Financial liability for known risks

[docsleepy]

Financial liability changes behavior.

I think we need to get some smart lawyers to advance multiple different lawsuits. Survivors suing the city of Seattle for failure to protect its citizens by enforcing the laws. Suing Hewlett-Packard for failure to properly background check their employees. Suing the federal government for failure to provide adequate security after the demonstrated risks known from Maj. Hassan. Sue federal or city government seven minute delay in providing security after denying citizens the right to effectively defend themselves.

Just as with other causes, this will take time, and may not be successful on the first or second effort. However it will change behavior. Defense free zones will shrink.

 

[medalguy]

You will need to show how you personally were harmed in order to have standing for a suit. Can you do that?

 

[docsleepy]

The survivors.
Children and spouses of the innocent deceased
This could add up at 20+ million per victim

Seattle failed
HP failed
Navy failed
Wash Dc 7 minutes.

 

[docsleepy]

News just reported that pentagon inspector general cites glaring security risks. Hagel has ordered immediate review. This would make the case even easier.

But we need to start making gun free killing zones COSTLY LISBILITY RISKS and you do this via the courts.

 

[Texan Scott]

Docsleepy, that's obviously much easier said than done, but I do think you have the right idea. It's a tough sell politically, but it's a valid point.

 

[docsleepy]

Yes it will take work

News now is that killer was hearing voices. (Auditory hallucinations ). Psychotic in other words. And still holding access to secure area

Attacked with only a shotgun, obtained other weapons by force. The argument for the plaintiff's attorney will be: if you take away my clients' constitutional rights to self defense, then you have a duty to protect them. And you didn't. So you are liable. Ca-chiiiiinnnng. $$$$$$$.

Make gun free zones exxxpppppensssive.

 

[RandyRay41]

Very much agreed

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The argument for the plaintiff's attorney will be: if you take away my clients' constitutional rights to self defense, then you have a duty to protect them. And you didn't. So you are liable. Ca-chiiiiinnnng...

Except that this isn't the first rampage killing in a "gun-free-zone." Thus far over the years there have been numerous rampage killings in "gun-free-zones"; and as far as I know, no one harmed has pursued, let alone won, such litigation. Any idea why that might be the case, or are you aware of some successful plaintiffs in this sort of litigation arising from other rampage killings?

One possibility is that the legal threshold standard for proving causation might be pretty tough to meet. In order to hold someone liable for an injury you suffer, you must first be able to establish that but for his particular action, you would not have suffered the injury.

So you now claim that if you had been lawfully able to carry a gun, you would have been able to successfully, under the exact circumstances of your particular incident, defend yourself and avoid injury. That can be a pretty tall order. For example, could you prove to the satisfaction of a jury that had you been able to lawfully carry a gun, you would have been carrying it at the particular time? Could you show to the satisfaction of a jury that you had the level of training and skill necessary to effectively use your gun under the exact circumstances of your incident? Could you show to the satisfaction of a jury that you would have used your gun effectively enough to prevail and escape injury? Remember, sometimes good guys fighting back still get hurt, and sometimes good guys lose.

Basically, what you could have been able to do under particular circumstances is too vague and speculative.

Another possible legal hurdle might be duty. The folks running the "gun-free-zone" might have some level of obligation for the security of invitees. But a duty does not mean "guarantee." It is satisfied, essentially, by taking such reasonable precautions that a reasonable person in like circumstances would take. So to prevail in a lawsuit you would need to convince a jury that the security feel short of what a reasonable person would do.

The possibility of this kind of litigation gets kicked around on the Internet gun boards every time something bad happens in a "gun-free-zone", but it doesn't seem to happen in real life.

 

[Baba Louie]

Don Quixote tilting at windmills?

SCOTUS... Warren v DC, etc. (.gov personnel not responsible for an individual's safety, etc.)

I wonder how a gov't payroll group of black robes would rule on such a case against their employer, that would surely be appealed upward? Let me think for a minute...

I don't like the answer my mind keeps coming up with in this regard.

Pretty much, you're on your own. As we all know.

For argument sake, let us say it does work. From whence cometh said money? You? Me? Uncle Sam? (same thing... right?)

 

[docsleepy]

Great discussion

Frank's arguments are all correct and will require time and work.

Yes the gov does not have duty (normally ) to protect ....
But that might CHANGE when you can show your chance of defense was damaged! This criminal it turns out had handguns not ar15

And payors here are multiple: city gov, public corp, and fed gov.

We want a cost. Have to have a cost to change rules. Tobacco companies finally lost.

 

[Davek1977]

In what I already find a grossly over-litigious society, the idea of suing everyone for whatever reason just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Lawsuits aren't the be all end all solution for society's ills.

 

[docsleepy]

Today it is revealed that the navy police were notified that he was crazy. Classic paranoid schizophrenic break. Nothing done. 12 dead.

Edit; fox editorial. http://opinion.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=34606&content=97662723&pageNum=-1

If it were your husband, wouldn't you think this has to be handled better next time?

 

[wally]

I know, no one harmed has pursued, let alone won, such litigation.

That didn't stop John Edwards from suing doctors for birth defects cases nobody thought he could win, but when he did, it quickly made him a billionaire because there were so many cases out there.

 

[yzguy87]

Am I missing something?

Why was Seattle mentioned in posts 1 and 3? Last time i checked Seattle is on the other side of the continent lol! So am I missing something or what?

 

[docsleepy]

He shot out the tires of some fellow's truck he was mad with!!!!

And the police/DA/whomever let him go! Giuliani would have had him in a CELL! Dangerous people break all kinds of laws as they go thru life and present many opportunities to stop them....but Seattle didn't.

 

[yzguy87]

Gotcha
I knew he had a history just didn't know part of it was in Seattle.

