Shooting victim's family claims 8chan, CloudFlare are liable in $1M lawsuit
8chan and CloudFlare were 'intentional, knowing, reckless or negligent,' lawsuit alleges.
By Christian de La Chapelle 10-31-19

Four children of a woman killed during the El Paso Walmart shooting are suing CloudFlare Inc. CEO Matthew Prince and the founder and owner of message board website 8chan, asking for $1 million in damages.

Angelina Englisbee, 86, was one of 22 who died when a gunman who reportedly posted an anti-Hispanic manifesto on 8chan opened fire in August. The civil lawsuit also names the parents and grandparents of the suspect, Patrick Crusius, as defendants.

8chan is owned by James Watkins. The site's founder Fredrick Brennan has called for the 8chan to be shut down. CloudFlare stopped hosting 8chan after the shooting.

"This lawsuit is intended to honor the life of Angelina Maria Englisbee to Stop the Hate," according to the office of the family's lawyer, James Scherr.

The suit has been filed in El Paso County district court. 8chan and CloudFlare "were intentional, knowing, reckless or negligent in that they not only knew or should have known of Crusius' schemes, plans and dangerous propensities, but they also provided encouragement, assistance, brain washing and the ways and means for Crusius and other disciples of hate to carry out the plans" that led to Englisbee's death, the lawsuit alleges.
The lawsuit also alleges that Crusius' parents and grandparents were negligent in training and overseeing him.

A lawyer representing the parents and grandparents, Chris Ayres, told the Wall Street Journal: "The reality is that this family, too, was shocked and stunned by these events. We believe the facts will show that the family did nothing other than provide Patrick the love, care, and support that any family would."

------
ANON COMMENTS:
The women on whose behalf they are suing was in her 80s. Lawsuits of this type rely on valuing the life of the individual. Difficult to successfully sue when the victim is very elderly--looked into this after my 87-yr-old father died as the result of a botched operation. One reason this suit is probably going nowhere. Very good chance they know this and suit is more to make a point than anything else. But whose point? Who suggested the family sue??

Another point: How could 8chan have known the shooter's propensities? Impossible. Last part of the sentence is the real point: lawyers are trying to say that 8chan encourages violence and is into brainwashing. SO: how to refute that idea?? Something to think about.