Theater shooting victim's parents sue ammo seller

How do you prove that these retailers are selling goods to someone who has a criminal intent?

Let's deconstruct this desperate attempt to get money. I'm sorry if that last sentence comes off as offensive or insensitive, but I am a very blunt person. And yes it is insensitive. However the lawsuit being presented has no actionable content behind it.

So here we begin.

Criminal intent. Defined: The intent to commit a crime: malice, as evidenced by a criminal act; an intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property. People v. Moore. 3 N. Y. Cr. R. 458. (source: Black's Law Dictionary)

Law Dictionary: What is CRIMINAL INTENT? definition of CRIMINAL INTENT (Black's Law Dictionary)

What did Mr. Holmes commit before purchasing the goods? Did he rob a store? Was he with a bad crowd? Was his psycho pass clear and not cloudy? [Joking about the pass.]

All jokes aside was there any clear signs from anyone that this person was going to commit to a homicidal act of sheer madness? Friends? Family? Coworkers? Professors?

Was there any possible way to detect this persons actions as deviant or a subterfuge? Simply purchasing anything can look deceiving enough as it is. Anything and everything can become a weapon if used correctly. As for body armor. It is a clear sign, as proposed in plain sight, to repel bullets. But this does not show criminal intent alone, or purchased together with other items. In fact it is quite common to see hunters purchasing body armor during any part of the year to help prevent friendly crossfire damages. Any combination of guns, bullets, and armor can be viewed at face value with criminal intent. Adding a psychiatric evaluation can be easily dissected by true mad men. If they truly want to commit a crime they will find a means to do so.

But let us dive a little deeper than a psychiatric evaluation. What if the armor was not purchased? Several other mad men have killed without armor. Fully accepting their final will and testament knowing they are to die. Some take their own lives after killing and injuring even more people. Some even did it without purchasing guns at all. I am talking about oaklahoma city back in the nineties. What about england in the same decade? Each and every mad man is a different case, a different story, a different method. A different target. With armor, bullets, heck even dynamite being easy to steal or obtain the question only relies on the person itself.

Most crimes are based off of pure impulse. And impulse alone. Detecting this impulse in someone is almost impossible to stop a tragedy. To say someone illegally sold these items. Heh. I could go to a privately own guns and ammo store and purchase the gun, ammunition, and body armor all in one visit. As long as I have a permit, and I have an ID. Buying online is no different than walking into a store. The only difference is the small talk chance never occuring. Only... who has time for small talk anyway? Even given the chance store owners are more interested in making a sale. And they really do not care who buys what for what. As long as they have that permit and an ID they are allowed to purchase most guns on their shelf.

So where should psychiatric evaluation happen? Point of sale? Or per permit? Either way time is the greatest enemy in either case.

So.... if they are going to try and sue the state of Colorado I say good luck.

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

This is just plain stupid. Guns don't shoot people, bullets do?

So if I get hit by a car, I can sue the gas station that sold him his gasoline?

So...if a restaurant serves me bad food, and I get sick, I can sue the trucking company that delivered the food to the restaurant?

If a guy stabs me with a knife, I can sue the mining company that mined the ore that made the metal that was used to make the knife?


I am so sick and tired of people and their stupid, ignorant lawsuits that are obviously for the reason of getting rich, no matter how long the stretch of logic is.

Here's my retort to this ridiculousness:
A drunk driver ran over and killed somebody.
Now, the victims family is suing tire maker, BF Goodrich, because that was the tire on the vehicle at the time the victim was ran over. the end

As others have said, this is a frivolous lawsuit. Ammunition sales do not require a background check and especially in the case of an online business, they can't reasonably be expected to make even a cursory judgement about the mental state of the buyer. Simply put, they did nothing wrong. There's nothing to base this lawsuit on and I expect it'll be thrown out of court.

This is the problem with this entire lawsuit.

The family is seeking to hold a merchant accountable for the actions that a person took with their product. This is wrong in all sense, as it now means that a merchant has to monitor all of its customers, or refuse service on the grounds that the person could break the law with said product, when they have no proof. This is one of those laws suits that ranks right up there with the man who beat another with shoes, and then turned around is trying to sue the maker of said shoes for not having a warning on them.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

So.... This lawsuit has an underlying ulterior motive?


Ok... I know I am just going off of basic knowledge. I am by no means an expert with a degree of anything in any subject. This is just pure speculation.

This lawsuit is probably something that a law firm is pursuing to see if they can get a new law passed.

(I know it is a stretch but common sense keeps telling me that this is what it will lead to eventually.)

The shop owner sold his goods online.

Jason Holmes commits a crime... A heinous one.

They see this as being preventable.

Simply because Jason Holmes was acting on his own, and committed this crime, they feel that deep down inside everyone.... you know this can be prevented. But at what cost? Jason obtained a permit to carry a concealed weapon. He purchased several things to go with it. Just the purchase of the equipment isn't enough. (Here comes the online ban of purchasing ammo.) One to one selling drives people away from purchasing certain items for certain purposes. They are considered "Sensitive" purchases. Let me explain it to you another way:

Say you were to buy a french tickler. (Just imagine having to buy one by immense pressure to buy one.) Immediately you look around the parking lot as you come near the place you saw online. And you would be surprised at how many people do the following. You want to see inside of the store but it has a black wall around it. You can only see shoes, and hats of people walking around inside. You wait for them to leave. WHY!? Because the item you want to purchase is somehow embarrassing. Even though a few quick lines of dialogue could totally misdirect people, you'd rather avoid that confrontation all together and only have to deal with the cashier. And have only a few small words to say to him/her/it. You don't even want them to see your face. Simply being seen with a vibrator in your hands is bad. This is why they have all BLACK BAGS once you make your purchase. They know everyone who walks into the store wants that ease of mind. As a matter of fact some places have spare packing peanuts lying around in a box to help make the bag look different. (Seriously I have seen two stores have this at the cashier's desk.) You leave the store quickly and take one quick look around to see if anyone is watching you and then you... burnout while cutting someone off as you leave. Only if it is a parking lot exclusively for just that shop.

So to make shopping for toys easier... They have an online store that can ship it directly to your door in an unmarked box.

Can you see the relation?

This law suit doesn't make any sense in law, definition, appeal, or justification....

But somehow... I can see where this is going.

a reply to: GiulXainx
Problem is that if they wanted to pass a law, would it not be easier to go through the legislative means to get such passed, where a person could not purchase such over the net? No this is simply for money, nothing more or less. They seek revenge, and are turning on the company/person(s) who sold the goods. It goes no where and ultimately, when they fail, they are going to try again and again, to try to punish someone.

@sdcigarpig

What law firm in their right mind..... wait.... nevermind let me rephrase it..... what person with any common sense would even try....... hang on..... damn this world sucks...

What judge would even allow this to go further past the appeal?