Gun shop held accountable in cop shootings

[NoStateofMind]

This is a very dangerous and slippery slope that will result in effective bans on guns if this continues.

LINK

In a verdict that could prefigure a political alliance between police unions and advocates of new restrictions on private firearms ownership, a federal jury in Wisconsin has ordered Milwaukee-based Badger Guns to pay nearly $6 million to two police officers who suffered severe injuries after being shot with a gun purchased at the store.

This unprecedented civil award will encourage efforts to hold gun retailers – and, perhaps, firearms manufacturers – civilly liable for crimes committed by other people. It also reinforces the prevailing (and factually impoverished) narrative of an ever-escalating “war on cops.” Ten additional lawsuits similar to the one filed against Badger Guns are working their way through the courts.

Officers Bryan Norberg and Graham Kunich were both shot in the face by Julius Burton during an altercation in the Summer of 2009. The officers, who arrived in a police van, detained the 18-year-old Burton for riding a bicycle on the sidewalk. A struggle broke out during which Burton was slammed into a wall. He then pulled a .40 caliber Taurus pistol and shot both officers in the face.

Norberg, who suffered several shattered teeth and an injury to his shoulder, remains on the force. Kunisch lost his left eye and part of the left frontal lobe of his brain and was forced to retire. Burton, who pleaded guilty to first degree attempted homicide while armed, was sentenced to eighty years plus twenty years of “extended supervision.” Jacob Collins, who acted as the “straw buyer” by purchasing the handgun with $40 provided by Burton, was sentenced to two years in prison.

Although he had received mental health treatment since the age of seven, and had a “diagnostic history” of schizophrenia, Burton was not taking his medication at the time of his encounter with the officers. During his sentencing hearing, Burton – who was chained to a wheelchair — said that he had bought the gun for self-protection, and that he shot the officers out of fear for his life.

For a police officer endowed with “qualified immunity,” that claim is generally enough to justify the use of deadly force. In this case, the best Burton could do was a proposed deal in which he would plead guilty in exchange for a fifty-year prison sentence. Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Patricia McMahon, unsatisfied with the deal, imposed an additional thirty years, making the punishment an effective life sentence. Her ruling prompted cheers from dozens of uniformed police officers in the audience, including Chief Ed Flynn.

Stringent limits on liability are imposed by the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). In the Milwaukee trial, however, the jury apparently set aside those limits. Instead, they accepted the argument made by the plaintiffs’ attorney, Patrick Dunphy, that it was not necessary to prove that the clerk “willfully” sold the gun to a straw buyer. All that was required was that ten of the twelve jurors to conclude that he was “negligent” in not discerning what were supposedly “tell-tale signs” that the transaction was illegal. Norberg was $1.5 million in damages, and Kunisch $3.5 million. Badger Guns was also ordered to pay $730,000 in punitive damages.

smh!

 

[Jimzz]

This is the same standard clerks at convenience stores are held to when selling alcohol and that has held up. Why is this different?

If this was a straw purchase and the gun shop knew it in any way then they should be guilty.

 

[brycejones]

This is a very dangerous and slippery slope that will result in effective bans on guns if this continues.

Obvious straw purchase is straw purchase. So you're wrong.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

This is the same standard clerks at convenience stores are held to when selling alcohol and that has held up. Why is this different?

Really? Let's say, a man 21+ years of age buys alcohol from a liquor store, and sells it to an 18 year old. You can find cases where the liquor store would be held culpable?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Obvious straw purchase is straw purchase. So you're wrong.

How do we know it was a 'straw' purchase? What were the signs? None of this was mentioned.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

How do we know it was a 'straw' purchase? What were the signs? None of this was mentioned.

Guess you missed this little tidbit from your link above.

Burton pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree attempted intentional homicide and is serving an 80-year sentence. Collins, the man who purchased the gun, got a two-year sentence after pleading guilty to making a straw purchase for an underage buyer.

 

[trenchfoot]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do recall establishments dispensing alcoholic beverages that have been, time and again, successfully sued for negligence for allowing customers to get inebriated above a certain prescribed threshold, then having the customer leave the establishment only to cause bodily harm/deaths to others.

That being the case, and despite how the firearms industry have shielded themselves via lobbying (corrupting) our politicians into writing laws that absolve them of their own negligence, I can see a logical correlation between the two.

