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an earlier antigun opinion and deleted references to the work of Michael Bellesiles, the historian whose Bancroft Prize was revoked because of serious questions about the honesty of his scholarship.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 ...
Wrong. Valor Corpoation was the distributor. Raven Arms was the manufacturer who went out of business (due to a fire) nine years before the shooting.
The gun went from Raven Arms to the distributor, where it was sold (to someone). That person then sold it to Hypoluxo Pawn Shop. The uncle of the shooter, Elmore McCray, purchased the gun from the pawn shop and placed it in an unlocked box in the unlocked drawer of a dresser in his bedroom. I don't know if the gun was stored loaded.
The shooter, 13-year-old Nathaniel Brazill, stole the gun from his uncle and shot his teacher, point blank, in the head, killing him instantly and leaving behind a wife and childern.
The wife sued everybody, uncle, pawn shop, distributor, and the school district, and was awarded $24 million. The distributor was deemed 5% liable (ergo, $1.2 million).
These attitudes need to change as much as those of the people who sit on the bench in our Courts and in our Legislatures. Notice the Nineth Circus Judge didn't change the ruling, only edited his opinion. Hardly a win. That case should be brought before the USSC as it conflicts directly with the 5th Circuits Emerson ruling. I really don't think RKBA supporters would quite get the ruling they would hope for out of them however. The "powers that be" would be rocked to the core should the USSC rule that RKBA is an unalienable individual Right for every US citizen.
Ergo... they will add in the rejoineder that "reasonable" restrictions apply. It would be like saying that it is ok to be a little bit dead, or a little bit pregnant.
It's either one or the other. There is no room for black and white on this issue. No moral equivication. We either have the Right, or we don't. The question is too important on too many levels.
Actually, I do not belive the widow sued the uncle or the school. In the previous article posted about this, it said:
Since neither McCray nor the school board were defendants in the civil trial, they did not have to pay damages. Both have previous settlements with Pam Grunow.
The jury came back and said Valor was only 5% responsible and McCray and the school shared the other 95% of the responsibility. Its confusing civil law procedures. You can file suit against one person, but the jury can find someone other than the person named in the suit responsible for the damage. However, if a jury fins such, only a party to the suit must pay(I do not know if the widow could now file suit against McCray and the school. Probabaly not since they settled already.) The widow wasn't going to be getting the other $22.8 million regardless.
Being able to do so, or even having it as an automatic part of the process, seems like it would really cut down on the nuber of frivolous lawsuits.
I don't think so. That would mean any defendant in a civil trial who "wins" would do so as well.
Being able to do so, or even having it as an automatic part of the process, seems like it would really cut down on the nuber of frivolous lawsuits.
I would agree to an extent. I wouldn't want to see a losing plantif automatically have to pay court costs. There are already procedures in place for recouping losses by defending one's self in frivolous suits.
The reality is that the suit should have been thrown out. This was an intentional act of murder. There was no negligence on the part of Valor. As far as repsonsibility or liability go for McCray and the school, I don't know.
Or can you explain to me how resisting an armed felony assault, even when perpetrated by a federal employee, is suddenly against the TOS here at FR?
Loser pays up as part of either punishment or in restitution for a false accusation. Sounds equitable and fair to me. Am I wrong?
I must not have caught that part. I'll read further.
Or can you explain to me how resisting an armed felony assault, even when perpetrated by a federal employee, is suddenly against the TOS here at FR?
No, I would say we have a duty to resist such abuses of power and crimes, no matter if they are perpetrated by a federal employee.
I don't think that is possible. What you describe are frivolous lawsuits which are typically thrown out at the first hearing. There is a procedure though for having a judgement against a person who files such lawsuits. I can not remember the exact name for it. I think its "Chapter 'something' proceedings" or "sanctions". This can be brought against the attorney as well. Maybe another freeper more astute in the law knows the answer.
Loser pays up as part of either punishment or in restitution for a false accusation. Sounds equitable and fair to me. Am I wrong?
False accusations are one thing. Simply "losing" is another. However, it is hard to distinguish between the two sometimes. In the case in question, the suit shouldn't have even been allowed. The trial judge should have read the complaint and understood that a firearm manufacturer can not be sued for their product opperating in the maner it was created to.
I don't like alot of aspects of civil law, such as actions being deemed both criminal and civil(wrongfull death suits in acts of murder for one). But, I am not ready to accept a "loser pays all" system. In some cases it is warranted. In some it is not.
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.