It's also very good to know that I can feel confident about ruling out a "wrongful death" suit as well. Before, I'm just given something about a shooting at a highschool. Who, what, when, why, where?
NOW I see that there was just one death and some injuries from a shooter that was NOT Helix. And those were on students, not an officer in question from friendly fire as I understsand things. There is merely an investigation about an alleged, possible mistake as I understand it, in friendly fire. But I saw nothing to conclude a fatality occurred from that. Or even injury, which is possible. And I'm making "assumptions" that that is the *potential* liability we are exposed to that is part of the unassumed liability exposure.
So, IFFFFFF negligence were found, which is hard to prove, and IFFFFF it ever went to trial, or even a case filed, you can only win real damages. And you have to actually prove damages IFFF you can prove your case in the first place. And if they are indirect damages, like the claim the officers were slowed, which could have allegedly prevented an injury, then that is that much harder to prove. And death is expensive. Injuries are not. And security and intelligent people like Zac have INSURANCE. Like, for example, there is a wrongful death suit against IVFH right now, and they had a settlement offer, and they have insurance, and I'm not worried. And that was a more compelling case on the surface in regards to DEATH and NEGLIGENCE. There is no death here form a guard's bullet, so that's really good! That's what I need to know.
If we had a steady kicking, road raging personality like we have in this forum, then I might be worried. But these are professionals. LOL