 

[docsleepy]

http://mdean.tripod.com/immunity.html

I think this legal stuff has to do with what Frank was getting at -- that in general it is tough to make GOVERNMENT have to pay, when they don't protect us.

Apparently one way around it is to have laws that prevent discretion (e.g., the 10/20/life laws in Florida that remove discretion in gun use cases....and can have untoward outcomes as well!).

This stuff would require some serious reading on my part, but given 12 families harmed, surely there are lawyers out there cooking up ways to create some winnable argument against some party....that will set a fiscal liability that will cause change that will better protect innocent citizens from this happening again and again.

The lack of defensive firearms in the hands of ANY of the rank and file workers on the base -- and the soldiers -- has to be becoming odd to at least some segment of the population....and will allow some argument that this is of questionable value when the police take seven minutes to get there.

We'll see. But nothing happens if we don't talk these things out with our acquaintances and increase public grasp of the risks.

 

[docsleepy]

"So you now claim that if you had been lawfully able to carry a gun, you would have been able to successfully, under the exact circumstances of your particular incident, defend yourself and avoid injury. That can be a pretty tall order. For example, could you prove to the satisfaction of a jury that had you been able to lawfully carry a gun, you would have been carrying it at the particular time? Could you show to the satisfaction of a jury that you had the level of training and skill necessary to effectively use your gun under the exact circumstances of your incident? Could you show to the satisfaction of a jury that you would have used your gun effectively enough to prevail and escape injury? Remember, sometimes good guys fighting back still get hurt, and sometimes good guys lose."


I agree this is a tall order, but perhaps the argument to be made is slightly different:
1. You cast it as a class action suit, representing scores or thousands of workers who were put at risk
2. You argue that yes, one INDIVIDUAL might not have been able to stop the killer, but here you have scores or THOUSANDS who were ALL prevented from effectively defending themselves by the workplace rules/regulations -- and that it is absurd to argue that ALL of them would have been unable to stop the killer, since the killer had a FINITE number of bullets in all his firearms put together. Eventually, one of the plaintiff's class action members would have suceeded, and that would have protected some fraction of the group.
3. Thus, the group would have been able to provide some measure of protection, and likely faster than the police (7 minutes) were able to.

Again, I'm not a lawyer! But if I were, I would be salivating over the chance to argue something in this case. There are so many possible defendants, and so many possible plaintiffs -- people hurt, people who lost loved ones, people who endured great fear....list goes on and on

 

[docsleepy]

"Another possible legal hurdle might be duty. The folks running the "gun-free-zone" might have some level of obligation for the security of invitees. But a duty does not mean "guarantee." It is satisfied, essentially, by taking such reasonable precautions that a reasonable person in like circumstances would take. So to prevail in a lawsuit you would need to convince a jury that the security fell short of what a reasonable person would do"


This too is a point well taken!

But now we have the Secretary of Defense starting up a review of security -- which is a tacit admission that well, maybe we aren't protecting our peeps enough!

1. Everyone knows how many troops were killed by one killer, Hasan.
2. Thus everyone knows that facilities are at risk. This creates the duty to provide reasonable protection.
3. Reasonable protection, then, should be effective against a SINGLE assailant, since we already know that this is a distinct possiblity.
4. In this particular case, the single assaillant used ONLY A JOE BIDEN WEAPON -- a pump shotgun! We have a vice-presidentially approved weapon, that our Naval defense of a $30B complex proved completely inadequate!
5. Does NOT seem like a "reasonable" defense strength that an entire complex can be commandeered by a single assailant wielding only what the Vice President begs us to purchase.....

So again, I think there are very reasonable arguments that can be brought to bear either in court, or in the Court of Public Opinion. It will be interesting to see what the Secretary's security review finds....when a skeet shotgun is enough to so successfully breech the security of a major military installation.

 

[docsleepy]

Well, it just keeps getting worse. Now we have more indications of liability:

"According to BBC, “A tactical response team of the Capitol police, a force that guards the US Capitol complex, was told to leave the scene by a supervisor instead of aiding municipal officers.” A Capitol Police source told the BBC, “I don’t think it’s a far stretch to say that some lives may have been saved if we were allowed to intervene.”

When Alexis began shooting at approximately 8:20 AM ET, the four-man Containment and Emergency Response Team (CERT) was already near the Navy Yard. They were armed with HK-416 rifles, and were already wearing full tactical gear. They arrived at Building 197 a few minutes later. But the Washington Metropolitan Police watch commander reportedly told CERT to go back to Capitol Hill.

Capitol Police Officer Jim Konczos, the head of the police union, said, “Odds are it might have had a different outcome. It probably could have been neutralized.” A spokeswoman for the Metro PD said that the reports were “not true,” but on Wednesday, the PD said that a preliminary investigation had been opened."

reference: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...eam-stand-down-Navy-Yard&utm_campaign=foxnews

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Now we have more indications of liability...

If that's true, we should expect to see some litigation down the line. But again, I point our that in all the rampage shootings we've seen over the last several years, we seen, AFAIK, no successful litigation on behalf of the victims.

 

[itsa pain]

In what I already find a grossly over-litigious society, the idea of suing everyone for whatever reason just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Lawsuits aren't the be all end all solution for society's ills.

that is good thinking but the antis do not think that way and make big strides against people who like freedom. like when they sue to get nativity scene taken off white house lawn and replace it with 80 ft high menorah

 

[docsleepy]

Yes, the past IS prologue and it may turn out that way again, but in MY field of work, money would be changing hands in large amounts for 12 dead.

 

[Fremmer]

I would expect many lawyers to pass on that case because no duty exists and immunity could be a real problem. Jmho.

 

[docsleepy]

Such is life. I should have been a government official!