University Christian rejects blame in Makia Coney murder

[Jaxson]

Jacksonville's University Christian rejects blame in Makia Coney murder
Posted: April 27, 2011 - 6:01pm

By Paul Pinkham

University Christian student Makia Coney’s carelessness caused or contributed to her thrill-kill murder by two classmates, the Jacksonville private school is arguing in response to a lawsuit by Coney’s family.

Lawyers for University Baptist Church and University Christian School said in court documents Coney, 17, was negligent by leaving campus last year with her two teenaged killers â€" Connor Pridgen and Charles Southern.

They drove her to a remote location and took turns shooting her in the head, later telling police they wanted to know what it felt like. Both pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and were sentenced to maximum life prison terms.

Coney’s mother sued the school last month saying it should have done more to protect her daughter.

But the school’s Tampa lawyers answered that the girl assumed the risk of leaving campus and chose to expose herself to harm.

“Coney conducted herself in a negligent and careless manner, and as a direct and proximate result ... caused or contributed to her death,” they wrote in their answer to the lawsuit. “Coney knew or ... should have known of the risks, potential hazards and dangers associated with leaving the school premises with Southern and Pridgen in violation of school policy.”

The family’s attorney, Chris Chestnut, said he wasn’t surprised by University’s response.

“This callousness and disregard for her has been consistent from day one, and that’s why we’re in litigation,” he said. “The family didn’t want to be here.”

He said the goal of the lawsuit always has been improving security at the school, located near Interstate 95 at University Boulevard East.

“There are still security threats at the school, and if you don’t admit, you don’t correct,” he said.

In addition to her private school tuition, Coney’s family paid for her to attend an after-school program at University. But she left campus undetected about 3:15 p.m. with Pridgen and Southern the day of her murder.

Her body was found on Powers Avenue near Baker Skinner Park about 6 p.m.

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2011-04-27/story/jacksonvilles-university-christian-rejects-blame-makia-coney-murder#ixzz1KmauOVZw

Source: The Florida Times-Union (http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2011-04-27/story/jacksonvilles-university-christian-rejects-blame-makia-coney-murder)

[spuwho]

There are several questions outstanding on this:

-University Christian doesn't have any advertised or listed special paid "after school" daycare programs for 17 year olds.
-Even if they did, she was dead before the required check in time.
-Teens her age are allowed to leave campus after school hours are complete.
- Many kids her age do fast food runs before they have to be back for after school activities, like sports, disciplinary actions or extra circular activities.
- How many times were her parents late to pick her up?
- Did they show the same amount of responsibility as they expect from the defendant?

The whole thing is very, very sad.

[acme54321]

Seriously Stephen?  The only people to blame for this are the guys that pulled the trigger.  I have seen nothing that points to the school having any idea they were planning this.  If information like that comes out fine, but unless that happens how can you blame the school?

[BridgeTroll]

If this suit wins I can see public schools hiring more security, security cameras, random searches of vehicles and lockers and locking down campuses.  Since budgets are limited my guess would be education will suffer.  If the parents and Stephen are correct... the schools would be derelict to NOT enact much tougher security measures than currently exist.

[spuwho]

There are several questions outstanding on this:

-University Christian doesn't have any advertised or listed special paid "after school" daycare programs for 17 year olds.
-Even if they did, she was dead before the required check in time.
-Teens her age are allowed to leave campus after school hours are complete.
- Many kids her age do fast food runs before they have to be back for after school activities, like sports, disciplinary actions or extra circular activities.
- How many times were her parents late to pick her up?
- Did they show the same amount of responsibility as they expect from the defendant?

The whole thing is very, very sad.

Spuwho.

Dude, what the hell is wrong with you?  How many times were her parents late to pick her up?

That is the most idiotic, morally bankrupt questions that Ive heard that wasnt posted by notnow.

Are you under the impression that being late is similar to murder?

Sometimes I wonder what happens to right wingers as kids, that makes them turn the way they do.

The parents put their child in a private school to avoid these kinds of dangers, and a little responsible adult action or supervision on such a limited student body would have gone a long way.

Why the hell didnt this allegedly christian school with such a small number of students know that there was something dreadfully wrong with these two kids?

What are you getting for your money when you pay for private school anyways?

Stephen,

What I am asking is whether the parents are holding themselves to the same standard they are placing on the school. I don't think that is some rightwing nutjob question. 

