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.

 

Jury: Gun shop that sold weapon used to shoot, wound Milwaukee cops must pay nearly $6 million

page: 2
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   
It's almost too bad this won't survive appeal. Imagine being able to sue whoever supplies trigger happy police departments. It wouldn't be long before cities couldn't supply LEOs with bullets, much less a SWAT van.




posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 12:39 AM
link   
I think I remember seeing this reported on the MSM, and them showing a section of the application. In the image they showed, there was a question whether the firearm was for your personal use, with a pair of [ YES ] [NO ] checkboxes. In this case, the [ NO ] box was checked. If this is true, as I saw it, and was the actual application, then the shop is responsible for selling it to someone with full knowledge it was not intended for their use. This might be the evidence needed to push this through appeal.

Does anyone here know if the image of the application is available online (from a verified source) so we can get a look at it as well?


edit on 10/15/2015 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: alienjuggalo

So if I take my emplyees out to lunch as they get food poisoning and die...I am going to be held directly responsible?
Maybe a work comp claim...but legally?

Unless the gun shop sold the firearms with explicit intent to use to kill LEOs, I vail to see responsibility on behalf of the legal tranaction from the guun shop.


Your example, and the topic at hand, aren't even in the same league.

After doing a little research, it seems that these people had it coming to them. They were the ones operating outside of/skirting the law, for the sake of a sale. And, if the testimony/evidence is true, then I expect they will pay and not get this turned over on appeal. Has nothing to do with gun control, per se, but making sure those who sell guns do it legally and in a legit manner...So things like this do not happen.

It's not like they were selling apples...

What about all the other guns sold by this store used in crimes? Can THOSE individuals also sue for negligence if they were harmed by an "illegal" sale? Or is this just because it is two police officers that were harmed? Is the average Joe also able to sue and be compensated, I wonder??

Crazy times we are living in, that is for sure...



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Here is a local news source on this trial/verdict.

Jury finds for wounded officers in Badger Guns lawsuit

In this story, the jury foreman explains the reason for the verdict as:


Brett Heaton Juarez, the jury's foreperson, said the jurors all agreed the business practices of Badger Guns were shoddy. He recounted testimony from the owners that they didn't train workers, didn't have policies and procedures they regularly followed, had not read federal regulations and didn't even know everything that was required on federal gun-selling forms.


Copy of the top of the application form showing the applicant didn't even get his own address correct at first.



ETA: More source material and evidence presented at trial

Jury finds Badger Guns liable in shooting of two Milwaukee police officers


In the Badger Guns case, there was video showing the straw purchase. Jurors saw evidence of the buyer struggling with the forms, and the man who shot the officers pointing to a gun, saying, "That's the one that I want."


Regardless of any other argument, if a business with a license to sell firearms does not know the law, let alone follow it, then yes, they were negligent in their duty in that business. That negligence, in this case, resulted in the injury of two people from a firearm they sold.

As an outspoken advocate of the 2nd Amendment protections for personal firearm ownership, I would have to agree in this case given the evidence presented at trial.



edit on 10/15/2015 by Krakatoa because: added more information



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Seems more than fairbin this case.

The shop was not complying with the law.

You do the crime you pay the fine in this case.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 05:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: lovebeck


What about all the other guns sold by this store used in crimes? Can THOSE individuals also sue for negligence if they were harmed by an "illegal" sale? Or is this just because it is two police officers that were harmed? Is the average Joe also able to sue and be compensated, I wonder??

Crazy times we are living in, that is for sure...



The average Joe doesn't have the money to pursue a thing like this.

A cop has the full backing and financial aid of the police union.

Just my guess........

Looks like the shop deserved it in this case though.


edit on 15-10-2015 by IslandOfMisfitToys because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Is there a law that gun shops sell guns legitimately to people having filed proper protocols, no. My comparison is valid.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 07:13 AM
link   


What about all the other guns sold by this store used in crimes?



You mean like Eric Holder and Fast and Furious?



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

I too am a strong supporter of RTKBA, but I also agree. Not only does there appear to be a 'pattern of behavior' with this shop, but the 4473 (form) has numerous strikeouts and corrections. I've always thought any strikeouts on a 4473 voided the form, and (minimally) another one needed to be filled out or the sale denied.

Further, in my humble opinion, it is shops such as these which give guns and gun owners a bad name. The market is what the market is, and demand will exist. The void will be filled by another shop, but hopefully one which follows the laws.




edit on 10/15/2015 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: NewzNose

What you said doesn't even make sense so I'm gonna stick with "no."



