, excluding the School Safety Liaison Officer from the meeting, thereby preventing him from being present at the meeting.
At all times relevant, Plaintiffs were safer before Defendants took action and held a meeting with the accused and his parents (without the school safety liaison officer present) and by subsequently allowing the accused to return to his classroom after said meeting, thereby providing clearance for the accused to commit his acts of violence and allowing the accused to carry out the murder of fellow students, fulfilling his aforesaid promises to do so. By virtue of named Defendant's actions, he substantially increased the risk that Plaintiffs’ Minors would be exposed to the accused’s acts of violence.
At all times relevant, the actions of TEACHER #2 and COUNSELOR #2 amounted to conduct so reckless so as to demonstrate a substantial disregard for whether injury would occur or otherwise amount to gross negligence.
Defendants knew that threatening to call Child Protective Services within 48 hours and threatening, without action, to remove the accused from his home, would create and/or increase the likelihood that the accused would carry out his plan and slaughter given he would have lost the opportunity given the prospect of threatened Child Protective Services intervention in the coming days.
Upon information and belief, after being allowed to return to his classroom, the accused took his backpack to a school bathroom, and, sometime after being returned to his class, loaded ammunition in the Sig Saur 9 mm semiautomatic handgun and walked out of the bathroom to design the massacre.
Defendants gave the accused the opportunity to go to the bathroom, with his backpack, to prepare for his planned rampage, thereby providing clearance for the accused to commit his acts of violence, increasing the risk that Plaintiffs’ Minors would be exposed to the accused’s acts of violence.
At approximately 12:52 p.m., authorities were notified of an active shooter at the school.
Upon information and belief, the accused’s massacre was halted when he was apprehended by law enforcement.
On December 1, 2021, the accused was arraigned and charged as an adult with one count of terrorism causing death, four (4) counts of first-degree murder, seven (7) counts of assault with intent to murder, and 12 counts of possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony.

The Stated Accusations

The risk that the accused posed substantial and deadly harm to other students was obvious and known by the Defendants.
That each and every defendant named herein made affirmative actions that created and increased the risk of harm and danger to the school students, and in particular, Plaintiffs’ Minors’, vulnerability to the extremely violent behavior and murderous ideology of the accused and provided clearance for the accused to commit his acts of violence. Minor Plaintiffs were all safer before the actions of all Defendants than they were after.
That each and every defendant named herein took affirmative actions and as well as committed failures that acted as and created harm and danger to the school students, including, Plaintiffs’ Minors’. Defendants' conduct was so reckless as to have a substantial disregard for whether injury would occur or otherwise amounting to gross negligence.
The “state action” of all Defendants substantially increased the harm to the minor Plaintiffs, thereby increasing the risk that Plaintiffs would be exposed to the accused’s acts of violence.
The “state action” of each and all of the Defendants provided clearance for the accused to commit his acts of violence and accelerated the acts of violence committed by the accused.
The “state action” of all Defendants allowed threats of violence to be carried out towards the students, provided clearance for the defendant to commit his acts of violence, and allowed the accused the opportunity to retrieve his handgun, by deliberately conducting inflammatory meetings without a police liaison present, directly causing the students to be subjected to great bodily harm.
At all times relevant, all Defendants willfully misrepresented the dangers presented which was an action in and of itself. The students and Plaintiffs’ Minors, in particular, were safer had the misrepresentations not been said, thereby increasing the risk that Plaintiffs would be exposed to the accused’s acts of violence.
Defendants' affirmative actions were reckless and put the students at the school at substantial risk of serious and immediate harm.
Defendants had a clearly established duty to not create and/or increase the risk of harm and danger to students.
The Defendants' affirmative actions placed students at risk of a violent school shooting.
The Defendants knew and/or clearly should have known that their actions would endanger the students.
The students were safer before each and every one of the individual Defendants took the within enumerated actions, which placed students in a substantially more dangerous situation, provided clearance for the accused to commit his acts of violence, increasing the risk that students would be exposed to the accused’s acts of violence.
At all times relevant the action by each and every individual defendant created the substantial risk that outside assistance to the students would be negated, by willfully representing they had taken action to ensure the safety of all the students.
Defendants’ failure to report the crimes of threats and violence demonstrated conduct was so reckless as to have a substantial disregard for whether injury would occur, and otherwise amounted to gross negligence.
Alternatively, Defendants failed to institute, train, or otherwise instruct Defendants on their duties as reporters of violence and crimes.
At all times relevant, all Defendants' failure to train, institute, or otherwise instruct on the school employees and or administration was done in a manner so reckless as to have a substantial disregard for whether injury would occur or otherwise done in a grossly negligent manner.
The actions of all Defendants increased the danger presented by the accused.
The actions of all Defendants were a/the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ Minors injuries.
The actions of all Defendants were the most immediate, efficient, and direct cause of Plaintiffs’ Minors' injuries.
The actions of all Defendants allowed threats to be carried out against the students, allowed the accused the opportunity to retrieve his handgun, by conducting inflammatory meetings with the accused and his parents without a police liaison present directly caused the students at the school to be in danger of harm.
At all times relevant, all Defendants willfully misrepresented the danger presented which was an action. This action directly caused Plaintiffs’ Minors injuries.
The Defendants' actions, as well as their failures to act, were reckless and put the students at the school at substantial risk of serious and immediate harm.
The Defendants' actions, as well as their failures to act, placed students at risk of a mass murder expressly promised by the accused.
At all times relevant hereto the actions of each and every individual defendant removed the likelihood of police outside assistance to the school students by willfully representing they had taken action to ensure the safety of the students when they had not.
Defendants’ conduct was outrageous and shocks the conscience.
Defendants are not entitled to governmental and/or qualified immunity.
Defendants acted with conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury result causing the proximate cause of injuries to students.
Pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, at all times relevant hereto, students had a clearly established right to be free from danger created and/or increased by the Defendants.
At all times relevant hereto, that the Defendants, were acting under the color of state law and created and/or increased a state-created danger by substantially increasing the risk of harm to students and in reckless disregard to students safety, thereby increasing the risk that students would be exposed to the accused’s acts of violence.
That actions by Defendants, under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as 42 U.S.C. §1983 and §1988 were all performed under the color of state law and were objectively unreasonable and performed knowingly, deliberately and indifferently...and in reckless disregard to Plaintiffs’ Minors’ safety.
That each and all Defendants were acting under the color of state law when they deprived Plaintiffs’ Minors of their clearly established rights, privileges, and immunities in violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and of 42 U.S.C. §1983 and §1988.
That each and every individual Defendant exhibited deliberate indifference, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, by taking affirmative actions resulting in the students being less safe than they were before the action of each and every Individual Defendant.

