Gun store follows the law, get sued anyway, anti gunners want to sue gun stores in "legal warfare."

[Montrovant]

Here you have a case of a gun store that followed the law. To the letter. But a mentally ill woman, with no record that would have put her on a list even if we had a list of the dangerously mentally ill...bought a gun legally, then used it to kill her father.

Some moron judge allowed the case to go forward, and they lost a million dollar settlement...for having obeyed the law....

Now the anti gunners see this as a way to use "legal warfare" to shut down gun stores.....

These are the people who are trying to take away the 2nd Amendment right to self defense.....they are vile.

This lawsuit against a gun shop sets a dangerous precedent - Hot Air

. The Washington Post brings us the story, indicating that it may be the template which opponents of gun rights can use in the future.

Janet Delana was desperate to stop her mentally ill adult daughter from buying another handgun.

Finally, Delana called the gun shop a few miles from her home, the one that had sold her daughter a black Hi-Point pistol a month earlier when her last disability check had arrived…

“I’m begging you,” Delana said through tears. “I’m begging you as a mother, if she comes in, please don’t sell her a gun.”

Colby Sue Weathers was mentally ill, but she had never been identified as a threat to herself or others by a judge or ordered to an extended mental hospital stay — which meant she could pass the background check for her gun…

An hour after leaving the gun store, Weathers was back home where her father sat at a computer with his back to her.

She shot.

Weathers planned to kill herself next but told a 911 operator: “I can’t shoot myself. I was going to after I did it, but I couldn’t bring myself to it.”

As with most liberal causes, the Brady campaign is seeking to exploit the tragedy experienced by this family for their own benefit. We see the same tactics used in the debate over illegal immigration, where liberal groups find the most heart wrenching example of a child being separated from their parent in an attempt to pluck at the sensitivities of voters. The case of Ms. Weathers is indeed a tragedy which should be a call for action, but not the sort which the Brady campaign is seeking.

Something went desperately wrong in Janet Delana’s family, but it wasn’t the fault of the gun shop. As the article documents, Colby Sue was not some marginal character with a few questionable incidents on her record. She had, by the family’s own admission, been in and out of mental hospitals on numerous occasions and demonstrated worrisome if not outright dangerous behavior.

This is clearly not the sort of person who should be purchasing firearms. But whose responsibility is it? Colby Sue had people who cared about her and were clearly worried about both her safety and the safety of others. How is it then that this young woman was not brought before a court and adjudicated as mentally unbalanced? Even more to the point, she obviously was not receiving all the treatment that she needed to deal with her psychosis.

Had those steps been taken, a quick background check would have revealed that she was ineligible to purchase a weapon and the gun shop owner could have refused the sale. Having established that, let’s look at it from the perspective of the manager at the store. He receives a phone call from a distressed woman claiming that her daughter is crazy. T

he daughter then arrives looking to purchase a firearm, but passes the required background check with flying colors.

If he refuses to serve her and she turns out to be competent, he can wind up in trouble of an entirely different kind.

The manager has no way of knowing whether the woman on the phone is providing accurate information or is engaged in some sort of domestic dispute with her daughter and is just looking to cause trouble for her. These types of unofficial accounts are completely unreliable, which is why official court records are part of the process for clearing a background check.

Gun stores, if they can prove that they have followed the laws to the letter, should be shielded by law from any civil suits. Period.

Yes...exactly.....this woman is a retired social services worker...she has access to he system. She called the local police, she called the ATF, she called the FBI and yet....none of those government agencies reacted to or dealt with the problem...but the gun store, that followed the law, and had a vague notion of a problem...is the only one that is held to account for the intentional actions of an unknown individual....

And some people don't see that as a problem?

Nope. The gun store was the closest in time and had the last opportunity to stop a tragedy which is why the store settled.

you assume the gun store owner knew a tragedy was imminent he didn't

and he settled because it was going to be cheaper than going to trial and since we don't hold the losers of such frivolous law suits responsible for all court costs innocent people will continue to settle such lawsuits

You are both making assumptions about why the case was settled without, so far as I've seen, any actual evidence of the reason.

