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.

 

Walmart being sued for el Paso shooting.

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 12:52 PM
link   
As it stands now, this is just judicial masturbation. Walmart has no duty to protect customers.

That said, if Walmart (or anywhere else) becomes a 'gun-free zone,' the organization that declared such zone has accepted a responsibility to protect those in said 'gun-free zone.' That's a pretty simple legal argument that I am surprised has not been forced before. People have the duty to care for themselves, but if the ability to do so is removed, the remover accepts the duty.

That means this suit cannot prevail... unless the mall was a 'gun-free zone.' If it was, whoever declared it such (likely the property owner) could be held liable. I don't think Walmart, as a lessee, has the right to declare anything about the area outside their lease. I could be wrong about that, though.

TheRedneck




posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22


Why not just sue the victims for not bring armed to the teeth. This shooting wouldn't have happened if they were packing rpgs.

I hope that the judge throw this suit out with extreme prejudice. Stores shouldn't be held liable for the actions of private citizens.

America's blame everyone sue everyone culture makes the country a laughing stock.



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 01:36 PM
link   
The only thing I buy at Walmart is cheap golf balls for practice and I still conceal carry in their store. Nobody has said anything to me either, but they most likely didn't notice I was carrying.
edit on 11-9-2019 by Middleoftheroad because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Bluntone22

Walmarts, Home Depot and Target usually have an off duty police officer sitting in front of the store here in most Miami locations.

I imagine that most other places will follow suit.

But it's crazy to sue for something that is not the stores fault either. They are victims in this as well.


Except they are promoting the stupidity of a gullible defenseless society to become even MORE defenseless by telling those who DO carry for self defense, which is the responsible and sensible thing to do for ALL law abiding citizens, to not do that in their stores.

They shot themselves in both feet by being stupid enough to play that political correctness game. The one that disarms all the good folks while the criminals still carry their guns and shoot up any target they want with less need to worry about being shot at themselves, because of the help they are getting from Walmart and others playing the same political games with our rights, responsibilities, and our very lives.

So, yes it is now the stores fault to a degree even more than it was before the incident.


When police officers get shot up do the moronic politicians try to invoke gun control on the rest of the police department? The citizenry are the same as anyone else as far as rights and responsibilities go..
edit on 11-9-2019 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: LordAhriman

Oh, you miss understand, I do not own a "gun" or assult rifle, I have quiet weapons and I'm 6'4, I was an active duty Marine and have a black belt.

I despise loud weapons, they hurt my ears. I still do not think anyone has the right to limit my ability to protect myself, then say it's not their responsibility to protect me.


I'm only 5'11", but I'm 200 lbs (not fat) and also trained in martial arts. I understand.

Again though, Walmart is only asking that you don't open carry. That's it. Conceal it, or leave it in the car. Open carry is stupid IMO anyway. If a shooter is about to mow down a crowd, and they see a guy with a gun on his hip, guess who's going down first? It only takes a split second of looking the other direction and open carrying just made you the first target.

That being said, it is not ANY private business' responsibility to protect you.


originally posted by: RudeMarine
a reply to: Bluntone22
now that they have banned people with guns carrying in their stores after the shooting.


No they haven't.


originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
I still conceal carry in their store. Nobody has said anything to me either


Because that's exactly what they're asking people to do.


originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Except they are promoting the stupidity of a gullible defenseless society to become even MORE defenseless by telling those who DO carry for self defense, which is the responsible and sensible thing to do for ALL law abiding citizens, to not do that in their stores.


I disagree. There are a LOT of stupid people who abide by the law, but are not responsible or smart enough to carry a gun. Many mass shooters have zero criminal record prior to the shooting. They were law aiding citizens, until they weren't. Walmart is also NOT (again) banning people from carrying weapons in their stores. They're simply asking that you don't open carry. As I said before, they'll just ask you to conceal it or leave it outside. You can still have it. Stop spreading BS.



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Ultimately a precedent will come out of something like this. Probably not this case, but some 'gun free zone' case in the future.

I too have just been waiting for this 'duty to protect' issue to hit the courts. And, it will sooner or later (again, probably not this case, but one in the future).

I don't think this particular case has much legal merit. Plus, there is already precedent law about police not having a 'duty to protect' so that angle won't go anywhere in this case either. I'm confident this precedent would apply even if Walmart had an armed guard at every entrance.

However, the next time there's a shooting in a 'gun free zone'...all bets are off.


edit on 9/11/2019 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Stores are allowed to set policy in their own stores.....

Or are you saying that it's not their right to do so because a persons second amendment right trumps a stores rights?



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

So, you are saying a store can do whatever they want to a customer? Can they charge you money to leave the store? Can they hold a customer prisoner? Can they allow employees to rape customers? Can a store manager just decide to beat a customer?

Stores are not above the law, and they are not immune from responsibility for their actions. They are allowed to set policy within the law.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


So, you are saying a store can do whatever they want to a customer? Can they charge you money to leave the store? Can they hold a customer prisoner? Can they allow employees to rape customers? Can a store manager just decide to beat a customer?


No.



They are allowed to set policy within the law.


Exactly. If their policy is no shoes, no shirt or weapons = no service. They are perfectly in their right to do that.



