Jury: Gun shop that sold weapon used to shoot, wound Milwaukee cops must pay nearly $6 million

A Jury in Milwaukee had ordered a gun shop to pay 6 million to 2 cops who were shot by a gun they sold.

They sold the gun legally to someone else who then gave the gun to the shooter who shot the cops .

This is going to set a dangerous precedent, I mean should Walgreens be sued for selling sudafed even though they know its used to make METH?

Can we sue the makers of painkillers when someones over doses?

It sounds like a new form of gun control, I mean if you are going to be responsible for what someone does with a gun they buy legally from you , who the hell is going to want to sell guns to anyone?

Slippery slope.

Former Milwaukee police officers Graham Kunisch right, and Bryan Norberg left, who were shot and seriously wounded by a gun purchased at a Wisconsin gun store, leave court after jurors ordered the gun store to pay nearly $6 million in damages, Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2015, in Milwaukee. The ruling came in a negligence lawsuit filed against the store, Badger Guns, by the two officers. The lawsuit alleges the shop allowed an illegal sale despite several warning signs that the gun was being sold to a "straw buyer," or someone who was buying the gun for someone who couldn't legally do so. (Rick Wood/Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel via AP) MANDATORY CREDIT

www.usnews.com...

Well, that's gonna be appealed.

I don't agree with bartenders being charged for drunk customers - - so guess I can't agree with this either.

Provided - - we have all the facts.

a reply to: alienjuggalo

I wonder if they're going to sue the mining company that mined the ore that was refined into the metal that was ultimately used to manufacture the gun that was sold by the store to a guy who gave it to another guy who ended up shooting two people with it.

a reply to: alienjuggalo

Imposible, im so glad i dont live in your fcked up country, this jury should be shot imho.

a reply to: Annee

I agree. The appeal packet was probably put in before the gavel fell a second time.

This does create a dangerous, litigation filled future for all industries if it stands.

If the gun store had pre-knowledge that the firearm they sold would be given to someone who did not qualify to purchase a firearm, there should be a financial penalty.

It would be like a liquor store selling vodka to some guy that they KNEW had come just to buy it for the highschoolers standing outside.

As always, there's more to the story.

The two officers sued for negligence, alleging that the West Milwaukee gun shop should have known that the gun eventually used in the shooting was initially sold as part of a "straw" purchase. In those cases, someone buys the gun on behalf of someone else who is not legally permitted to purchase a gun.

www.nbcnews.com...

originally posted by: BiffWellington
a reply to: alienjuggalo

I wonder if they're going to sue the mining company that mined the ore that was refined into the metal that was ultimately used to manufacture the gun that was sold by the store to a guy who gave it to another guy who ended up shooting two people with it.

That's like a twisted, litigious version of the house that Jack built.

So, if they truly have to pay, is it likely their insurance will pay up? If so, could this send a message to the insurance companies not to insure these higher-risk gun dealers now? Perhaps it is another device to shut down the pro-gun crowd and keep more guns from the citizens.

Badger Guns was also previously called Badger Outdoors, and at times was the No. 1 seller of firearms used in crimes in the U.S. — moving 537 guns that were recovered from crime scenes in 2005 alone, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

www.nbcnews.com...

Sure this doesn't help there case.

Wonder how the cops, or their lawyer, can prove that they business should have known it was a straw purchase.

a reply to: Sremmos80

There was testimony in court that the shop didn't train employees including the one that made the sale, had no policies in place regarding the purchase of firearms, was either unaware or noncompliant with federal regulations, and some other stuff. There was also testimony that the guy who purchased the firearm had to look up information on his phone, was visibly nervous and agitated, couldn't recall basic information for the application, etc. The testimony made it sound like a reasonable, trained employee would have had suspicion of the nature of the purchase.

So essentially Badger Guns finally got their ass handed to them for not training people and not being compliant with firearms purchasing laws.

In general I don't care for this kind of verdict, just as I don't care for holding a legal gun owner liable for what happens with his/her weapon if it's stolen. But Badger seems to have thrown up a building, stuffed it with firearms, and sold them to anybody who could hold a pen.

originally posted by: UnHealtyArrogance
a reply to: alienjuggalo

Imposible, im so glad i dont live in your fcked up country, this jury should be shot imho.

We prefer random untested chemical killings over here, fella. Oklahoma is finally leading the way!

a reply to: Shamrock6

Ya I don't like the idea either, I understand it is not the fault of the gun shop that some one misused the firearm.

Unless of course it can be shown they should have known about it in some concrete way.

And if what you are saying is correct, sounds like they were pretty negligent.

originally posted by: alienjuggalo
A Jury in Milwaukee had ordered a gun shop to pay 6 million to 2 cops who were shot by a gun they sold.

IF the story is true, as reported, IF the shop knew that the gun sale was a 'strawman' (anything for $!) then I do see liability and a fair settlement!
IF...

It sounds like a new form of gun control, I mean if you are going to be responsible for what someone does with a gun they buy legally from you , who the hell is going to want to sell guns to anyone?

The implication of the article is that the gun was NOT sold legally.

(Imagine, if no one sold guns! How could we shoot each other? *__- )

Been 'discussing' this on another thread.

This judgement was the result of a civil trial, not a criminal trial.

If the employee was fully complicit and knowingly sold the gun to a straw buyer (how do we fully quantify that?) then he/she would have broken so many laws this would be a criminal trial. I don't know if there was a criminal trial or there will be.

On the surface of the source material it could be spun 1)these are just to dudes looking for a payout or 2)maybe they simply tried to get after a a bad actor anyway they could. IDK.

a reply to: alienjuggalo

yeah, this won't last long on appeal.

unless the gun store was negligent for something other than existing....itll never end up in the exchange of cash.

a reply to: alienjuggalo

So if I take my emplyees out to lunch as they get food poisoning and die...I am going to be held directly responsible?
Maybe a work comp claim...but legally?

Unless the gun shop sold the firearms with explicit intent to use to kill LEOs, I vail to see responsibility on behalf of the legal tranaction from the guun shop.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

The store had a history or was known on the street as the place to go, the poster that said the jury should be shot, grow up.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: alienjuggalo

So if I take my emplyees out to lunch as they get food poisoning and die...I am going to be held directly responsible?
Maybe a work comp claim...but legally?

Unless the gun shop sold the firearms with explicit intent to use to kill LEOs, I vail to see responsibility on behalf of the legal tranaction from the guun shop.

Is there a law against taking your employees to lunch? No? Then your comparison is moot.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Sounds to me like they were plenty negligent. Perhaps not to the level of criminality, but then again the civil side doesn't need that preponderance of evidence either.

I think it'll probably be drastically reduced but will still pay out.