 

[Montrovant]

According to the available information, the store did nothing criminal. Whether or not it did anything wrong, legally or morally, is a bit less certain. There could be more information not contained in the articles that would make things seem different, such as what the manager meant when he said that Weathers was acting "nervous" when she bought the gun. It's certainly quite possible that the store did nothing wrong, though.

if the store owner did everything he was required to do by law then by definition he did nothing wrong

There is a difference between what is legal and what is right. It is possible to do nothing criminally wrong while still being liable civilly. The store may have done nothing criminally wrong, but that doesn't speak to civil liability nor morality. As I've said repeatedly, there isn't enough information to be certain one way or another. It seems pretty clear nothing criminal occurred, at least.

he wasn't civilly responsible either

What do you base that statement on?

He in no way intentionally or negligently caused or contributed to the events.

The state and federal authorities were also called and they were unable to do anything to stop the sale if they couldn't do it how can a civilian be responsible for stopping what was as far as the government authorities were concerned a legal purchase of a weapon?

And the mother's phone call isn't sufficient as the shop owner had no way to verify she was who she said she was

I've no idea if she had some way to verify who she was. According to the WP article, she gave the store her daughter's name, birthday, and SS#, but I don't know if she gave them anything to show she was the mother.

 

[Montrovant]

According to the available information, the store did nothing criminal. Whether or not it did anything wrong, legally or morally, is a bit less certain. There could be more information not contained in the articles that would make things seem different, such as what the manager meant when he said that Weathers was acting "nervous" when she bought the gun. It's certainly quite possible that the store did nothing wrong, though.

if the store owner did everything he was required to do by law then by definition he did nothing wrong

There is a difference between what is legal and what is right. It is possible to do nothing criminally wrong while still being liable civilly. The store may have done nothing criminally wrong, but that doesn't speak to civil liability nor morality. As I've said repeatedly, there isn't enough information to be certain one way or another. It seems pretty clear nothing criminal occurred, at least.

he wasn't civilly responsible either

What do you base that statement on?

He in no way intentionally or negligently caused or contributed to the events.

The state and federal authorities were also called and they were unable to do anything to stop the sale if they couldn't do it how can a civilian be responsible for stopping what was as far as the government authorities were concerned a legal purchase of a weapon?

And the mother's phone call isn't sufficient as the shop owner had no way to verify she was who she said she was

According to the WP article, the store had been cited by the ATF for violations multiple times, "The company was cited for failing to run background checks, for not complying with the three-day waiting period for delayed background-check results and for selling firearms to people who indicated on federal forms that they were not the true purchasers of the gun." The mother's lawyers were using that to show a pattern of willful violations. The clerk who actually sold the gun also no longer works at the store. I'm not saying that means the store was at fault, but the store owner may have decided that there was enough danger that a court would find them liable.

Also, the state Supreme Court said that the case could go forward, and that Missouri law allows a store to be held liable if it should have known a purchaser was dangerous. Perhaps the store's owner thought there had been enough evidence that they should have known Weathers was dangerous, between the mother's call and the daughter's odd behavior.

Or maybe the store owner and lawyers decided it would cost less to settle than go to court, even if they should win the case.

I agree that any fault seems to lie more with the mental health and law enforcement agencies than the store, but the way Missouri law works, the store might have been liable.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Here you have a case of a gun store that followed the law. To the letter. But a mentally ill woman, with no record that would have put her on a list even if we had a list of the dangerously mentally ill...bought a gun legally, then used it to kill her father.

Some moron judge allowed the case to go forward, and they lost a million dollar settlement...for having obeyed the law....

Now the anti gunners see this as a way to use "legal warfare" to shut down gun stores.....

These are the people who are trying to take away the 2nd Amendment right to self defense.....they are vile.

This lawsuit against a gun shop sets a dangerous precedent - Hot Air

. The Washington Post brings us the story, indicating that it may be the template which opponents of gun rights can use in the future.

Janet Delana was desperate to stop her mentally ill adult daughter from buying another handgun.

Finally, Delana called the gun shop a few miles from her home, the one that had sold her daughter a black Hi-Point pistol a month earlier when her last disability check had arrived…

“I’m begging you,” Delana said through tears. “I’m begging you as a mother, if she comes in, please don’t sell her a gun.”

