TomAiello 26 #26 August 26, 2004 QuoteLike I said, the bartender doesn't have to stop the drunk from driving, the gun dealer doesn't have to call the cops about the suspicious customer... If they are liable for not doing so, then de facto, they must do so.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #27 August 26, 2004 QuoteGun dealer A sells gun to straw buyer B, who sells to drug dealer Dumbass. Dumbass leaves gun under car and kid 1 shoots kid 2. Liquor wholesaler A sells to Bar B, who sells to Drunkard Dumbass. Dumbass drives home and hits someone on the way there. You are skipping the part where Liquor wholesaler A, sells to Bar B after hours when no other customers are around because liquor wholesaler A knows that Bar B is buying the liquor with the sole intention of selling it to Drunkard Dumbass. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #28 August 26, 2004 QuoteIf they are liable for not doing so, then de facto, they must do so. You're still missing the point. They aren't liable for NOT doing something. He was found liable for KNOWINGLY selling to an arms dealer. He KNOWINGLY sold these weapons to a guy he KNEW sold them illegally. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #29 August 26, 2004 QuoteI would not support him being charged with a crime. However I do believe he shares in the civil liability. There's a lot more to the case that has come to light over the years and I'm not going to try to chase it all down on the internet to show you. But trust me, this guy at the gun store knew exactly who he was selling these to and for what purpose. See, now there I disagree with you. If the shop owner had any idea he was selling to a straw purchaser, he should be prosecuted and given the maximum.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #30 August 26, 2004 QuoteHe was found liable for KNOWINGLY selling to an arms dealer. He KNOWINGLY sold these weapons to a guy he KNEW sold them illegally. It sounds to me like your changing the scenario in midstream here. I didn't see anywhere in the article that it said he had any knowledge of any kind that the firearms would be resold.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #31 August 26, 2004 QuoteIt sounds to me like your changing the scenario in midstream here. I didn't see anywhere in the article that it said he had any knowledge of any kind that the firearms would be resold. But that's what the jury, who got to hear all the evidence, determined. Let me clarify my postition for you guys. Do I think a gun dealer should be held liable for a legal sale of a gun that is used to commit a crime? NO Do I think a gun dealer should be charged with a crime if he legally sells a gun to someone that he thinks may be used for a crime? NO Do I think a gun dealer should be held civilly liable for a death that results in the legal sale of a gun that he suspects may be used for a crime? YES Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #32 August 26, 2004 QuoteYou're still missing the point. They aren't liable for NOT doing something. He was found liable for KNOWINGLY selling to an arms dealer. He KNOWINGLY sold these weapons to a guy he KNEW sold them illegally. The artical says: QuoteSauers had testified in a deposition that he complied with state and federal law in each sale to Bruce, but that he never asked Bruce why he bought 10 small handguns from him between 1994 and 1997. If he did comply, then he is not liable unless Bruce told him he was re-selling the guns. Just assuming he was reselling the guns does not make him liable. If I bought a axe with the intent to kill someone would the store be liable if they didn't know?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #33 August 26, 2004 QuoteDo I think a gun dealer should be charged with a crime if he legally sells a gun to someone that he thinks may be used for a crime? NO Do I think a gun dealer should be held civilly liable for a death that results in the legal sale of a gun that he suspects may be used for a crime? YES Thats not a lot of difference. You should hand over your weapons now."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #34 August 26, 2004 QuoteThey didn't do anything illegal, but he did do something wrong. He used poor judgment. And that is a legal justification for finding civil liability. Bullshit. The courts are suposed to be about the LAW. You are inocent of wrong doing untill proven guilty, not imoral. I think from what I've heard here the shop owner might not have been as full of moral fortitude as I'd like, but sounds like he did nothing ilegal.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #35 August 26, 2004 QuoteBut that's what the jury, who got to hear all the evidence, determined. Again, I see no mention of a jury anywhere in the article. Obviously, you have more information than we do about this. Why not just share the information, instead of revealing it piecemeal to "score points" in an argument?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #36 August 26, 2004 QuoteJust assuming he was reselling the guns does not make him liable. Sure it does. He didn't have to make the sale. QuoteIf I bought a axe with the intent to kill someone would the store be liable if they didn't know? Nope, but I would expect that if you went into a store to buy an axe and they suspected you were going to use it to chop someone up that they wouldn't sell it to you. If they did, they could be held civilly liable for it. The jury found that this gun dealer knew that the purchaser was an illegal arms dealer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #37 August 26, 2004 That's fucked up (and you know how I feel about guns). My first reaction was why couldn't they go after the guy selling it to the drug dealer? But then why is it his fault (assuming his transaction with the drug dealer was legit). So now I sit here thinking that this whole situation is FUBARed as sueing one person or another isn't going to bring back the dead child. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #38 August 26, 2004 QuoteThe jury found that this gun dealer knew that the purchaser was an illegal arms dealer. Dude. You just keep pulling out extra pieces of information as they support your case. While that may be an effective way of "winning" an argument, it's pretty pointless. Why not just share all the extra information up front, instead of getting people worked up to argue with you, then revealing that you've worked them up without giving them all the information?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #39 August 26, 2004 QuoteThey didn't do anything illegal, but he did do something wrong. He used poor judgment. And that is a legal justification for finding civil liability. Why is that poor judgement? Because the guy had a welfare card? Because the guy paid in cash? Wow - Kev - I thought Profiling was beneath you. And Kennedy: QuoteGun dealer A sells gun to straw buyer B, who sells to drug dealer Dumbass. Dumbass leaves gun under car and kid 1 shoots kid 2. Liquor wholesaler A sells to Bar B, who sells to Drunkard Dumbass. Dumbass drives home and hits someone on the way there. You go after the Dumbass, and the person who sold to them illegaly. Would you go after the wholesaler? Actually that would be the equivalent of going after bartender because the drunk sold his car to someone who left the keys somewhere and a kid picked them up and ran over another kid.