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Walmart doesn't even want to hire cashiers, no way they will hire security.



They hire cashiers all the time but can't keep them because the hours are terrible.

When I worked there and we went through a remodel they stated they'd be ripping out more checkout lanes for self checkouts because too many customers bitched about there not being enough cashiers. Which to me was genius. They gave the customers exactly what they wanted just with a screen instead of a slow person, and those dumb # customers bitched over that.

Don't be that customer, CriticalStinker. The below 25 college grads running that company are smarter than you. Your complaints and greasy bills mean nothing to them, though you think they do. (Wild Laughter)
edit on fThursdayAmerica/Chicago1810699 by Flesh699 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: grey580


Exactly. If their policy is no shoes, no shirt or weapons = no service. They are perfectly in their right to do that.

The law, as in the US Constitution, says we have the right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, prohibiting weapons is in opposition to the law.

If Walmart stacks merchandise too high, creating a hazard, and someone walking under it is hurt when that merchandise falls on them, can they sue Walmart for creating a health hazard? According to you, they cannot; Walmart can do as they wish.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



The law, as in the US Constitution, says we have the right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, prohibiting weapons is in opposition to the law.


If this were true then states wouldn't be able to stop you from carrying a weapon in plain view. But they do. Even Florida which is pretty pro gun does not allow you to do this( except in rare circumstances). Normally you have to get a concealed weapons permit and not carry in plain view. Even in a car Florida law says you have the have the weapon secured or not readily accessible. I think it's pretty well established that even if you have the right to bear arms reasonable restrictions can be implemented.



If Walmart stacks merchandise too high, creating a hazard, and someone walking under it is hurt when that merchandise falls on them, can they sue Walmart for creating a health hazard? According to you, they cannot; Walmart can do as they wish.


Creating a health hazard is one thing and certainly if Walmart attempted to do anything illegal it would not be in their right to do so. However restricting certain behavior/activities/items from a store is another.



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm
Yup. Our entire store is so understaffed its laughable. And head office considers our store too smaĺl to warrant security guards. The greeters are the security, which is useless.

The amount of full carts of groceries that walk out the door unpaid for, merch that is rushed out the fire exits, and baskets of merch stolen in the fitting rooms is incredible enough that an outside security team was sent in to evaluate.

Yeah, we still have no guards even after they witnessed the insanity themselves. Good old corporate.



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Subrosabelow

Probably the cost to loss ratio isn't enough to warrant having someone working full time.

I have a friend that's been doing loss prevention for years here in Miami. Most big box retailers have teams dedicated towards loss prevention. The stories he tells me are outrageous.



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580


If this were true then states wouldn't be able to stop you from carrying a weapon in plain view.

The fact that a law is violated does not imply the law does not exist. Nor does the fact that a right is withheld from a people serve as validation said right does not exist.

Per the 2nd Amendment, ALL laws restricting possession and carrying of any weapon are illegal.


Creating a health hazard is one thing and certainly if Walmart attempted to do anything illegal it would not be in their right to do so. However restricting certain behavior/activities/items from a store is another.

I consider being shot and unable to defend myself a health hazard.

If Walmart restricts gun possession inside their stores (and I realize the ban is about open carry only; this is concerning their legal obligations), they assume the obligation to protect their customers. That is no different that the requirement that the police protect a suspect while in handcuffs and unable to defend themselves. Walmart has, in that case, restricted a person's ability to defend themselves and therefore accepts responsibility to do so themselves. The person does not give up the right to be safe by entering the store.

Are you aware that it is also illegal to lure someone into an area where they will be attacked, if one knows (or reasonably should have known) that such an attack was probable? It's called "accessory." Walmart, by virtue of their own advertising, has lured people into their store. While Walmart certainly does not (I would hope) expect that the people in their stores will be attacked, it is completely reasonable to believe that such an attack is possible. Thereby, not only has Walmart lured people into their store, if those people are not allowed to carry self defense they have also been rendered vulnerable specifically by Walmart's own policy, legally requiring Walmart to use above-average diligence to ensure the safety of their customers. If they fail to do so, they are legally liable.

The overstacked merchandise example is completely applicable. Walmart cannot, by any means whatsoever, endanger the safety of those who choose to shop there. As long as there is a real possibility of someone entering the store and shooting at customers, a gun ban in the store would do that.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


The fact that a law is violated does not imply the law does not exist. Nor does the fact that a right is withheld from a people serve as validation said right does not exist.

Per the 2nd Amendment, ALL laws restricting possession and carrying of any weapon are illegal.


Your statement flies in the face of the federal government restricting the possession of machine guns by those who are not licensed to carry them. Obviously it's not illegal to restrict possession and carry.

As for Walmart. You can't blame them. They are a victim of a crime in this as well. If you don't like their policies then don't shop there.



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580


Your statement flies in the face of the federal government restricting the possession of machine guns by those who are not licensed to carry them.

Yes it does. I also think it is illegal to prohibit nuclear warheads as per the 2nd Amendment. If you want to regulate any kind of weapon, amend the Constitution.


Obviously it's not illegal to restrict possession and carry.

Obviously you are confused as to the meaning of the phrase "shall not be infringed."

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

SCotUS disagrees with you.

en.wikipedia.org...


Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

Yes, they do.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join