Search Salon

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Recently in Salon News

Stunning new Columbine charges
On the eve of the massacre's anniversary, a flurry of lawsuits by victims' families allege that law enforcement killed a student -- and failed to save many more.
By Dave Cullen
[04/20/00]

White House blasts Salon
Drug policy spokesman responds to Daniel Forbes' report on the government's anti-drug messages in American media, and Forbes replies.

[04/20/00]

Saving Miranda
As the Supreme Court hears oral arguments about the future of arrestees' rights, an IMF protester makes his case.
By Thurston Domina
[04/19/00]

Who tipped off the media about the Waco raid?
The government knows who leaked word of the deadly assault on the Branch Davidian compound, but seven years later, no one's talking.
By Robert Bryce, Jim Moore and Joe Ellis
[04/19/00]

World Bank and IMF: The match continues
Our experts debate the role of globalism's de facto government against the backdrop of protests in Washington.
By Daryl Lindsey
[04/18/00]

Complete archives for News

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

The suit charges that the sheriff's office has mischaracterized the attack for the past year as a "hostage situation," when "the massacre was not at any point a 'hostage situation' under the clear meaning of the term set forth in Defendants' own manual."

It also alleges that the command team "knew before noon (although they have since tried to suggest otherwise) that there were two suspects, and that their names were Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold." The suit explains that the sheriff's deputy serving as security guard at the school knew both killers, and exchanged fire with them outside the school at the start of the attack.

A sharpshooter witnessed the killers' suicides, the suit claims, and therefore "the Command Defendants knew of their deaths to a virtual certainty by 12:30 p.m. at the latest."

That early knowledge of the killers' identities and their deaths changed the nature of the attack, and the expectations of the law enforcement response, the suit contends.

While the new allegations about the law enforcement response to the massacre have received the most attention, they are not the heart of the legal case. The family is claiming that Sanders' civil rights were violated "by prohibiting or impeding movement and then not doing anything to save him," Grenier explained. The suit hinges on the fact that the command team forced Sanders to remain inside Science Room 3, cut off several avenues of escape, repeatedly offered assurances that help would arrive within 15 minutes and then failed to respond as promised.

"Command Defendants exerted their control over everyone inside the school and over the hundreds of police, medical and rescue personnel massed nearby to prevent anyone from taking any action directed at rescuing or saving the life of Dave Sanders," the suit reads. It contends the command team prohibited students and teachers from breaking out a window and barred SWAT teams from attempting a surgical entry through the roof or one of many exterior doors almost directly beneath him.

"As a result ... Science Room 3 was the last [their emphasis] area in the building reached by SWAT teams ... and Dave Sanders was literally the last wounded person whom police or rescue personnel got to, even though Sanders was the only individual known to the Command Defendants throughout the critical several-hour period to be in urgent need of emergency lifesaving treatment."

The suit repeats what has long been common knowledge, that by noon law enforcement was aware of Sanders' situation and location via 911 calls and a large white message board reading "1 BLEEDING TO DEATH" facing toward the window. The department has contended that Sanders' wounds were severe enough that he would not have survived regardless, but the suit also challenges this claim.

Next page | Even killers perplexed by sheriff's department's lack of action, suit claims