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #40 August 26, 2004 QuoteWhy not just share the information, instead of revealing it piecemeal to "score points" in an argument? Because I don't feel like looking it all up. I've been following this case in the local papers and on the local news for the past few years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #41 August 26, 2004 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just assuming he was reselling the guns does not make him liable. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sure it does. He didn't have to make the sale. Uh, I guess he never had to make a sale..He could just live on welfare The fact is if he followed the law he should not be liable. QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If I bought a axe with the intent to kill someone would the store be liable if they didn't know? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nope, but I would expect that if you went into a store to buy an axe and they suspected you were going to use it to chop someone up that they wouldn't sell it to you. If they did, they could be held civilly liable for it. Again BullShit. Unless I told then that was what I was going to do with it...Then they should be clear. Think for a second the dangerous slope you are walking. I can now sure the Chevy dealership that sold that Formula 350 to the 18 year old that destroyed my car when he ran into it. I mean they KNEW he was going to speed in it. I can now sue the gear shop that sold me a CYPRES since he knew I sometimes pull low. QuoteThe jury found that this gun dealer knew that the purchaser was an illegal arms dealer. No where does this artical say that."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #42 August 26, 2004 Quote I have a problem with it... That's not your problem. That the birth right of owning weapons. Of growing up with a gun in your hands. And in my opinion, that's the red line in all. Not everyone is made for that. To own a shotgut, a colt, easy to reach, to use. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #43 August 26, 2004 You could have just made your first post in this thread something along the lines of: "The article missed some important information. Here's some things I know from following the case..." Most of us aren't going to doubt that you are familiar with something local to you. Well, most of us except for Ron, who, given the way you incessantly bait him, may be justified in doubting every word you post. Regardless, I think I'm done worrying about this until I actually have more facts.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #44 August 26, 2004 QuoteNo where does this artical say that. And that's why in my first post in this thread I said "You know I'm on your side of the gun issues, but that article doesn't tell the whole story." QuoteAgain BullShit. Unless I told then that was what I was going to do with it...Then they should be clear. If I walk up to you, tell you that I'm suicidal and always wanted to go in skydiving and take someone with me, will you go on a jump with me? I didn't tell you I'm going to do it, so everything should be fine, right? How about if I tell you that, and then ask to borrow your gear? Would you lend it to me? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #45 August 26, 2004 QuoteYou could have just made your first post in this thread something along the lines of: "The article missed some important information. Here's some things I know from following the case..." That's pretty much exactly what I did, and then everyone started questioning me. I'm just trying to answer your questions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #46 August 26, 2004 Um, Kev, the article says it was a settlement, not a finding by a jury. If he knew about the illegal resales, I say throw his ass in the defendants chair in front of a criminal trial jury.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #47 August 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteNo where does this artical say that. And that's why in my first post in this thread I said "You know I'm on your side of the gun issues, but that article doesn't tell the whole story." Your fist post> QuoteYou know I'm on your side of the gun issues, but that article doesn't tell the whole story. I've been to that store, and I know the background on this case. The guy who bought the guns was a frequent customer who used a welfare card for id, then paid cash for guns. He would usually make arrangements to come and buy them after hours. And the guy only bought small, cheap, concealable hand guns. No, the gun store didn't do anything illegal. But they sure didn't use common sense. I don't have a problem with a jury finding them civilliy liable for contributing to the child's death with unsafe business practices. I would feel the same way about someone who legally sold fireworks to a drunk. Just because you legally can sell guns to someone doesn't mean you have to. You said Familiar with it - not that there were discrepancies in the article - or at the very least - ommissions. QuoteAgain BullShit. Unless I told then that was what I was going to do with it...Then they should be clear. If I walk up to you, tell you that I'm suicidal and always wanted to go in skydiving and take someone with me, will you go on a jump with me? I didn't tell you I'm going to do it, so everything should be fine, right? How about if I tell you that, and then ask to borrow your gear? Would you lend it to me? Then I would have first hand knowledge that you were intending to do wrong. In this article - NOWHERE - does it say that the gun shop owner knew he was reselling.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #48 August 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteYou could have just made your first post in this thread something along the lines of: "The article missed some important information. Here's some things I know from following the case..." That's pretty much exactly what I did, and then everyone started questioning me. I'm just trying to answer your questions. Um, you could have actually listed the information that didn't appear, rather than holding it back until an opportune moment to fire it into the middle of a debate.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #49 August 26, 2004 QuoteIf I walk up to you, tell you that I'm suicidal and always wanted to go in skydiving and take someone with me, will you go on a jump with me? I didn't tell you I'm going to do it, so everything should be fine, right? How about if I tell you that, and then ask to borrow your gear? Would you lend it to me? Nope I would not take you if you told me you were suicidal. If you didn't tell me I have no reason to doubt you...And so I would take you. See if I KNOW its bad, if I DON'T its not my fault. But I'm done with this, you claim to have info but you will not share. So there is no point in this."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #50 August 26, 2004 Yeah, I was just coming back here to correct that. The jury didn't make a finding becaue he settled. That's the case the complaintents were making, but he settled. So, he wasn't held liable after all, anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