On the part of the firearms dealers, I can see where more stringent background checks and more training for salespersons to detect possible liability issues can easily be instituted, seeing as if selling a product that is specifically meant to efficiently kill things is something that has been severely downplayed in the interests of keeping profits rolling in.

I like the idea that the Second Amendment is used to protect the rights of our citizens, but I really despise the gun lobby and the firearms industries they represent for exploiting the 2A to ensure their profit margins won't be affected.

There needs to be this realization that higher standards are needed on both the seller and purchaser's part that transcend the need to make a profit and the need to own a firearm without the requirement to be held accountable should that firearm be used in a manner that causes bodily harm and unwarranted deaths.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Guess you missed this little tidbit from your link above.

Yeah I read that a bit too fast. However that doesn't change the direction this is flowing. In other words, this is opening a door for them to start suing gun shops and ultimately manufacturers IMO. Could I be wrong? Absolutely.

EDIT:

And I see this pushing gun manufacturers and shops advocating for mental health background checks for gun licenses to mitigate their supposed culpability. Once that starts, with all the kids on medication these days, the field for gun licenses is going to be pretty small. Just my opinion of course.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do recall establishments dispensing alcoholic beverages that have been, time and again, successfully sued for negligence for allowing customers to get inebriated above a certain prescribed threshold, then having the customer leave the establishment only to cause bodily harm/deaths to others.

Not the same thing. That would be more analogous to a clearly angry and violent man purchasing a gun and the store being held accountable when he goes and kills his wife. A straw buyer would probably be harder to detect, although if there's a record of some guy purchasing hundreds of ordinary guns a year, that would be another matter.

 

[Fern]

This is a very dangerous and slippery slope that will result in effective bans on guns if this continues.
-snip-

Note this portion:

Stringent limits on liability are imposed by the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). In the Milwaukee trial, however, the jury apparently set aside those limits. Instead, they accepted the argument made by the plaintiffs’ attorney, Patrick Dunphy, that it was not necessary to prove that the clerk “willfully” sold the gun to a straw buyer.

I don't see how the jury can set aside the law. Jury nullification, as a concept, can set a guilty man free, but I don't believe it can be used to declare an innocent man as guilty. I see no ambiguity in the law either.

I expect this to be successfully appealed. The clear letter of the law seems to require the "willful" part:

(3) in which a manufacturer or seller of a firearm knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the firearm and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought;

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397/summary

Did the judge not provide the jury with instructions?

Fern

 

[Spungo]

Now clerks need to spy on their customers 24/7 to make sure they're not selling things in the secondary market?

What happens when a person with a valid prescription sells their prescription drugs to a friend and the friend dies? Do we start throwing doctors and pharmacists in jail because they missed "obvious" straw purchases and straw prescriptions? The current system is bad enough. Try getting prescription pain killers for a tooth ache. It's fucking impossible. In the future, you won't be able to get medication unless there is a knife sticking out of your back.

 

[brycejones]

Not the same thing. That would be more analogous to a clearly angry and violent man purchasing a gun and the store being held accountable when he goes and kills his wife. A straw buyer would probably be harder to detect, although if there's a record of some guy purchasing hundreds of ordinary guns a year, that would be another matter.

In this case the straw buyer and the actual buyer were in the store together. The actual buyer directed the straw buyer what weapon to purchase and then the clerk in the store helped direct the straw buyer on filling out the forms including correcting errors where the real purchaser's info was provided instead of the straw buyers.

To top it off the sale was recorded on video showing these actions.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

OK, this version of the story tells things a little more clearly. In that case, I can agree that it probably should have been obvious to the store.

 

[werepossum]

In this case the straw buyer and the actual buyer were in the store together. The actual buyer directed the straw buyer what weapon to purchase and then the clerk in the store helped direct the straw buyer on filling out the forms including correcting errors where the real purchaser's info was provided instead of the straw buyers.

To top it off the sale was recorded on video showing these actions.

With that provision, I can agree to criminal negligence.

 

[Fenixgoon]

With that provision, I can agree to criminal negligence.

indeed. that is way different than an qualified individual buying a firearm and later giving it to someone who is not legally qualified to possess a firearm. in this case, the store very much aided in the acquisition of the gun and it makes sense to hold them liable.

