Theater shooting victim's parents sue ammo seller

longslide10

longslide10

New member
Will these idiots ever give up their ridiculous aspirations? I hope to God the defense has their ****** together. This is absolutely ludicrous, I can't believe it is actually allowed to be pursued. What's next sue GM because a drunk driver took out a family of 4 or Henkels for making that butcher knife that a man used to kill his wife's lover?




DENVER (AP) - The parents of a woman killed in the Colorado theater shootings are suing four online retailers they say sold ammunition, tear gas and equipment used in the attack.

The lawsuit was announced Tuesday by attorneys for the parents of Jessica Ghawi (GAH'-wee) and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

It alleges it was illegal and negligent to sell the gear to James Holmes, who is accused of killing 12 people and injuring 70 in the 2012 attack.

Holmes pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to charges of murder and attempted murder.

The suit says the companies had no safeguards to keep dangerous people from buying their goods.

The lawsuit names the owners of bulkammo.com, bulletproofbodyarmorhq.com, BTP Arms and the Sportsman's Guide. None of the companies immediately returned telephone messages.


Link Removed
 
The answer to your question is no, they will never stop. Any situation they can leverage, any political ruse, which moves the ball, however incrementally, towards the elimination of the private ownership of firearms will be used by these people without hesitation. In this case there is a dual motivation; they're going after some deep pockets (money for them), and even if they fail, they will have succeeded in making the ownership of firearms just a little more expensive for all of us. It is a mistake to conceive of them as idiots. They have a very different world view based on very different values as compared to those say, of the founding fathers. Unfortunately for us some of these people are wicked smart, and far too many people are duped by them.
 
the parents don't care about the political ramifications all the want is money! they see a way to use their child's death to try and make money! plain and simple
 
JTauscher said:
the parents don't care about the political ramifications all the want is money! they see a way to use their child's death to try and make money! plain and simple
Click to expand...

In all fairness to the parents, this excerpt from the referenced item said, "Her parents are represented by attorneys for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and two Denver lawyers." That says a whole lot to me. The outsiders are using the parents to further their anti-gun issues and maybe tease the parents with a little money. Shameful that any organization would take advantage of the parents over such an incident but look at what you are dealing with!
 
We have lots of statutory and common laws that impose liability on a seller of goods for injuries cause by the goods, some based on strict liability and others that require a showing of negligence. One of the more common examples is Dram Shop laws that impose liability on a bar for damages caused by a drunk driver if the bar owner should have known the drunk drivers condition at the time of selling him or her alcohol. And lets be clear, these ammo sellers weren't selling ammo for the sake of the 2A. They were selling ammo for one reason - to make profits.

So it is not a simple matter to say that a retailer of a product is not liable for injuries caused to third persons because of the use of the product. The law will balance the benefits of unrestricted commerce against the cost of preventing damages from use of the product against the cost of effective means of preventing the potential injury to third parties.

For example, it is relatively easy and inexpensive for a bartender to refuse to sell alcohol to an obviously inebriated person given the potential damage to third parties. So it makes sense to require that a bartender be liable for damages caused by a drunk driver if the bartender sold alcohol to that person when they were obviously drunk.

Whether the plaintiffs in the ammo case will be able to convince the court of a similar situation for ammo sales is something that may not even make it to a jury because the court might dismiss the case before trial.

For a political win, a dismissal before trial is probably second only to a total win through trial, because the plaintiffs can then take the matter to the court of public opinion arguing that the stricter gun control laws are needed because the courts have ruled that ammo sellers can sell to anyone without any restrictions...etc...etc...
 
Carolyn McCarthy tried this angle when Colin Ferguson murdered her husband in the L.I.R.R. shooting. She lost. Twice.
(McCARTHY v. OLIN CORPORATION - FindLaw)
.
Plaintiffs brought this action against Olin, Sturm, Ruger & Company Inc., the manufacturer of the handgun used by Ferguson, and Ram-Line Inc., the manufacturer of the fifteen round capacity magazine used with the handgun, in New York State Supreme Court to recover for the injuries of Kevin McCarthy and Maryanne Phillips and the death of Dennis McCarthy.   The complaint was based on various theories of negligence and strict liability.   Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), on the grounds that the district court had original jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).   The action was subsequently discontinued with prejudice against Sturm, Ruger and Ram-Line. - See more at: McCARTHY v. OLIN CORPORATION - FindLaw
.
Olin moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.   The district court granted the motion.   First addressing the issue of negligence, the court held that plaintiffs' negligence theories must fail because Olin owed no duty to plaintiffs to protect them from criminal misuse of the Black Talon ammunition.  McCarthy, 916 F.Supp. at 368-70.   With respect to the strict liability claims, the court held that plaintiffs failed to allege the existence of a design defect in the Black Talon because the ammunition must by its very nature be dangerous to be functional.  Id. at 370-71.   The risk of the Black Talon arises from the function of the product, not from a defect in the product.  Id. at 371.   The court noted that to state a claim in either negligence or strict liability, plaintiff must demonstrate that defendant's breach was the proximate cause of their injuries.   Here, Ferguson's conduct was an extraordinary act which broke the chain of causation.  Id. at 372.   The district court also pointed to two recent decisions by the New York Supreme Court addressing almost identical claims and holding that they did not state a cause of action.  Id. at 368.   See Pekarski v. Donovan, Nos. 95-11161, 95-1175, 95-1187, slip op. (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Oneida County Sept. 27, 1995) (victims of shooting by ex-police officer brought suit against Olin Corp.);   Forni v. Ferguson, No. 132994/94, slip. op. (N.Y.Sup.Ct. New York County Aug. 2, 1995), aff'd, 232 A.D.2d 176, 648 N.Y.S.2d 73 (1st Dep't 1996) (action by victim of Long Island Railroad shooting against Olin Corp.).2 - See more at: McCARTHY v. OLIN CORPORATION - FindLaw​
.
I don't believe this victim's lawsuit has any traction.
 
They should be suing the theatre for not having better security instead of the ammo company which will never happen.
 
Might should sue the theater. Many theaters were doing the late night showing. Three closer to his home. Several much larger where he could have killed more people. This theater was the only one where law abiding citizens could not shoot back.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater/

............
Exodus 22:2 If a thief is caught in the act of breaking in, and he is beaten to death, no one is guilty of bloodshed.

Psalm 18:34 He trains my hands for war, so that my arms can bend a bow of bronze.

Psalm 144:1 Blessed be the LORD, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle

Luke 11:21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his estate, his possessions are secure.

Luke 22:36 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.”
 
A better analogy than suing GM is someone suing ARCO bc their gas was in the car when it was in an accident. So utterly stupid!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Suing a farmer who sold the grain to Jack Daniels, who made the alcohol, which a DWI driver drank, before getting into an accident.

............
Exodus 22:2 If a thief is caught in the act of breaking in, and he is beaten to death, no one is guilty of bloodshed.

Psalm 18:34 He trains my hands for war, so that my arms can bend a bow of bronze.

Psalm 144:1 Blessed be the LORD, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle

Luke 11:21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his estate, his possessions are secure.

Luke 22:36 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.”
 
Just like "guns don't kill people, people do", "ammo doesn't kill people, people do." It was a person that bought the ammo, loaded it into a gun, pointed it at others, and pulled the trigger. The common denominator in all of these actions was the person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 234 (members: 0, guests: 234)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,523
Messages
610,661
Members
74,992
Latest member
RedDotArmsTraining

Share this page

Back
Top