Colby Sue Weathers was mentally ill, but she had never been identified as a threat to herself or others by a judge or ordered to an extended mental hospital stay — which meant she could pass the background check for her gun…

An hour after leaving the gun store, Weathers was back home where her father sat at a computer with his back to her.

She shot.

Weathers planned to kill herself next but told a 911 operator: “I can’t shoot myself. I was going to after I did it, but I couldn’t bring myself to it.”

As with most liberal causes, the Brady campaign is seeking to exploit the tragedy experienced by this family for their own benefit. We see the same tactics used in the debate over illegal immigration, where liberal groups find the most heart wrenching example of a child being separated from their parent in an attempt to pluck at the sensitivities of voters. The case of Ms. Weathers is indeed a tragedy which should be a call for action, but not the sort which the Brady campaign is seeking.

Something went desperately wrong in Janet Delana’s family, but it wasn’t the fault of the gun shop. As the article documents, Colby Sue was not some marginal character with a few questionable incidents on her record. She had, by the family’s own admission, been in and out of mental hospitals on numerous occasions and demonstrated worrisome if not outright dangerous behavior.

This is clearly not the sort of person who should be purchasing firearms. But whose responsibility is it? Colby Sue had people who cared about her and were clearly worried about both her safety and the safety of others. How is it then that this young woman was not brought before a court and adjudicated as mentally unbalanced? Even more to the point, she obviously was not receiving all the treatment that she needed to deal with her psychosis.

Had those steps been taken, a quick background check would have revealed that she was ineligible to purchase a weapon and the gun shop owner could have refused the sale. Having established that, let’s look at it from the perspective of the manager at the store. He receives a phone call from a distressed woman claiming that her daughter is crazy. T

he daughter then arrives looking to purchase a firearm, but passes the required background check with flying colors.

If he refuses to serve her and she turns out to be competent, he can wind up in trouble of an entirely different kind.

The manager has no way of knowing whether the woman on the phone is providing accurate information or is engaged in some sort of domestic dispute with her daughter and is just looking to cause trouble for her. These types of unofficial accounts are completely unreliable, which is why official court records are part of the process for clearing a background check.

Gun stores, if they can prove that they have followed the laws to the letter, should be shielded by law from any civil suits. Period.

Yes...exactly.....this woman is a retired social services worker...she has access to he system. She called the local police, she called the ATF, she called the FBI and yet....none of those government agencies reacted to or dealt with the problem...but the gun store, that followed the law, and had a vague notion of a problem...is the only one that is held to account for the intentional actions of an unknown individual....

And some people don't see that as a problem?

Nope. The gun store was the closest in time and had the last opportunity to stop a tragedy which is why the store settled.

you assume the gun store owner knew a tragedy was imminent he didn't

He was told. He knew that there was reasonable risk of harm and chose to ignore it. Even worse, after having been informed that the prospective buyer was unstable, he personally observed that the woman appeared nervous. The two incidents, taken together would have alerted a reasonable gun store owner that the risk of harm outweighed the incidental sale of a single firearm.

he was told by some unknown person on the phone who didn't prove her identity or present any evidence

she also told the cops the FBI and the ATF and they didn't do anything. It's ridiculous to think a private citizen is responsible in this case when the authorities couldn't legally do anything to stop the purchase

Her parents should have started proceedings to have her committed but they didn't so they want to blame anyone else but themselves

 

[Skull Pilot]

if the store owner did everything he was required to do by law then by definition he did nothing wrong

There is a difference between what is legal and what is right. It is possible to do nothing criminally wrong while still being liable civilly. The store may have done nothing criminally wrong, but that doesn't speak to civil liability nor morality. As I've said repeatedly, there isn't enough information to be certain one way or another. It seems pretty clear nothing criminal occurred, at least.

he wasn't civilly responsible either

What do you base that statement on?

He in no way intentionally or negligently caused or contributed to the events.

The state and federal authorities were also called and they were unable to do anything to stop the sale if they couldn't do it how can a civilian be responsible for stopping what was as far as the government authorities were concerned a legal purchase of a weapon?