A Summary of the Accusations Against Defendants

The Defendants actions created the danger and increased the risk of harm that their students would be exposed to private acts of violence, to wit:

1. Deliberately and intentionally returning the accused to class with a loaded Sig Saur 9 mm semi-automatic handgun;
2. Deliberately deciding against involving and advising the proper police authorities of the accused’s conduct and making a decision to handle the situation without proper authorities being involved;
3. Choosing to return the accused to class with a Sig Saur 9 mm semi-automatic handgun after he had been actively searching for ammunition during class on the internet the day before;
4. Deliberately deciding against searching the accused’s backpack;
5. Deciding against reporting the accused’s internet search for ammunition to proper police authorities the day before the shooting;
6. Deliberately returning the accused to his classroom with a Sig Saur 9 mm semi-automatic handgun and ammunition, after confiscating a picture drawn by the accused which demonstrated a high likelihood that the accused would effectuate a slaughter;
7. Deciding against internally handling the complaints and threat of a school shooter in the days leading to the November 30, 2021, school shooting rather than involve the proper police authorities;
8. Deciding against inspecting the accused’s backpack which maintained the Sig Saur 9 mm semi-automatic handgun and ammunition used to shoot and/or the accused’s locker, when Defendants maintained custody and control over same;
9. Deliberately and intentionally concealing facts from the appropriate law enforcement authority before returning the accused to class where he had access to the Sig Saur 9 mm semi-automatic handgun used to shoot;
10. Deliberately deciding against reporting the accused’s suspicious behavior to Child Protective Services;
11. Deliberately deciding against reporting the accused’s suspicious behavior to appropriate law enforcement;
12. Interviewing the accused in front of his parents, knowing that interview would accelerate the violence planned, and creating a more dangerous situation for the students after said interview by,
13. inter alia, providing clearance and the go-ahead for the accused to thereafter commit his acts of violence;
14. Deliberately deciding against having appropriate mental health intervention for the accused prior to returning him to class with a Sig Saur 9 mm semi-automatic handgun;
15. Demonstrating conduct so reckless that it demonstrates a substantial lack of concern for whether any injury would result;
16. Wrongfully causing Plaintiffs’ Minors to suffer extreme emotional distress;
17. Recklessly, or otherwise improperly returning the accused to class with the Sig Saur 9 mm semi-automatic handgun, so that he could effectuate his murderous ideology;
18. Enforced the deficient and faulty policies, procedures, and practices set forth in Count III, infra, as well as those previously described.
19. The failures and resulting failures of the actions set for in subparagraphs (a)-(q), above.
20. Any and all other breaches that may become known throughout the course of this litigation.
21. That all of the above conduct alleged substantially increased the harm to Plaintiffs Minors, who were safer before Defendants took the affirmative acts described.
22. That the above-described conduct of Defendants, as specifically set forth above, were the proximate cause of injuries and damages.

