PDA

View Full Version : It has begun...


zim
11-15-2002, 01:40 AM
http://www.click10.com/mia/news/stories/news-178688020021114-161135.html

PALM BEACH COUNTY, Fla. -- A jury has awarded the widow of teacher Barry Grunow $1.2 million from a gun distributor.
Pam Grunow's lawsuit accused Valor Corp of distributing a gun that was "unsafe, defective and lacked features that would have prevented a minor from using it."

The case stems from the murder of teacher Barry Grunow by one of his students. Nathaniel Brazill shot Grunow to death two years ago in a West Palm Beach classroom.

Pam Grunow's lawyer asked for $76 million. But the jury found gun distributor Valor Corporation 5 percent liable for Grunow's death. The owner of the gun and the school board held the most of the liability, the jury found.

The jury didn't find any liability for Nathanial Brazill, who pulled the trigger. Brazill stole the unloaded gun and bullets from a cookie tin stashed away in a dresser drawer of family friend Elmore McCray.

The jury said Grunow's family should get $24 million from the three parties. The school board was told to pay her $10.8 million, and the family friend was told to pay $12 million.

This is the first lawsuit in the country in which a gun company has in any way been held responsible in a murder.

okay now, lets think.

The gun lacked safety features. Only safety features it lacked was a cabinet in which it should have been locked, out of the reach of everybody but its owner.

Nathaniel shot Grunrow with a gun he found UNLOADED. He commenced to LOAD IT, point it at Grunrow, and PULL THE TRIGGER. Where I stand, that's premeditated murder. This person is responsible for these actions. This was not a gun left lieing around, it was hidden. This was not a gun left loaded, the student LOADED it. That's murder, clear as day.

So the maker of the weapon was 5% liable for its misuse. Does that make an automanufacturer 5% liable for a hit and run?

The law states that guns are legal to be made and owned.
The courts state that aparently, it may not be.

Someone has to decide whether or not guns are legal in this country, or we're going to see some seriously fucked up lawsuits, with this as a precedent.

Billyman
11-15-2002, 04:38 AM
Appeal.

Let's hope the Supreme Court has more sense.

Pianomahnn
11-15-2002, 04:10 PM
Ooooo...you used such pretty colors.

MAC
11-16-2002, 01:00 AM
the logic of my enemy is as follows:

drug dealers = criminals
(for forcing ppl to use drugs and causing crime)
drug users = victims who are turned into criminals
(but only based on possesion not based on usage...unless they commit a crime while using, then they get special penalties)

firearms manufacturers = criminals in and of themselves because criminals use their products and these crimes would NOT occur if the firearms where not present

firearm users ?
Do you own a firearm but never use it?
(maybe we should try THAT with drugs)

so I ask:

what would drug dealers do if there where no drugs?
what would firearms manufacturers make if there where no firearms?

what would ppl buy and use?

holding the company accountable for someone using their products for a crime is.....well....stupid

is it dinner time yet?