And the mother's phone call isn't sufficient as the shop owner had no way to verify she was who she said she was

I've no idea if she had some way to verify who she was. According to the WP article, she gave the store her daughter's name, birthday, and SS#, but I don't know if she gave them anything to show she was the mother.

from an unknown person on the telephone all that info means nothing.
and if it wasn't enough for the government to prohibit her from buying a gun it's ludicrous to think tht it was enough info for a private citizen to intervene

 

[Skull Pilot]

Here you have a case of a gun store that followed the law. To the letter. But a mentally ill woman, with no record that would have put her on a list even if we had a list of the dangerously mentally ill...bought a gun legally, then used it to kill her father.

Some moron judge allowed the case to go forward, and they lost a million dollar settlement...for having obeyed the law....

Now the anti gunners see this as a way to use "legal warfare" to shut down gun stores.....

These are the people who are trying to take away the 2nd Amendment right to self defense.....they are vile.

This lawsuit against a gun shop sets a dangerous precedent - Hot Air

. The Washington Post brings us the story, indicating that it may be the template which opponents of gun rights can use in the future.

Janet Delana was desperate to stop her mentally ill adult daughter from buying another handgun.

Finally, Delana called the gun shop a few miles from her home, the one that had sold her daughter a black Hi-Point pistol a month earlier when her last disability check had arrived…

“I’m begging you,” Delana said through tears. “I’m begging you as a mother, if she comes in, please don’t sell her a gun.”

Colby Sue Weathers was mentally ill, but she had never been identified as a threat to herself or others by a judge or ordered to an extended mental hospital stay — which meant she could pass the background check for her gun…

An hour after leaving the gun store, Weathers was back home where her father sat at a computer with his back to her.

She shot.

Weathers planned to kill herself next but told a 911 operator: “I can’t shoot myself. I was going to after I did it, but I couldn’t bring myself to it.”

As with most liberal causes, the Brady campaign is seeking to exploit the tragedy experienced by this family for their own benefit. We see the same tactics used in the debate over illegal immigration, where liberal groups find the most heart wrenching example of a child being separated from their parent in an attempt to pluck at the sensitivities of voters. The case of Ms. Weathers is indeed a tragedy which should be a call for action, but not the sort which the Brady campaign is seeking.

Something went desperately wrong in Janet Delana’s family, but it wasn’t the fault of the gun shop. As the article documents, Colby Sue was not some marginal character with a few questionable incidents on her record. She had, by the family’s own admission, been in and out of mental hospitals on numerous occasions and demonstrated worrisome if not outright dangerous behavior.

This is clearly not the sort of person who should be purchasing firearms. But whose responsibility is it? Colby Sue had people who cared about her and were clearly worried about both her safety and the safety of others. How is it then that this young woman was not brought before a court and adjudicated as mentally unbalanced? Even more to the point, she obviously was not receiving all the treatment that she needed to deal with her psychosis.

Had those steps been taken, a quick background check would have revealed that she was ineligible to purchase a weapon and the gun shop owner could have refused the sale. Having established that, let’s look at it from the perspective of the manager at the store. He receives a phone call from a distressed woman claiming that her daughter is crazy. T

he daughter then arrives looking to purchase a firearm, but passes the required background check with flying colors.

If he refuses to serve her and she turns out to be competent, he can wind up in trouble of an entirely different kind.

The manager has no way of knowing whether the woman on the phone is providing accurate information or is engaged in some sort of domestic dispute with her daughter and is just looking to cause trouble for her. These types of unofficial accounts are completely unreliable, which is why official court records are part of the process for clearing a background check.

Gun stores, if they can prove that they have followed the laws to the letter, should be shielded by law from any civil suits. Period.

Yes...exactly.....this woman is a retired social services worker...she has access to he system. She called the local police, she called the ATF, she called the FBI and yet....none of those government agencies reacted to or dealt with the problem...but the gun store, that followed the law, and had a vague notion of a problem...is the only one that is held to account for the intentional actions of an unknown individual....

And some people don't see that as a problem?