People don't put kids in private schools "to avoid life". They were put there because the school offered a education mixed with religious principles.

The school is not a prison. They all don't wear RFID tags like something from Dillard's that will cause an alarm to go off if they step out a certain door.

She had been murdered before anyone would even start wondering where she was. Is that the school's fault? Of course not. That is not equating late with murder, that is saying the school hadn't even started looking for her yet. And how many times did her parents pick her up early and not tell anyone?

Were the boys troubled? No doubts now. The guardians wanted to get them involved in a religious setting while at the same time hoping they could finish their education. Based on the schools principles, they purposely try to help all of those in need. Not just financial, but spiritual as well. Unfortunately in this case, it wasn't enough. If you walked by those 2 boys in the mall would you know they were going to murder? I doubt it.

All private schools provide different services. I would suggest you contact some of the others to see how they would handle a 17 year old leaving campus after school. Bolles, Providence, Mandarin Christian, Trinity Christian.

I would wager that they would all let a 17 year old leave campus for a Taco Bell run even if they had to be back for some activity.

[ChriswUfGator]

This is all going to depend on how much history there is of behavioral problems, weird situations, violent incidents, etc., involving the two boys at school. If there is an extensive history, the onus would fall on the school to take corrective action to protect other students, and if they failed to do so then they may well be liable. I would suspect the Plaitiffs attorney must have some information of that nature or he wouldn't have filed this, lawsuits are expensive, people don't file them for fun despite what the insurance industry has misled some people into thinking.

If it turns out that this really was some isolated incident and the school had no prior indication that there was something wrong, and the claim really does rest entirely on the school letting her leave when it shouldn't have, then that's a much harder case although still not impossible. I guess my issue with Spuwho is we don't know anything yet, the facts haven't come out yet, and these people just lost their daughter but you're painting them as gold-digging opportunists based on some two-sentence long news story. Trust me I'm sure they'd rather have their child back. What makes you say such horrible things?

[BridgeTroll]

A private suit against a private school simply will not produce change in public schools.

Why?

Plus, if you have had a child in public schools lately, you know that this incident would not have been possible in public school.  The kids simply arent allowed to leave.

Well that sure stops em...

[acme54321]

Seriously Stephen?  The only people to blame for this are the guys that pulled the trigger.  I have seen nothing that points to the school having any idea they were planning this.  If information like that comes out fine, but unless that happens how can you blame the school?

Criminally, I agree with you.  The school is not criminally responsible for the actions of these two little monsters.  Perhaps there may be some later reason for hope for these two kids, but the stated reasons for the murders are too monstrous to believe that these two kids have much redeemable going on for them.

But the school isnt being held responsible criminally.  The suit, for whatever reason it might have been filed, is for their civil responsibility in preventing this from happening.

I don't know the grounds of the parents suit, so I cant really opine on whether its legitimate.

But regardless of the outcome, the reason they are being sued is separate from the criminal responsibility of the two little murderers.

Correct, but what was University Christian doing different than any other high school?  Once 3 O'Clock rolls around you are sent on your way.  Are there highschools that check out every student as they leave?  I haven't been out of HS for too long, and it wasn't in Duval, but when school was out they sent you on your way.  Either parents picked kids up, 16+ drove themselves home or to wherever, or stayed for after school activities.  Is that somehow different now?

[Jaxson]

When do parents teach their children to be responsible?  The murderers obviously did not make the most of their religious schooling and lacked the kind of home training that should have taught them not to callously take the life of another person.  As for the victim's parents, I believe that they may have been lulled into complacency simply because their daughter was enrolled in private school.  The general assumption is that, because a child is either in private school or home schooled, that they do not have the same safety concerns as a public school student.  Did the parents talk to their child about safety, or did the parents take her safety for granted simply because they believed that they were paying extra for it?  Ultimately, however, the fault lies with the boys who killed a beautiful young lady for no reason but to watch someone die.  

[Jaxson]

This is all going to depend on how much history there is of behavioral problems, weird situations, violent incidents, etc., involving the two boys at school. If there is an extensive history, the onus would fall on the school to take corrective action to protect other students, and if they failed to do so then they may well be liable. I would suspect the Plaitiffs attorney must have some information of that nature or he wouldn't have filed this, lawsuits are expensive, people don't file them for fun despite what the insurance industry has misled some people into thinking.