Damages Being Sought

The complaint requests that the Court enter judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of One-Hundred Million Dollars ($100,000,000.00), together with interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees, as well as punitive and/or exemplary damages.

In this particular complaint, there are two minor plaintiffs, each of which is entering a request for $100 million.

Reflections

To be clear, a filed complaint is not a conviction. All Defendants listed in the complaint deserve their day in court and are presumed innocent until proven guilty as decided on by a jury of their peers. For this reason, we encourage readers to follow the complaint by way of this article for purposes of understanding the potential liability exposure under an organization's duty of care. We highlight keywords and phrases intentionally as it demonstrates the shift we are witnessing in court filings after active shooter events.

It is abundantly clear that post active shooter events, any and all knowledge, action, inaction, or behavior of decision-makers will be scrutinized. The case outlined above represents two minor SURVIVING students in the Oxford Michigan shooting and requests a judgment in excess of $200 million. It is reasonable to assume that other cases will follow, especially considering that others' lives were lost.

If damages are awarded in any relevant percentage against the requested damages in just this case, what happens to the school going forward? If this was your organization, or the school your child attends, where would that leave you?

If this was a business, how would the public feel about doing business with them moving forward?
If this were your child's school, or would soon otherwise become your child's school in the future, would you feel safe sending your child there?
Will criminal charges eventually come out of this case? What is the threshold for responsibility when it comes to keeping students, staff, and invitees safe?
Was this event foreseeable? Are all active shooter events foreseeable?

These are just a few of the questions we find ourselves asking. Will we grieve this tragedy and move on again, waiting for the next horrific event? Or will we get involved?

Some Questions To Ask Yourself

If you are a staff member or parent of a student in school:

What programs are in place to identify violent threats?
What intervention strategies are in place when a threat is identified?
How are threats communicated to students, staff, and parents?
Can students/parents anonymously report incidents at their school?
Does your school have mental health resources available for students and staff?
Are students and staff adequately trained on response protocols should violence strike?
What technology is available in your school to mitigate violent acts?
Are all staff trained on countermeasures and technology?
Do students and staff feel safe at your school?

If you are a business owner:

What programs are in place to identify violent threats?
What intervention strategies are in place when a threat is identified?
How are threats communicated to employees?
Can employees anonymously report incidents?
Do you have mental health resources available for your staff?
Are employees adequately trained on response protocols should violence strike?
What technology is available in your organization to mitigate violent acts?
Are all staff trained on countermeasures and technology?
Do employees and invitees feel safe at your organization?

You can, of course, see the overlap. These questions are universal to any school, business, organization, building, or public entity because active shooter events and acts of violence, in general, can happen anywhere and at any time. Given that, we must all take responsibility for safety. We must all consider the potential risk. We must all be involved with mitigating the effects of violent acts. We must all do what we can to save lives. The time is now.

_________________________________________________________________________________

ASR Alert Systems is a patented state-of-the-art critical incident response technology specializing in the field of alert notifications to Law Enforcement and First Responders in the event of an active shooter or other crisis. Our technology can be customized to any industry, building, or event. We deliver customer-specific technology unmatched by anyone. We are the only solution on the market today that goes DIRECT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT (we hold the patent on this technology). All other commercially available solutions utilize third-party call centers. The Patented ASR First Responder Dispatch Console is a stand-alone wireless (cellular) console that resides inside the dispatch centers or RTCC’s and does not require a computer or additional hardware. Our patented method works great as a permanent solution or we can also integrate directly with police computer-assisted dispatch systems. The difference is our comprehensive information exchange DIRECT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT that will be responding to a critical event at your facility.