Nope. The gun store was the closest in time and had the last opportunity to stop a tragedy which is why the store settled.

you assume the gun store owner knew a tragedy was imminent he didn't

and he settled because it was going to be cheaper than going to trial and since we don't hold the losers of such frivolous law suits responsible for all court costs innocent people will continue to settle such lawsuits

You are both making assumptions about why the case was settled without, so far as I've seen, any actual evidence of the reason.

it's the reason most of these types of cases are settled out of court

 

[2aguy]

I am truly surprised that the auto industry is not helping gun stores with their legal defense in cases like this.

More people die in car accidents than in gun accidents of all types. All this can be viewed as just legal groundwork for suing the auto industry into the ground.

If someone called a car dealership and said that a schizophrenic intended to buy a car, fill it with explosives and detonate it your concern would be valid.

No it wouldn't because as with this case there is no way to tell who was making the call and whether or not they had any actual evidence

And she didn't come in till two days later.....how long was the gun store supposed to be on the hook for monitoring this woman? Since the local police, the ATF, and the FBI as well as her mother...who actually worked in Missouri social services couldn't stop her.......and on top of that...why didn't the mother tear up her disability checks to stop her...if she was that concerned about what her daughter was going to do.....?

 

[2aguy]

Here you have a case of a gun store that followed the law. To the letter. But a mentally ill woman, with no record that would have put her on a list even if we had a list of the dangerously mentally ill...bought a gun legally, then used it to kill her father.

Some moron judge allowed the case to go forward, and they lost a million dollar settlement...for having obeyed the law....

Now the anti gunners see this as a way to use "legal warfare" to shut down gun stores.....

These are the people who are trying to take away the 2nd Amendment right to self defense.....they are vile.

This lawsuit against a gun shop sets a dangerous precedent - Hot Air

. The Washington Post brings us the story, indicating that it may be the template which opponents of gun rights can use in the future.

Janet Delana was desperate to stop her mentally ill adult daughter from buying another handgun.

Finally, Delana called the gun shop a few miles from her home, the one that had sold her daughter a black Hi-Point pistol a month earlier when her last disability check had arrived…

“I’m begging you,” Delana said through tears. “I’m begging you as a mother, if she comes in, please don’t sell her a gun.”

Colby Sue Weathers was mentally ill, but she had never been identified as a threat to herself or others by a judge or ordered to an extended mental hospital stay — which meant she could pass the background check for her gun…

An hour after leaving the gun store, Weathers was back home where her father sat at a computer with his back to her.

She shot.

Weathers planned to kill herself next but told a 911 operator: “I can’t shoot myself. I was going to after I did it, but I couldn’t bring myself to it.”

As with most liberal causes, the Brady campaign is seeking to exploit the tragedy experienced by this family for their own benefit. We see the same tactics used in the debate over illegal immigration, where liberal groups find the most heart wrenching example of a child being separated from their parent in an attempt to pluck at the sensitivities of voters. The case of Ms. Weathers is indeed a tragedy which should be a call for action, but not the sort which the Brady campaign is seeking.

Something went desperately wrong in Janet Delana’s family, but it wasn’t the fault of the gun shop. As the article documents, Colby Sue was not some marginal character with a few questionable incidents on her record. She had, by the family’s own admission, been in and out of mental hospitals on numerous occasions and demonstrated worrisome if not outright dangerous behavior.

This is clearly not the sort of person who should be purchasing firearms. But whose responsibility is it? Colby Sue had people who cared about her and were clearly worried about both her safety and the safety of others. How is it then that this young woman was not brought before a court and adjudicated as mentally unbalanced? Even more to the point, she obviously was not receiving all the treatment that she needed to deal with her psychosis.

Had those steps been taken, a quick background check would have revealed that she was ineligible to purchase a weapon and the gun shop owner could have refused the sale. Having established that, let’s look at it from the perspective of the manager at the store. He receives a phone call from a distressed woman claiming that her daughter is crazy. T

he daughter then arrives looking to purchase a firearm, but passes the required background check with flying colors.

If he refuses to serve her and she turns out to be competent, he can wind up in trouble of an entirely different kind.

The manager has no way of knowing whether the woman on the phone is providing accurate information or is engaged in some sort of domestic dispute with her daughter and is just looking to cause trouble for her. These types of unofficial accounts are completely unreliable, which is why official court records are part of the process for clearing a background check.