If it turns out that this really was some isolated incident and the school had no prior indication that there was something wrong, and the claim really does rest entirely on the school letting her leave when it shouldn't have, then that's a much harder case although still not impossible. I guess my issue with Spuwho is we don't know anything yet, the facts haven't come out yet, and these people just lost their daughter but you're painting them as gold-digging opportunists based on some two-sentence long news story. Trust me I'm sure they'd rather have their child back. What makes you say such horrible things?

+1

[Captain Zissou]

I would suggest you contact some of the others to see how they would handle a 17 year old leaving campus after school.

As a fairly recent graduate from one of the local private schools, I can tell you they would most likely do nothing.  Once you reach high school, they assume you're responsible enough to get yourself home.  I usually had a sport every day after school, but if I didn't show up, they didn't send a search party.  You were just disciplined for failing to meet your obligation.  For detention it was the same thing.  You just get double detention or Saturday school for not showing up.  A school is not responsible for its students after hours.  However, I agree that if the two criminals had any sort of history of violence or criminal behavior, they should have been expelled long before they were able to commit that crime.  

Makia should not receive any blame for what happened to her.  For the school to say something like that is deplorable and one of the most selfish things I have ever seen.  No young girl should have to expect that boys will do something so terrible and heartless.  This is a great perversion of how people are supposed to behave.  Men are supposed to respect and protect women.  These two boys were clearly not men, but I just can't imagine the thought process that would enable them to justify what they did.  The school should have settled out of court.  They may not be responsible for what happened, but when something like that happens to a member of your school and church family it IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to help them in the grieving process and help them put their life back together.  I think it would go without saying that the school would help raise money for the family and ensure that they were financially supported in their difficult time. This litigation process is just dragging out this horrible time for Makia's family.  They have now had to endure this nightmare for over a year.  

Attending a private school is a privilege.  Anyone who doesn't treat it as such should be removed.  Attending any high school is a privilege once you reach the age of 16, so it is my assertion that there must have been events leading up to this that warranted these two boys being expelled.  That is where the school was negligent.  Endangering the lives of the other students by allowing two criminals to remain at school with them.

I feel so strongly for the family of Makia.  The pain they had to endure is overwhelming.  They lost a beautiful girl and I hope that the community has gathered around them and supported them in these difficult times.  

[mtraininjax]

Seriously Stephen?  The only people to blame for this are the guys that pulled the trigger.  I have seen nothing that points to the school having any idea they were planning this.  If information like that comes out fine, but unless that happens how can you blame the school?

+1000, Civil trial to compel the school to change their policies when nothing was done on school grounds and the parties involved broke school policies?

This is perhaps more convoluted than anything I have heard today. A civil suit to compel the school to change their policies. A waste of the court's time! Part of the reason the court system needs funds too, frivilous lawsuits.

[FayeforCure]

I would suggest you contact some of the others to see how they would handle a 17 year old leaving campus after school.

Makia should not receive any blame for what happened to her.  For the school to say something like that is deplorable and one of the most selfish things I have ever seen.  No young girl should have to expect that boys will do something so terrible and heartless.  This is a great perversion of how people are supposed to behave.  Men are supposed to respect and protect women.  These two boys were clearly not men, but I just can't imagine the thought process that would enable them to justify what they did.  The school should have settled out of court.  They may not be responsible for what happened, but when something like that happens to a member of your school and church family it IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to help them in the grieving process and help them put their life back together.  I think it would go without saying that the school would help raise money for the family and ensure that they were financially supported in their difficult time. This litigation process is just dragging out this horrible time for Makia's family.  They have now had to endure this nightmare for over a year.  


I feel so strongly for the family of Makia.  The pain they had to endure is overwhelming.  They lost a beautiful girl and I hope that the community has gathered around them and supported them in these difficult times.  

+1000


Capt. Zissou, that is so sweet of you! And so on the mark!!!!

[spuwho]

If this suit wins I can see public schools hiring more security, security cameras, random searches of vehicles and lockers and locking down campuses.  Since budgets are limited my guess would be education will suffer.  If the parents and Stephen are correct... the schools would be derelict to NOT enact much tougher security measures than currently exist.

Bridge Troll,

A private suit against a private school simply will not produce change in public schools.

Plus, if you have had a child in public schools lately, you know that this incident would not have been possible in public school.  The kids simply arent allowed to leave.