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Sremmos80

There was testimony in court that the shop didn't train employees including the one that made the sale, had no policies in place regarding the purchase of firearms, was either unaware or noncompliant with federal regulations, and some other stuff. There was also testimony that the guy who purchased the firearm had to look up information on his phone, was visibly nervous and agitated, couldn't recall basic information for the application, etc. The testimony made it sound like a reasonable, trained employee would have had suspicion of the nature of the purchase.

So essentially Badger Guns finally got their ass handed to them for not training people and not being compliant with firearms purchasing laws.

In general I don't care for this kind of verdict, just as I don't care for holding a legal gun owner liable for what happens with his/her weapon if it's stolen. But Badger seems to have thrown up a building, stuffed it with firearms, and sold them to anybody who could hold a pen.


Just to add, the Supreme Court, in 2014, upheld the validity of the Federal Law prohibiting "straw man" gun purchases. www.shfwire.com...

For ATS'ers to better understand the nature of the law, see:
smartgunlaws.org...

So, I agree, it seems that Badger was exercising something less than the required diligence in screening for "straw man" purchases. BTW, I'm pro-Second Amendment and a CHL holder, but I support laws like this, which are intended to prevent those who couldn't otherwise legally purchase a firearm, getting their hands on said weaponry. Sadly of course, these laws seem to be impotent to stopping the "nuts" involved in the mass murder shootings. I don't have a solution for that. Maybe only more stringent back ground checks would work. I don't know.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: alienjuggalo

I totally agree with your logic, plus, the onus for honesty when filling out the application to purchase a gun lies on the purchaser--the only thing that a gun store should be liable for is that they checked the ID and ran the federal background check to ensure that the person was not a felon (or flagged for any other reason). If ID and background check out, the gun store has done its due diligence.

The people who should be charged are the murderer and the person who purchased the gun illegally (and by that, I mean with the intent to purchase it for someone else who otherwise is legally barred from purchasing and possessing a firearm).

The gun store--assuming the steps I mentioned above were followed--should win their appeal. If not, like you said, the slippery-slop precedent created by this ruling is a terrible one.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I am totally ok with that.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: NewzNose

I figured, since it's another made up scenario.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

According to documents filed with the suit, the employee making the transaction noticed the buyer had ticked off the box saying the gun wasn't for him. Instead of taking that as a red flag, along with all the other corrections made by the buyer including simple things like his address, the employee had him change the form to state the gun was for him.

Seems pretty negligent to me.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: SlapMonkey

According to documents filed with the suit, the employee making the transaction noticed the buyer had ticked off the box saying the gun wasn't for him. Instead of taking that as a red flag, along with all the other corrections made by the buyer including simple things like his address, the employee had him change the form to state the gun was for him.

Seems pretty negligent to me.


Ah...I had apparently missed that tasty morsel of information. If that's the case, then yes, the gun shop should be held responsible. That's terrible to do, but if this is a fact, I'd be interested in what was said that made the purchaser change it.

But in the end, the onus does still like on the person filling out and signing that document, but if the store did coach him on how to obtain it with a known goal of transferring it to someone incapable of owning/purchasing the firearm legally, then there are certainly legal problems with that. My concern might be that the employee questioned the 'why' behind him marking that box, and after discussing it with the buyer, the buyer may have lied about it in order to be able to change it and buy the gun.

Just a thought, but I really would like to know all of the details about the conversation...and not hearsay, but it'd be nice if there was recorded audio of the conversation.
edit on 15-10-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: alienjuggalo
You are being rather selective in what you quote from the article. Here is another passage from the story.


Authorities have said more than 500 firearms recovered from crime scenes had been traced back to Badger Guns and Badger Outdoors, making it the "No. 1 crime gun dealer in America," according to a 2005 charging document from an unrelated case.


They have a track record. Good on the jury. Your country needs gun control. You cant all be John Waynes or Billy the Kids.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

But the onus lies on the dealer to deny the sale if they're suspicious of the nature of the purchase. They had plenty to be suspicious about and not only ignored it, but changed some of the more suspicious things. There's surveillance video of the guy filling out the form and it took around 40 minutes to do it.

I get what you're saying though. Like I commented earlier, I typically don't like jury decisions like this. The potential for setting a massive precedent is there. But all things considered, it seems to me the shop was catastrophically negligent in how they handled things.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ispyed

Im sticking to my comparison. With this ruling anyone should be able to sue Walgreens or CVS or Wall-mart, for selling sudafed if a family member od's on meth.

I know for a fact people send in 'straw buyers' all the time or use fake IDs. so why shouldnt wal-mart be held liable?

If the store really was the worst store in America why the %%%% was it still open? So is the city now responsible because they knew or should have known this store was selling guns illegaly and didnt shut them down?

slippery slope..



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

From what you've said, I agree. I need to look a little more in-depth at the details.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join