Gun stores, if they can prove that they have followed the laws to the letter, should be shielded by law from any civil suits. Period.

Yes...exactly.....this woman is a retired social services worker...she has access to he system. She called the local police, she called the ATF, she called the FBI and yet....none of those government agencies reacted to or dealt with the problem...but the gun store, that followed the law, and had a vague notion of a problem...is the only one that is held to account for the intentional actions of an unknown individual....

And some people don't see that as a problem?

Nope. The gun store was the closest in time and had the last opportunity to stop a tragedy which is why the store settled.

you assume the gun store owner knew a tragedy was imminent he didn't

He was told. He knew that there was reasonable risk of harm and chose to ignore it. Even worse, after having been informed that the prospective buyer was unstable, he personally observed that the woman appeared nervous. The two incidents, taken together would have alerted a reasonable gun store owner that the risk of harm outweighed the incidental sale of a single firearm.

And another clerk said she looked fine....

 

[Montrovant]

There is a difference between what is legal and what is right. It is possible to do nothing criminally wrong while still being liable civilly. The store may have done nothing criminally wrong, but that doesn't speak to civil liability nor morality. As I've said repeatedly, there isn't enough information to be certain one way or another. It seems pretty clear nothing criminal occurred, at least.

he wasn't civilly responsible either

What do you base that statement on?

He in no way intentionally or negligently caused or contributed to the events.

The state and federal authorities were also called and they were unable to do anything to stop the sale if they couldn't do it how can a civilian be responsible for stopping what was as far as the government authorities were concerned a legal purchase of a weapon?

And the mother's phone call isn't sufficient as the shop owner had no way to verify she was who she said she was

I've no idea if she had some way to verify who she was. According to the WP article, she gave the store her daughter's name, birthday, and SS#, but I don't know if she gave them anything to show she was the mother.

from an unknown person on the telephone all that info means nothing.
and if it wasn't enough for the government to prohibit her from buying a gun it's ludicrous to think tht it was enough info for a private citizen to intervene

Were you involved in this case? You speak of it as though you have all of the pertinent information.

Perhaps the store was completely without fault. However, since I was not there, and I do not know the people involved, and since the articles I've seen only give a certain amount of information about the incident, and considering the store settled for over $2 million rather than fight this in court, I'm unwilling to assume I know the answers. You seem not to be so unwilling.

 

[2aguy]

So.....if there is a guy...who has been interviewed by trained FBI interrogators, had a thorough FBI investigation done...and then they are cleared to buy a gun.....and own a gun...and when they go to a night club and start shooting people....the night club can now be held liable for not having enough security to stop the mass shooter...that is what you are saying?

 

[2aguy]

So...the guy who took the call about the woman....was he supposed to man the register 24/7 to make sure that this woman wasn't sold the gun...since it now appears to be his sole responsibilty to stop this woman, who he has been told by a federal background check is legal to buy the gun......since the local police, the ATF, the FBI and a the mother who actually knows the social welfare system in Missouri can't be bothered to stop the woman....

How long was this guy supposed to maintain his watch for this woman....2 days, a week, a month, a year....till the end of time?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I am truly surprised that the auto industry is not helping gun stores with their legal defense in cases like this.

More people die in car accidents than in gun accidents of all types. All this can be viewed as just legal groundwork for suing the auto industry into the ground.

If someone called a car dealership and said that a schizophrenic intended to buy a car, fill it with explosives and detonate it your concern would be valid.

No it wouldn't because as with this case there is no way to tell who was making the call and whether or not they had any actual evidence

And she didn't come in till two days later.....how long was the gun store supposed to be on the hook for monitoring this woman? Since the local police, the ATF, and the FBI as well as her mother...who actually worked in Missouri social services couldn't stop her.......and on top of that...why didn't the mother tear up her disability checks to stop her...if she was that concerned about what her daughter was going to do.....?

The parents want to blame everyone else for their failures and an innocent business man gets gored by the system

 

[Skull Pilot]

he wasn't civilly responsible either

What do you base that statement on?