The parents must have a pretty good reason to believe that the school was negligent, or their attorneys certainly wouldnt have taken the case.

But in any case, what Im responding to is the immediate instinct, without knowing any of the facts, to find a way to blame the parents for being negligent in the slaying of their daughter.

I dislike this argument:  'Well they did it too!  Therefore the party I back is somehow exonerated.'

It is a lousy argument, designed to avoid any responsibility for anyone for anything.

In this case, quadruply so, because it is just wrong to compare the hypothetical possibility that the parents might have picked the little girl up late from school to her brutal murder out in an industrial yard.

Must everything be framed in a political sense, Stephen?

There is a concept called "Implied Trust".

An implied trust is a trust inferred by operation of law. It is imposed by law to situations either by presuming an intention of the participants to create a trust, or simply because of the facts at hand. Two types of implied trusts are constructive and resulting trusts. A resulting trust arises from the conduct of the parties.

What is offending you is that you think I am trying to blame the death on the parents. I am not.

I am attempting to establish that there was an implied trust between the school and her parents. The parents are filing a suit that says that the school violated an agreement with regards to the girl being somewhere at some time. Since I don't know if there is a contract involved, so this is my perspective only (by as you say, "an industrial yard").

If the parents have an implied trust that the school was keeping track of her, then in response there is an implied trust that the parents would tell the school when she would not be there after school. If her parents have a history of taking her early and never contacted the school and the school never contacted them on her whereabouts, then the level of implied trust has been reduced significantly.

Now the parents file suit against the school saying they have violated that implied trust. However, if the parents never supported or provided reciprocity to that implied trust, then the threshold of school culpability has been diminished significantly, as the school would show that they were never notified when she was to be taken early.

Again, not blaming the parents for the death, I am responding to the foundations of the lawsuit. I am asking if the parents provided the reciprocity to support the implied trust they expected from the school. Nothing more.

[ChriswUfGator]

If this suit wins I can see public schools hiring more security, security cameras, random searches of vehicles and lockers and locking down campuses.  Since budgets are limited my guess would be education will suffer.  If the parents and Stephen are correct... the schools would be derelict to NOT enact much tougher security measures than currently exist.

Bridge Troll,

A private suit against a private school simply will not produce change in public schools.

Plus, if you have had a child in public schools lately, you know that this incident would not have been possible in public school.  The kids simply arent allowed to leave.

The parents must have a pretty good reason to believe that the school was negligent, or their attorneys certainly wouldnt have taken the case.

But in any case, what Im responding to is the immediate instinct, without knowing any of the facts, to find a way to blame the parents for being negligent in the slaying of their daughter.

I dislike this argument:  'Well they did it too!  Therefore the party I back is somehow exonerated.'

It is a lousy argument, designed to avoid any responsibility for anyone for anything.

In this case, quadruply so, because it is just wrong to compare the hypothetical possibility that the parents might have picked the little girl up late from school to her brutal murder out in an industrial yard.

Must everything be framed in a political sense, Stephen?

There is a concept called "Implied Trust".

An implied trust is a trust inferred by operation of law. It is imposed by law to situations either by presuming an intention of the participants to create a trust, or simply because of the facts at hand. Two types of implied trusts are constructive and resulting trusts. A resulting trust arises from the conduct of the parties.

What is offending you is that you think I am trying to blame the death on the parents. I am not.

I am attempting to establish that there was an implied trust between the school and her parents. The parents are filing a suit that says that the school violated an agreement with regards to the girl being somewhere at some time. Since I don't know if there is a contract involved, so this is my perspective only (by as you say, "an industrial yard").

If the parents have an implied trust that the school was keeping track of her, then in response there is an implied trust that the parents would tell the school when she would not be there after school. If her parents have a history of taking her early and never contacted the school and the school never contacted them on her whereabouts, then the level of implied trust has been reduced significantly.

Now the parents file suit against the school saying they have violated that implied trust. However, if the parents never supported or provided reciprocity to that implied trust, then the threshold of school culpability has been diminished significantly, as the school would show that they were never notified when she was to be taken early.

Again, not blaming the parents for the death, I am responding to the foundations of the lawsuit. I am asking if the parents provided the reciprocity to support the implied trust they expected from the school. Nothing more.

Trusts hold property, not people. That doesn't have anything to do with this.