It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: radarloveguy
Really? I only saw two guys standing next to
each other. What did you see?
originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: radarloveguy
So you admit you only saw two guys standing next to each other?
It was an open session, why would sound be sealed? It will go
through an appeals process. The jurors felt sorry for the officers.
originally posted by: raymundoko
No criminal charges were brought against badger...
a reply to: Xcathdra
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: raymundoko
uhm no what I said is correct -
Criminal charges were filed against the straw buyer and that came on the heals of the investigation into the shooting of the 2 officers. Once the criminal charges were filed and resolved for the guy who bought the gun and the guy who shot the cops with the gun, the 2 officers filed a civil suit against the gun store for allowing the sale.
The store had suspicions the sale was a straw purchase and instead of denying the purchase they went through with it. A federal law prohibits all straw purchases.
Criminal charges occurred first against the guy who bought the gun and against the guy who used it and once complete the civil case was brought against the gun store by the officers who were shot.
found guilty in a criminal case, case closed , appeal unlikely to succeed...
originally posted by: raymundoko
Um, no it isn't. Criminal charges between all parties are separate. While related via degrees of separation, they each have their own chance to break the law and have criminal charges filed.
originally posted by: raymundoko
That is incorrect. The store claims they did NOT have suspicions and testimony confirms that. If they had been suspicious of that or known that and video/sound evidence proved as much they would be charged criminally. Since they have NOT been charged criminally undoubtedly the DA and Justice Dept did not see evidence of criminal activity.
The jury found that the store had been seriously negligent in selling the gun when there were signs that the ostensible purchaser was fronting for an 18-year-old who accompanied him to the store.
In instructions to jurors, Judge John J. DiMotto said they must decide whether a “preponderance of evidence” indicated that store employees “believed or had reasonable cause to believe” that Mr. Collins was not buying the weapon for his own use.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that many red flags on the day of the purchase should have aroused suspicion and led the store clerk to question Mr. Collins and his hovering friend more aggressively and to refuse the sale.
Mr. Burton was seen in a security videotape helping Mr. Collins choose the Taurus handgun. The two walked outside together briefly when Mr. Collins did not have enough money in his pocket to cover the $414 transaction.
As Mr. Collins struggled with paperwork, he checked on a federal form that he was not buying the gun for himself, then altered the answer when the clerk noted that it was inconsistent with what he had said on the state form.
On Thursday, October 8th, Badger Guns' owner took the stand to testify.
One of the key lines of questioning during testimony Thursday centered on Adam Allan's ability to recognize a straw buyer, if one were to come into his shop.
Question asked of Adam Allan in court: "You didn't want to sell to straw buyers, right?"
"No one wants to sell to straw buyers, sir," Allan said.
A key line of questioning centered on claims Allan made in a letter to the AFT -- saying he knew how to screen for straw buyers.
Question asked in court: "Was there something specific that the ATF asked you that led you to volunteer that you're comfortable with screening and you have the know-how for screening straw buyers?"
"No. I volunteered that on myself," Allan said.
Question asked in court: "That was just something that popped into your head and you thought 'hey I'll just put that in the letter to the ATF?'"
"Yes," Allan said.
Allan added that his history and background in working in the firearms industry is why he made those statements to the ATF.
"It's an industry thing. I mean, it's something that every FFL (federal firearms licensee) should understand and know," Allan said.
originally posted by: raymundoko
Yes, and those criminal charges are unrelated to any criminal charges which would have been brought against the store.
If it had been a criminal trial, the officers shot would not have been allowed to testify as they had no bearing on if the store broke laws or not. Because this was a civil trial they were allowed to testify and no doubt they garnered a huge amount of sympathy from the jury.
originally posted by: raymundoko
I am not even sure why you are arguing with me because who/what was I replying to? The OP seems to think this was a criminal trial and I was informing him it wasn't.
Badger Guns was also previously called Badger Outdoors, and at times was the No. 1 seller of firearms used in crimes in the U.S. — moving 537 guns that were recovered from crime scenes in 2005 alone, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Norberg and Kunisch weren't the only members of the police force injured by a gun bought at Badger: Between 2007 and 2009, six Milwaukee cops were hurt by guns sold by Badger Guns or Badger Outdoors, according to the suit.
Victims wounded with a weapon can pursue civil damages if the seller of a firearm knew, or should have known, that the transaction was illegal, or that it would very likely pose a danger.