He in no way intentionally or negligently caused or contributed to the events.

The state and federal authorities were also called and they were unable to do anything to stop the sale if they couldn't do it how can a civilian be responsible for stopping what was as far as the government authorities were concerned a legal purchase of a weapon?

And the mother's phone call isn't sufficient as the shop owner had no way to verify she was who she said she was

I've no idea if she had some way to verify who she was. According to the WP article, she gave the store her daughter's name, birthday, and SS#, but I don't know if she gave them anything to show she was the mother.

from an unknown person on the telephone all that info means nothing.
and if it wasn't enough for the government to prohibit her from buying a gun it's ludicrous to think tht it was enough info for a private citizen to intervene

Were you involved in this case? You speak of it as though you have all of the pertinent information.

Perhaps the store was completely without fault. However, since I was not there, and I do not know the people involved, and since the articles I've seen only give a certain amount of information about the incident, and considering the store settled for over $2 million rather than fight this in court, I'm unwilling to assume I know the answers. You seem not to be so unwilling.

Ok so tell me what did the store owner do that was illegal? Wrong is too subjective.

If you have no evidence that he actually was somehow negligent then he is innocent until proven guilty.

As far as him settling that means nothing to me because as I said our civil litigation system does not run by rules of evidence but rather by emotion and supposition.

A long drawn out court case would most likely have cost him more and his insurance wouldn't pick up the tab and I'll put money on the fact that it was the insurance company's decision to settle not the business owner's.

This case should be appealed

 

[EvilCat Breath]

So.....if there is a guy...who has been interviewed by trained FBI interrogators, had a thorough FBI investigation done...and then they are cleared to buy a gun.....and own a gun...and when they go to a night club and start shooting people....the night club can now be held liable for not having enough security to stop the mass shooter...that is what you are saying?

Was the night club owner notified of the gunman and given his name and description.

 

[2aguy]

So.....if there is a guy...who has been interviewed by trained FBI interrogators, had a thorough FBI investigation done...and then they are cleared to buy a gun.....and own a gun...and when they go to a night club and start shooting people....the night club can now be held liable for not having enough security to stop the mass shooter...that is what you are saying?

Was the night club owner notified of the gunman and given his name and description.

Doesn't matter.......he was cleared by the FBI......and passed several background checks...

 

[2aguy]

So.....if there is a guy...who has been interviewed by trained FBI interrogators, had a thorough FBI investigation done...and then they are cleared to buy a gun.....and own a gun...and when they go to a night club and start shooting people....the night club can now be held liable for not having enough security to stop the mass shooter...that is what you are saying?

Was the night club owner notified of the gunman and given his name and description.

How long was the gun store owner supposed to stay on watch for this woman....the 2 days it took for her to buy the gun....a week, a month, a year...?

 

[Montrovant]

What do you base that statement on?

He in no way intentionally or negligently caused or contributed to the events.

The state and federal authorities were also called and they were unable to do anything to stop the sale if they couldn't do it how can a civilian be responsible for stopping what was as far as the government authorities were concerned a legal purchase of a weapon?

And the mother's phone call isn't sufficient as the shop owner had no way to verify she was who she said she was

I've no idea if she had some way to verify who she was. According to the WP article, she gave the store her daughter's name, birthday, and SS#, but I don't know if she gave them anything to show she was the mother.

from an unknown person on the telephone all that info means nothing.
and if it wasn't enough for the government to prohibit her from buying a gun it's ludicrous to think tht it was enough info for a private citizen to intervene

Were you involved in this case? You speak of it as though you have all of the pertinent information.

Perhaps the store was completely without fault. However, since I was not there, and I do not know the people involved, and since the articles I've seen only give a certain amount of information about the incident, and considering the store settled for over $2 million rather than fight this in court, I'm unwilling to assume I know the answers. You seem not to be so unwilling.

Ok so tell me what did the store owner do that was illegal? Wrong is too subjective.

If you have no evidence that he actually was somehow negligent then he is innocent until proven guilty.

As far as him settling that means nothing to me because as I said our civil litigation system does not run by rules of evidence but rather by emotion and supposition.

