Posted on 01/29/2003 5:28:21 AM PST by Stand Watch Listen
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:05:09 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
This week, two unlikely judges shared a small moment of justice on behalf of the Second Amendment.
In Florida, Judge Jorge Labarga, of butterfly ballot fame, threw out a $1.2 million award against the distributor of a handgun used by a kid to shoot his teacher. In the Ninth Circuit, Carter appointee Stephen Reinhardt returned to an earlier antigun opinion and deleted references to the work of Michael Bellesiles, the historian whose Bancroft Prize was revoked because of serious questions about the honesty of his scholarship.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
He completely refused to see the point that the federal employee was in the wrong to begin with, as well as who ever wrote the park regulations to begin with. Depriving them of their property is almost tangenial to the point that she pointed a loaded weapon at them, and under color of authority, forced them to give up their possessions.
I really don't approve of how things are currently being run.
I think anyone who accpets employment to enforce laws that deprive another of their natural rights gets what they deserve when the person who's rights are being violated resists. I have no pitty for them.
When I was younger and naive, I thought about going into law enforcement. I then realized a little later that I'd be forced to enforce laws that are wrong. Even if a shurked my duty and let people slide who committed "victimless crimes", I would still be representing an entity that violates people's rights under the color of law. I'm glad I wised up and saw that before I went down that career path.
That's what I was thinking of, DC.
It would definitely cut way down on the number of suits, both frivolous and legitimate ones. I just don't want to see someone who rightfully brought a suit, but lost because they didn't have enough evidence, be punished.
Such a system may also create sort of a catch-22 on a psycological level. A jury, knowing how the system you propose works, could easily get a mindset of, "Well, the plantif surely wouldn't file such a suit if it wasn't true, considering he/she must pay is we find for the defendant". That wouldn't be good because a person who files such a suit(or the attorney who advised them to) could start thinking "well the jury would have to think I am an idiot to bring false charges considering I have to pay if I lose". I think it creates a potential psychological battle between a jury and the plantiff(and attorney). I may be wrong, but I don't always trust juries to be objective when looking at evidence.
I'm working on it!
The $75 million lawsuit was only against Valor, but the jury found that the uncle and the school were also responsible. They awarded $24 million to Grunow, $1.2 million (5%) from Valor, $10.8 million (45%) from the school board, and $12 million (50%) from the uncle, McCray.
A couple of questions come to mind. Why didn't the jury find the pawn shop liable? Why didn't Grunow include the school in her suit? If McCray settled out of court, how can he be held liable again?
According to the CNN (11-15-02) article:
"McCray and the school board were not defendants in the suit."
"Grunow's attorney, Robert Montgomery, ... said he would go back to court to ask the judge to hold Valor responsible for the entire damages."
I'm guessing, but I think that, since McCray and the school board weren't named in the suit, they're not liable. The attorney screwed up, so then he asked for the whole $24 million from Valor.
Now that the suit against Valor is thrown out, the widow is left with $575,000 less attorneys fees.
Who knows. Why did they even find Valor liable when no evidence of negligence was presented?
Why didn't Grunow include the school in her suit?
Probably because the school had settled the claim against it. I guess there were three separate suits.
If McCray settled out of court, how can he be held liable again?
He can't. I try to not interchange the words, but there is a difference in civil court between one being found "liable" and one being found "responsible". The jury can attach a % of reposnsibility to a third person not party to the suit(they could have found Brazill 100% responsible), but only a party to the suit is actually liable. Its really confusing.
Now that the suit against Valor is thrown out, the widow is left with $575,000 less attorneys fees.
Yep, that looks about right.
Found it:
"She previously agreed not to sue the school board in exchange for an annuity that will provide income equal to the amount her husband would have earned before retirement."
The WSJ should be ashamed of itself.
Good find.
The school maybe the only ones that any claim could be made against. I think the contention was that Brazill was told to go home and the school apparently had little in place that would prevent a student sent home from comming back. Its probably a stretch, but I could see why a jury would see it this way.
In all of my years of studying history, I have never heard of a case in which a population won or protected its liberty while armed with cigarettes. What these folks didn't, don't and apparently can't understand is that the possession of weapons by the general populace is both a symbol of liberty and an important tool for obtaining and keeping that liberty. As a result, very few people are willing to part with their weapons because someone else has done something wrong, and those trying to deprive them of those weapons (properly) are forced to contemplate their premature demise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.