 

[MagickMan]

With that provision, I can agree to criminal negligence.

Yep. That's what those specific laws are for, enforce them and this kind of thing will stop.

 

[Nebor]

It seems like the jury ignored the law, which is their perogative.

 

[OverVolt]

This is a very dangerous and slippery slope that will result in effective bans on guns if this continues.

LINK



smh!

No, it was a straw sale. And an obvious one at that.

There are already straw sale laws on the books. If there were ever a case to enforce them, this would be it.

The hell kind of skewed views are these. I heard this in the background on free OTA TV on FOX. People who don't even have the internet and watch fox are more informed than you bro.

The straw sale guy had even marked "Is this gun purchase for you" and he marked no, then scratched it out and put yes. There were many red flags in the sale, like saying the gun wasn't for him.

The gun shop in question has a reputation for this kind of thing. If anything its amazing they got away with it for so long.

 

[trenchfoot]

Not the same thing. That would be more analogous to a clearly angry and violent man purchasing a gun and the store being held accountable when he goes and kills his wife. A straw buyer would probably be harder to detect, although if there's a record of some guy purchasing hundreds of ordinary guns a year, that would be another matter.

Good point. But allow me to more narrowly define what I was getting at. As with dispensing alcohol and accepting the responsibility/liability that goes with it, firearms salespersons and their managers need to prioritize safety over their desire to maximize profits.

Point of sale controls is where the rubber hits the road. I contend that at the moment, the need to achieve higher profits definitely take priority over ensuring a sale is proper and properly handled. Most gun dealers will err on the side of making a profit rather than refuse a sale that they have a slight doubt about. More stringent regulations or more severe penalties needs to take that "habit" out of the equation.

 

[Bitek]

Now clerks need to spy on their customers 24/7 to make sure they're not selling things in the secondary market?

What happens when a person with a valid prescription sells their prescription drugs to a friend and the friend dies? Do we start throwing doctors and pharmacists in jail because they missed "obvious" straw purchases and straw prescriptions? The current system is bad enough. Try getting prescription pain killers for a tooth ache. It's fucking impossible. In the future, you won't be able to get medication unless there is a knife sticking out of your back.

We have held pharma companies accountable for not effectively stopping doctors from proscribing drugs for off label uses.

It's rather amazing the gun industry can pump out products that result in masses of deaths and they have no responsibility to mitigate or make improvements.

 

[brycejones]

It seems like the jury ignored the law, which is their perogative.

How so? It was an obvious straw sale facilitated by the store.

 

[OverVolt]

We have held pharma companies accountable for not effectively stopping doctors from proscribing drugs for off label uses.

It's rather amazing the gun industry can pump out products that result in masses of deaths and they have no responsibility to mitigate or make improvements.

Guns are safer than drugs in this instance so not exactly the best example. Compared to how many legal guns are sold very few of them are ever used in a crime.

Its like yelling at the clouds how big pharma could let crack addiction ruin the country, because the sale was illegal to begin with.

 

[Spungo]

OK, this version of the story tells things a little more clearly. In that case, I can agree that it probably should have been obvious to the store.

Indeed.
quote:
"After the two officers were shot, Milwaukee police launched an undercover mission outside Badger Guns and reported signs of straw buying including felons waiting in the car while others go in the store. They also found some felons went in the store and even used the shooting range, which is against the law."

It's not like 1 guy slipped through the cracks. This store is a huge problem, and people want some way to punish that store. I think the jury did the right thing. Fuck that store.

 

[DrDoug]

Guns are safer than drugs in this instance so not exactly the best example. Compared to how many legal guns are sold very few of them are ever used in a crime.

Its like yelling at the clouds how big pharma could let crack addiction ruin the country, because the sale was illegal to begin with.

Define "very few"... In the case of just this store:

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.

That was from a charging document in 2005 that was used by the officers to successfully sue the store. I wonder how many they sold in the last ten years that were used for the same purpose? This is just one shady gun store, there are many more out there. Badger closed up shop and the owners have reopened under a new name, their third.

I'm glad to see a gun shop finally being held somewhat accountable, even if it is only to law enforcement. It's a start.

 

[Genx87]

If the store knowingly helped falsify a federal background check form. I dont have a problem with them being held liable. This case will not setup others to sue without cause. It is very defined.