A long drawn out court case would most likely have cost him more and his insurance wouldn't pick up the tab and I'll put money on the fact that it was the insurance company's decision to settle not the business owner's.

This case should be appealed

How do you appeal a settlement? Is that a thing? Unless one of the parties turns out to have acted fraudulently or something like that, what is there to appeal?

You may be right that the insurance company decided to settle. I'm not arguing against that. I'm saying there is no actual evidence one way or another, so I'm not going to assume I know.

 

[Montrovant]

So...the guy who took the call about the woman....was he supposed to man the register 24/7 to make sure that this woman wasn't sold the gun...since it now appears to be his sole responsibilty to stop this woman, who he has been told by a federal background check is legal to buy the gun......since the local police, the ATF, the FBI and a the mother who actually knows the social welfare system in Missouri can't be bothered to stop the woman....

How long was this guy supposed to maintain his watch for this woman....2 days, a week, a month, a year....till the end of time?

I think one of the articles had the mother saying she asked for a note to be put on the register so any clerk would know. That time gap does certainly seem to sway things a bit into the store's favor.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

What do you base that statement on?

He in no way intentionally or negligently caused or contributed to the events.

The state and federal authorities were also called and they were unable to do anything to stop the sale if they couldn't do it how can a civilian be responsible for stopping what was as far as the government authorities were concerned a legal purchase of a weapon?

And the mother's phone call isn't sufficient as the shop owner had no way to verify she was who she said she was

I've no idea if she had some way to verify who she was. According to the WP article, she gave the store her daughter's name, birthday, and SS#, but I don't know if she gave them anything to show she was the mother.

from an unknown person on the telephone all that info means nothing.
and if it wasn't enough for the government to prohibit her from buying a gun it's ludicrous to think tht it was enough info for a private citizen to intervene

Were you involved in this case? You speak of it as though you have all of the pertinent information.

Perhaps the store was completely without fault. However, since I was not there, and I do not know the people involved, and since the articles I've seen only give a certain amount of information about the incident, and considering the store settled for over $2 million rather than fight this in court, I'm unwilling to assume I know the answers. You seem not to be so unwilling.

Ok so tell me what did the store owner do that was illegal? Wrong is too subjective.

If you have no evidence that he actually was somehow negligent then he is innocent until proven guilty.

As far as him settling that means nothing to me because as I said our civil litigation system does not run by rules of evidence but rather by emotion and supposition.

A long drawn out court case would most likely have cost him more and his insurance wouldn't pick up the tab and I'll put money on the fact that it was the insurance company's decision to settle not the business owner's.

This case should be appealed

Cases that are settled cannot be appealed.

 

[Skull Pilot]

He in no way intentionally or negligently caused or contributed to the events.

The state and federal authorities were also called and they were unable to do anything to stop the sale if they couldn't do it how can a civilian be responsible for stopping what was as far as the government authorities were concerned a legal purchase of a weapon?

And the mother's phone call isn't sufficient as the shop owner had no way to verify she was who she said she was

I've no idea if she had some way to verify who she was. According to the WP article, she gave the store her daughter's name, birthday, and SS#, but I don't know if she gave them anything to show she was the mother.

from an unknown person on the telephone all that info means nothing.
and if it wasn't enough for the government to prohibit her from buying a gun it's ludicrous to think tht it was enough info for a private citizen to intervene

Were you involved in this case? You speak of it as though you have all of the pertinent information.

Perhaps the store was completely without fault. However, since I was not there, and I do not know the people involved, and since the articles I've seen only give a certain amount of information about the incident, and considering the store settled for over $2 million rather than fight this in court, I'm unwilling to assume I know the answers. You seem not to be so unwilling.

Ok so tell me what did the store owner do that was illegal? Wrong is too subjective.

If you have no evidence that he actually was somehow negligent then he is innocent until proven guilty.

As far as him settling that means nothing to me because as I said our civil litigation system does not run by rules of evidence but rather by emotion and supposition.

A long drawn out court case would most likely have cost him more and his insurance wouldn't pick up the tab and I'll put money on the fact that it was the insurance company's decision to settle not the business owner's.

This case should be appealed

Cases that are settled cannot be appealed.

yeah yeah I know that just got carried away